Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive118

Ryan Giggs

 * Ryan Giggs and sources he has obtained a Super Injunction

I would like third party input on the restrictions imposed by one editor (User:Ianmacm) at Talk:Ryan Giggs on the use of non-english sources on Ryan Giggs. There have been a number of sources including Sina.com that have reported that Ryan Giggs is the UK footballer that obtained a Super Injunction keeping his name out of a sex scandal involving model Imogen Thomas. However User:Ianmacm has insisted that “Realistically, a mainstream English language source is going to have to break the super-injunction for it to be reliable enough information to go into the article.” (here). This seams at odds with WP:WELLKNOWN. VER Tott  08:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I have tried hard to uphold WP:BLP here and explained the reasoning behind the edits. Further input is welcome.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I would take great care with this issue as there were reports on twitter that were false and can easily get repeated in lowish quality sources. I don't support using that particular external as a reason to support UK injunction busting claims - If there was a real quality external I would reconsider. What that expression - exceptional citations for extraordinary claims or something like that. WP:Notnews would be more relevant in this case than WP:Wellknown and remove "poorly sourced contentious material" - WP:BLP - It looks like looking around some press outlets are commenting on these super injunctions so the whole affair could well be unraveling...but we have no reason to be a part of the unraveling, no reason to be at the front of this breaking news, breaking injunctions issue. Lets allow it to play out and see if/how it unravels. Off2riorob (talk) 08:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (repeated edit conflicts) since this is looking like a quality of source issue, I have posted a note on Reliable sources/Noticeboard asking for comments here. VER  Tott  09:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think its a bit simplistic to suggest its only a WP:RS issue. Off2riorob (talk) 09:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That was what I read into your first comment (see here) VER  Tott  09:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes - if there was a "real quality external I would reconsider" - but clearly this external wouldn't clear that hurdle. http://news.sina.com.hk/news/12/1/1/2332415/1.html%20sina.com.hk - Off2riorob (talk) 09:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There is WP:NORUSH. Super-injunctions are becoming politically controversial in the UK, and some of the current injunctions are tottering but have not collapsed yet. See also Jimbo on this issue at .-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 09:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Harry Cook

 * Report above from a couple of days ago Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

A new user is repeatedly adding a comment with BLP issues into the lede of the article - My position is the cited to such a minor publication that the content as yet should not be inserted. I have asked him to move to discussion and seek support but the user has simply started repeatedly inserting without discussion. There is some talkpage discussion here Talk:Harry Cook - and he has replaced it again, not in the lede this time but the content is currently in the article.I was a little dubious considering the allegations that as the citation is a single local minor publication that wikipedia would become the primary vehicle for the allegations and also that the external has the subjects personal address in. Off2riorob (talk) 10:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Phillip Arnold Paul
This article seems to be written in the first person by the subject, who is a schizophrenic murderer. The wording of the article is extremely biased, disjointed, and is in no way a factual account. The article is an incoherent rant about drug treatment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crisw (talk • contribs) 14:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I've trimmed out what seemed to be a misplaced essay about his case. The article could still do with some more tidying up. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Environmental Defense Fund
An editor is repeatedly reinserting a potentially defamatory quotation questionably attributed to Dr. Charles Wurster, a founding trustee of the EDF. Wurster is still living and denies making the comment. To me, that alone would be grounds for removal of the quotation based on the biographies of living persons policy.

The secondary sources to which this editor refers for corroboration trace the quote back to EDF cofounder Victor Yannacone, who was either dismissed (if you believe Wurster) or resigned (if you believe Yannacone). There is no source other than Yannacone that can corroborate Wurster's having made this comment. Some of the secondary sources are also clearly partisan (e.g., Horner, Christopher (2007). The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc.)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by EAHull (talk • contribs) 16:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This is troubling. A disputed, inflammatory quote shouldn't be sourced to such dubious, partisan sources. Gamaliel (talk) 17:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thats not an entirely accurate summation of the sources used for the material. The three sources are as follows:


 * The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism by Christopher Horner
 * Bountiful harvest: technology, food safety, and the environment by Thomas Thomas
 * Rational Readings on Environmental Concerns by Jay Lehr


 * I also cannot find any mention of the quote being disputed. ZHurlihee (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It is accurate when the sources are published by the fringe publisher Regenery and the right-wing Cato Institute. That's not much to attribute an extremely inflammatory quote to a living individual who apparently denies it.  Gamaliel (talk) 17:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the reply. Regenery hardly qualifies as a WP:FRINGE publishing group and while Cato most certainly has an ideological mission statement, that does not automatically disqualify them as a source does it? Then there is the third source, Lehr's book. Are all of these sources deemed not reliable just because a perceived point of view? If that is the case, a great deal of content from all Wikipedia articles would be left on the cutting room floor.


 * Additionally, I have not read any WP:RS where he disputes the quote and I have found a number of citations on google scholar as well as from a congressional hearing that also attribute this quote to Wurster. ZHurlihee (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I looked at the first source on Google Books, the book from fringe publisher Regenery. The quote only appears as a pull quote on one of two cited pages and provides no context and spells his name wrong.  It cites a book called Toxic Terror.  I looked at that on Amazon books and it cites only "remarks by J. Gordon Edwards" at some conference.  According to the Wikipedia article on Edwards, he is associated with the Lyndon LaRouche Movement.  This is pretty thin stuff, source wise. You can think Regenery (who brought us the error-filled hatchet job Unfit for Command) is the most honest, reputable publisher on Earth and this would still be pretty thin stuff to hang such an inflammatory quote on a BLP. Gamaliel (talk) 17:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I went to WP:RSN and carefully read WP:FRINGE and there is no mention of Regenery anywhere. Is your statement that Regenery is WP:FRINGE supported by some consensus or is it purely your own personal belief? What are your opinions on the other two sources cited in the article as well as the other links I provided? ZHurlihee (talk) 18:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Not every fringe source is going to be listed at WP:FRINGE. That's kind of a ridiculous expectation.  I looked at the other two books you used as cited sources for the edit and they have the same problems - sourced to speeches or second-hand comments. Gamaliel (talk) 18:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding your edit to your comments adding google links and such. A lot of people have repeated the quote, and just because it makes it into a book somewhere doesn't mean it passes the BLP test automatically.  Most of these are repetitions which can be traced back to what is essentially hearsay testimony.  One of the sources says he said it in front of a reporter, supposedly.  So where is that news report?  Gamaliel (talk) 18:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The language, as I left it, clearly states that the remark was made in front of Victor Yannaconne. Is Yannaconne not a reliable source for this? ZHurlihee (talk) 18:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * According to the first EL in the WP article, "Yannacone was deemed a poor team player and some saw him as an abrasive egomaniac. He was fired after just one year at the EDF." So I have some reservations about citing comments he may or may not have made about something someone else many or may not have said when that someone else is a founder of the organization that fired him.  I don't know what the backstory of all of this is and I've never heard of these people until today, but this is all an untrustworthy morass and we shouldn't be using it to attribute inflammatory quotes to living people.  That's the kind of thing BLP is designed to prevent - office backstabbing and third-hand accounts getting into an encyclopedia. Gamaliel (talk) 18:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * See another decidedly partisan source, John Berlau's Eco-Freaks: Environmentalism is hazardous to your health! (p. 36, available on Google books) for an account of the Wurster-Yannacone schism, which includes a reference to Wurster disputing the quote in a letter to the House Committee. (The Congressional testimony was Yannacone's). This seems a straightforward "he said, he said" situation. If Yannacone was indeed fired, he would have powerful motivation for smearing Wurster by attributing this highly inflammatory quote to him. The original source for the quotation is unreliable and it should be removed. --EAHull (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, he is an aggrieved partisan person claiming a controversial unconfirmed position and the subject denies it. Off2riorob (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The Berlau book seems like a more even-handed, reliable account of this incident. I would have less of a problem using this as a source for more neutral edit, but the EDF article is so short there would of course be weight concerns.  Gamaliel (talk) 18:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Given Yannacone's relationship to EDF, I agree that the quote is probable better left out of the article barring some corroborating sources. ZHurlihee (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Andrew Bolt
I'd like to alert editors to this biography. The majority of the article is based upon controversy and crticism of him, despite the fact he is Australia's most popular coloumnist and political blogger. The article even fails to mention his show, The Bolt Report. I would like an editor not involved and who has no bias to try and clean this up. I think the article is vitcim of WP:BIAS and fails WP:NPOV. Thanks,Jackthart (talk) 16:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I would agree, but I wouldnt even know how to go about cleaning it up without deleting the material. ZHurlihee (talk) 20:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree its blatant POV with the current content and format. I think it could be re-formatted and edited to reduce the POV and UNDUE. It's on my watch list I'll try to give it a look now and then.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 21:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Vyjayanthimala and conventions regarding use of surnames in articles
How do you deal with a situation like Vyjayanthimala. We may have patrynomics rather than surnames involved. And then we have a woman who made her mark before she got married, but when she did get married she changed her name to that of her husband, so referring to her work prior to her marriage by her married surname doesnt seem right.... I am at a loss. (in addition, the article seems to have been heavily edited by a fan who is not always within the NPOV presentation, so if anyone is familiar and wants to do some clean up)Active Banana    (bananaphone  21:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I've seen articles with worse fan POV but this one also qualifies for some fan pov clean up. I have place a Fan POV tag on the article, commented on the talk page and edited the first part of the lead for puffery. I hope that helps. Cheers.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 21:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (thank you, and indeed I have seen many worse fanpages as well!) But as far as the main question, how do you refer to a woman whose accomplishments happened before she married and changed her name? Using two names for two parts of the article seems really awkward, but using the married name for work she did before getting married seems wrong too (and for editors not overly familiar might complicate their ability to fact check if they are looking for a different name) Active Banana    (bananaphone  22:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Fortunately, the article is mostly organized by chronology, which makes it easier. The proper thing is to refer to her in each period with the name name by which she was known. The transition can be marked in the text, with something like "After her marriage she acted under her married name, XY." Both names should appear in the lead. A common example is the American boxer who became famous as Cassius Clay, but changed his name to Muhammed Ali. The article refers to him as "Clay" in his early life and as "Ali" in his later life.   Will Beback    talk    22:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Will Beback has it right. Both names should be explained in an article's lead section. The name used by contemporaneous reliable sources to describe the person in each phase of their life should also be used in a Wikipedia biography to describe their activities during that time period.  The body of the article should note the name change again at the point in the chronology when the change took place, along with the reason for the change, if discussed by reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 05:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Charice Pempengco
There are separate pages for this article and the relevant discography at Charice Pempengco discography, although there does not seem to be enough relevant detail to justify two articles. There seems to have been a debate started on a merger proposal, but rather than a rational discussion, it appears some users steamrollered the initial proposal. Do this really merit two separate pages? I would add a merger proposal but judging by the comments on the talk page, that wouldn't resolve the issue. 86.131.2.12 (talk) 21:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Karen Armstrong
Two related issues in this BLP article.


 * 1) Is it a BLP issue to include disproportionate amounts of negative criticism, largely from self-published (whether by an individual/think tank/non-RS website, but not by a legitimate RS newspaper or journal) sources?


 * 1) Is it a BLP issue for the critic if we misrepresent their piece as criticism of Armstrong when it has nothing to do with her except for the one cherry-picked quote that appears in the article, as in this lecture by James M. Powell and this article by Sam Harris?Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the WP:NPOV policy applies to BLP's as you obviously know. If you can give us the exact text that concerns you and where it is located in the article perhaps an uninvolved editor can take a look at it and give some feedback.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 22:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The text in question:
 * Self-published:
 * Daniel Pipes criticized her book, Islam: A Short History, as "foully dishonest," containing "factual inaccuracies" and engaging in "moral relativism". (formerly sourced to Daniel Pipes's personal blog, now sourced to a publication of the Middle East Forum, a right-wing think tank founded and led by Pipes)
 * Thomas Madden criticized her book Holy War: The Crusades and Their Impact on Today’s World as "largely an exercise in modern left-wing rhetoric about sensitivity, tolerance, and the evils of Western civilization" (sourced to the Hudson Institute, another conservative think tank)
 * Misrepresentation of the sources as mainly criticism of Armstrong:
 * An article by Sam Harris in the Huffington Post criticized Armstrong as an example of a Western scholar who lives in a world of "political correctness and religious apology" in obfuscating the problematic issues of Islam (the quote in context actually runs "the point is that Islamists themselves acknowledge and demonstrate this connection at every opportunity and to deny it is to retreat within a fantasy world of political correctness and religious apology. Many western scholars, like the much admired Karen Armstrong, appear to live in just such a place." This is the only reference to Armstrong in a 3,000 word article on Muslims.)
 * Regarding Armstrong's writing on the Crusades, a lecture by the late professor James M. Powell of Syracuse University called Armstrong's The New York Times Magazine article The Crusades Even Now as following "more in the tradition of a moral sermon than an effort to understand the past" (the lecture is 6,000 words long and is about the Crusades; this is the only reference to Armstrong)


 * Other pieces of coatrack-y self-published criticism have been removed or eventually cited to real sources, but if they are restored by the user who insists on adding these, I'll bring them up here as well. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Other pieces of coatrack-y self-published criticism have been removed or eventually cited to real sources, but if they are restored by the user who insists on adding these, I'll bring them up here as well. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure. All this sanctimony about SPS violating Wikipedia guideline is just that: sanctimony. If people go to the talkpage, they'll see that I've made the point that think-tanks aren't classified as self-published sources (and there's good reason to think that too, if you start suggesting that think-tanks qualify as SPSs, then it's hard to see why that shouldn't be applied to every other type of Wikipedia source like books or newspapers). You'll also find that the user apparently has no problem with SPSs, especially when I raised to the user the issue of the works of Media Matters (a think-tank which, according to her view, classifies as SPSs) being cited on Daniel Pipes's page (to which her response was...OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) and the work in a political blog by the name of IslamToday that had no independent evidence of the work ever existing (to which her response was to ask me that to provide evidence that it did not exist...despite the fact that WP:BLP says, "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material."
 * As for the word count, so what? How does that disprove the fact that the authors made the criticisms of Armstrong? How does it also subtract the relevance of cited paragraphs to the larger point the authors make in their articles?Sleetman (talk) 20:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * User:Sleetman is clearly on a crusade to smear Armstrong. One would think his recent experiences would make him more careful about this kind of editing...  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am smearing Armstrong....how? Because you say-so? Do you have anything to contribute to the current dispute at hand (i.e. the reliability of sources currently in dispute)?Sleetman (talk) 20:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I do say so -- and NW says so and a few others on the article talk page as well. I would encourage other editors to keep a close eye on this article (and perhaps on this editor's other contributions).  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, sir, do you have anything more than heresay to prove that I have an agenda to smear Armstrong? (I guess you missed my immediate edit after NW's, where I write that I'm not out on an agenda to smear Armstrong ) So much for double-standards and keeping a close eye on my contributions.
 * Now putting that red herring aside, do you have anything to contribute to this debate regarding the reliability of the sources critical of Armstrong?Sleetman (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Rommel Banlaoi
With the flood of new accounts editing this article, circular references, and contentious nature of the new BLP, I think it could stand to have a few other editors look at it. I am not sure what's going on, but something seems, well, off about it. VQuakr (talk) 07:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the report. I had a look and it seems harmless enough, promo involved contributors with not much wiki experience. A bit bloated already and primary supports and circular citations, but he might likely pass WP:GNG - clearly passes WP:PROD level. From my experience in such situations its good to just leave them to it and wikify it up when they have quietened dowm. Nothing contentious in the content as I can see. Off2riorob (talk) 09:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Tra Telligman
Plagarism: Material appears to be copied from another website/source. Poorly formatted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.30.146.161 (talk) 12:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems it had just got miss formatted - Replaced a decent version. Off2riorob (talk) 13:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Leonard Jacobson
This biography seems to me to be pure guru advertising. He or whoever wrote the article is trying to sell Jacobson's books, published by a vanity press, his workshops. 


 * Yes, pure promotional - he looks notable though, won a couple of peace awards and written a few books - though perhaps not enough independent reliable reports about him to survive an AFD. Its been tagged as a speedy delete A7 - lets see how that goes. The article has existed since 7 May 2007 so four years of existence is not very speedy is  it.Off2riorob (talk) 13:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note I have decline the A7 deletion; there is enough importance asserted to make the A7 criteria inapplicable in this case. If there are concerns over the legitimacy of the assertions with regards to notability, I would suggest beginning an AfD. As it reads now the article is very heavily weighted towards the promotional, and the sourcing is less than ideal. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Evgeny Artyukhin
This article contains false and insulting information about Evgeny Artyukhin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilyana88 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for raising this issue. I have removed some material from the article because it was negative, disputed, about a living person, and the references provided were either poor, non-existent, or did not support the statements made. Please be more specific about any other material in the article that you feel is not correct. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Rathika Sitsabaiesan
See - seems to be a bit of debate. Ta.  Chzz  ► 04:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Dominique Strauss-Kahn
In Dominique_Strauss-Kahn an accusation of sodomy keeps getting edited in, in spite of undoing it and agreement at Talk:Dominique_Strauss-Kahn that making such a statement is overblown. This may be an issue for BLP. - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 05:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's right. This thing needs more eyes. The talk page is full of comments along the lines of "ZOMG, the wealthy Jew raped a poor black girl!" Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * His wife, Anne Sinclair, probably needs watchlisting as well. There were some attempts to drag the matter there. --Errant (chat!) 10:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, just thought that I'd flag up two editors, User:Mr.grantevans2 and User:Yug, that are pretty headstrong about insisting on including scurrilous material, the full list of charges, and extra badly written material about the consequences of the affair. I have replied on their talk pages, and also posted this at the top of the talk page to try and get people's attention. I do not wish to get into a revert war with either of these people but they appear to be fairly impetuous.

As I'm off to zzzz-land soon, I feel that the article needs a good watch kept on it, two days ago at least two editors got blocked for uncivil and agressive behaviour over there, so it's still very much a hot potato. Cheers.  Captain Screebo Parley! 04:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

As an update, Yug just moved the contentious material over to Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case, although there is no consensus for a split yet. Wikiwatcher1 just seriously pruned it down to a stub (good thing) but worthwhile keeping an eye on this article and the user mentioned above, IMO.  Captain Screebo Parley! 05:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As a general matter, I completely agree that inappropriate material should be deleted. Looking at the talkpage of the article, however, I see that Screebo has been energetically reverting a number of other editors.  Based on his personal subjective POV as to what is notable.  Even when the information has been reported robustly by RS media.  I invite editors to take a glance at the recent series of reverts by Screebo of various editors, to see what I am referring to.  It's IMHO out of hand at this poin.  The reverts collected together suggest that Screebo feels that his subjective POV as to what is notable is more important than whether there is robust RS coverage.  Most of the material has nothing at all to do with sexual behavior, but is of the less sensational notable variety.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Consensus is against you, see here and here and getting a bee in your bonnet about my reverts and screaming "pushing personal POV" left, right and centre is only drawing attention to your actions, attitude and behaviour. I'm off.  Captain Screebo Parley! 07:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Screenbo, please assume good faith, smooth your POV: avoid to turn other well intentioned users of different opinion into stronghead', or 'Chimpazee. We are all here on our free time, to help. I'm not 'headstrong', and "to flag". I'm saying out what I -as an user- believe to be best. Isn't it my right ?
 * On the conflict: Some users are willing to keep a short versions (you and others) with an hard interpretation of WP:NOTNEWS, some users have softer interpretations, and what to include more content. It is relevant to my eyes, by example, to state that DSK voluntarily gave his location. It is relevant, for me, since Wikipedia is not a newspaper (WP:NOTNEWS) to keep close to the primary source, and to include the official list of charge. Last, I wrote the 15 page of China in Africa (100%), and it was corrected by other users. So my 6-8 lines, well sourced, about the consequences of the case : IMF crisis, French politics landscape change, French public opinion shocked, were perfectly understandable, and improvable in 3-4 minutes.
 * I have to answer here since you 'flaggued' me.
 * We have an editorial opposition between two equally sized groups, how to solve it ? Yug (talk)  14:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:Dispute resolution. – ukexpat (talk) 15:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Israel Shamir
I've recently cleaned up and expanded Israel Shamir's entry somewhat to reduce the obvious NPOV and BLP issues, but there remain concerns that his extreme views on Judaism and Israel are not adequately and clearly presented. (As so often, the primary concern with these sort of people seems to be in justifying a label, not explaining what they believe and why. It may be very satisfying for editors, but it's not much use to readers.) The most egregious concern, though, is that after working through the available sources, the placement in Category:Holocaust deniers seems somewhat shaky. Whilst a number of sources make the claim, some of them are clearly based on misquotation, and others are opinion columns. Quite a few sources treat it as established fact, but none seem able to actually establish the fact, with reference to something the subject has said, whilst the subject himself contradicts it. Like the similarly controversial Gilad Atzmon, his concern about the Holocaust is with the use of the narrative (as he sees it), not with the historicity. So, can we improve the sourcing (ideally with something he said)... or what are we going to do? Rd232 talk 23:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well done for improving it - I doubt it will last very long. I took it off my watchlist long ago, it was just an attack article - hes not a holocaust denier at all  - hes a one man one vote supporter and against Zionist extremists so they attack him with screams of holocaust denier. He complained to OTRS about falsehoods in his article last year. Off2riorob (talk) 00:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: With an additional good source, I've now removed Category:Holocaust deniers, as explained at Talk:Israel_Shamir. I expect those who helped make the article such a BLP disaster in the first place will object, so would appreciate new editors not previously involved (and especially editors not involved in the Israel/Palestine topic area) chipping in. Rd232 talk 01:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If there are reliable sources claiming that Shamir has a reputation as a Holocaust denier, and there are, then the category is perfectly valid. Shamir is the kind of guy who thinks he's defending Holocaust denier David Irving against "Jewish mind-control on a world scale" - his exact words, although for some inexplicable reason you've decided to remove that particular quote from his entry. Goodwinsands (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No its not - if some opinionated groups think Shamir is a (whatever?something) then add independent reliable sources and attribute those claims - that doesn't put him into the category. The living subject strongly denies it. Defending someone against what you think is Jewish mind control does not make you a holocaust denier.Off2riorob (talk) 16:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not just "Zionist extremists" who describe Shamir as a holocaust denier. I could name dozens of anti-Zionist activists who share this assessment. I agree that this does not necessarily mean that it is accurate; but please don't mischaracterise the nature and politics of those who hold this opinion. RolandR (talk) 18:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And it does not seem out of place to characterise as a holocaust denier someone who writes "I think it is every Muslim's and Christian's duty to deny the Holocaust". RolandR (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That is what his opponents do - they take a comment out of context, that comment when read in the article it was written is not a denial of the Holocaust at all. Off2riorob (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Interested readers may find this from the archive of the relevant talk page informative: Talk:Israel_Shamir/Archive_4. This shows that there was indeed a clear, wide consensus that Shamir's page should indeed identify him as a Holocaust denier, despite one editor's repeated blanking of the information. That consensus should continue to be respected. I must also agree with Bob that it's simply wrong, utterly false, to characterize the attacks against Shamir as merely acts of "Zionist extremists," when those attacks come from the pages of The Guardian and organizations like Hope not Hate. The accusation of "Zionist extremism" seems purely politically motivated, uninformed, and seem designed to protect a Holocaust denier at all costs. Goodwinsands (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hope not hate are not the type of opinionated groups that we should allow to label anyone. I wouldn't even cite them they are simply the flip side of the people they oppose. Off2riorob (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, as the link I included above shows, that was your argument, and your argument was rejected by everyone who wasn't you. Goodwinsands (talk) 22:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Controversial consensus claims supported by opinionated externals by their very nature do not last long. User:Rd232 also objects to the label now. Why don't you use his comments in reliable externals to show when he denied the holocaust and how he did it. What part of the holocaust does he deny? Off2riorob (talk) 23:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That was a relatively brief article talk page discussion which quickly turned into a straw poll. In light of the available evidence (some very new - see the Tablet Magazine material I added), the category should not be re-added without at least the support of an WP:RFC. Rd232 talk 01:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The term "holocaust denier" should be reserved for people who actually deny the genocide rather than people who object to the term. It has a clear meaning and if the allegation were true then we should be able to find a criminal conviction proving it.  Shamir's statements on David Irving do not show agreement with his position, just that he opposed the prosecution.  Since holocaust denial is considered to be protected under the U.S. bill or rights, it would be incorrect to infer that people opposed to the prosecution were themselves holocaust deniers.  TFD (talk) 08:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Sergio Ramos
Under Personal Life, this is listed: "Sergio is currently married to English journalist Elle Disley. They couple live together in Madrid and have been dating since 2007."

Sergio Ramos is unmarried - he is a public figure and this is a well known fact (up until last month he was dating Spanish TV presenter Lara Alvarez). If you Google this Elle Disley person, you will find that she is a 16 year old English blogger. Please remove this incorrect information.

Google examples below:

Mar 5th 31815 notes - Elle Disley. Mar 5, 2011 ... im elle, im 16, and i live in Liverpool, england. i support real madrid & words cannot describe my love(L) i watch alot of football ... ellegore.tumblr.com/post/3667489453

Elle Disley. Elle Disley. Hala Madrid! Elle Disley. Untitled ... im elle, im 16, and i live in england. my blog posts speak louder than words. ellegore.tumblr.com/post/.../tight-shirt-look-pretty-on-you - Cached —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canederli (talk • contribs) 03:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I have removed the entire section. While this may or may not be just a misunderstanding, it was completely unsourced, and is contentious at least in as much as you have concerns with it. Maybe someone can come up with a reference or two... or maybe it was a nasty piece of vandalism. Please let us know of any other similar concerns. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The same user has added exactly the same information back into the article. I've reverted this again and issued a final warning to follow up from Rob's previous level 2 warning. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * User has re-inserted the same information yet again, has been reverted again, and is now blocked 24 hours by Cirt. May need eyes for when they come back, as they seem quite persistent. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Romana D'Annunzio- inaccurate information
To the administrator: The information concerning Romana D'Annunzio on this page is inaccurate. The section i am referring to is from R Marsden's book. The comment posted is his personal opinion and not the truth concerning Romana's time on Blue Peter. This is incorrect information from a book that was both unsuccessful nor well-written. Mr Marsden was asked to leave the show after the phone in scandal therefore the content is possibly in retaliation to his demise from a career in television. The information from his book should not be present on Romana's Wikipedia page, that is, if Wikipedia is based upon the 'unbiased' truth. If it remains than the whole ethos of this site is fake and unreliable. On many other celebrity sites, i have never seen a section from a book being posted onto the page in this way, so i can only deduce that the writer of the page has a grudge against or a dislike for this person and wishes to put a negative slant on her time there. I belive this is very unreasonable considering there is not right to reply. Therefore in light of my argument i am asking that it be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.17.178 (talk) 19:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Trimmed - very large quote from a book. Off2riorob (talk) 21:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Romana D'Annunzio 2nd report

 * Romana D'Annunzio - INNACURATE AND BIASED INFORMATION


 * Previous thread from a couple of days ago Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Hi, i received an email that stated the inaccurate quote had been 'trimmed' from Miss D'Annunzio's page. I am afraid to say that this has not been carried out. The quotation still appears in its entirety. This information from Mr Marsden autobiography is not fact and should not be a part of Miss D'Annunzio's wikipedia page. This has been written by a man who had obviously not done appropriate or full research. I have not seen this kind of insert from a work of 'fiction' in any other presenters Wikipedia page. If this is not removed it will be a matter that will be taken further owing to the defamatory and false comments from a book that is in no way comparable to the truth of Miss D'Annunzio's career on Blue Peter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.22.127 (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you can cite the specific quote you are concerned with I can try and take a look at it.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 22:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I trimmed about nine tenths of the quote a couple of days ago.diff..If someone wants to remove the rest I wouldn't have an objection - I left the last tenth so as not to completely whitewash the biography. Off2riorob (talk) 22:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Producer Richard Marson was less than complimentary about D'Annunzio's time on the program, and wrote "When the inevitable request for Romana to take part in a pantomime, something we usually refused, I let her go."

As I couldn't google foo this book content and it is a bit attacking I have removed the last of it. Off2riorob (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * update - a user User:Nomoskedasticity has replaced it with the edit summary of "this edit directly violates the part of WP:RS that says sources do not have to be available on-line" - I don't know if he has verified the content himself. - Off2riorob (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Does he have to have verified it himself? Clearly whoever wrote that bit did the verification work and provided an extended quotation, which is more than is required. It would be odd for WP:RS to provide that sources not available online are perfectly acceptable, but then to require that some editor besides the one who initially added it track down the source and verify it before the source can be used. The truth is, you pared the material down to what you thought complied with BLP, but now you have moved the bar because you aren't willing to trust a book you don't have access to. I don't put much stock in citations to sources not readily available online, but that doesn't mean I try to create extra barriers. Ultimately, people have to use their own judgment when they can't see the source for themselves. I'm not saying the content should be included. As it stands, it makes absolutely no sense, so serves no purpose and should remain out. That however is a discussion for the article talk page. -Rrius (talk) 19:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement that sources be available on line or that editors verify sourced content themselves. If there was a suggestion that the quoted passage did not exist, it would be a different situation, but all I have seen is an IP complaining about the content of the quote, not the existence. Since it is critical but not an outright attack, the sourced material should remain until the discussion here is concluded. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The content under discussion is the subject of two BLPN reports so it is clearly contentious and disputed. If you can verify it then feel free to replace it - I searched all over and didn't find it as such the content is complained about actually it is unnecessarily attacking from a single opinionated person that later got sacked for multiple serious issues himself. IMO even if you could verify it - its just attack content and unworthy of inclusion anyway as per the complaint. Off2riorob (talk) 19:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There are two issues here - the first is about including the content, and the second is about finding consensus. Ignoring the first for the moment, edit-warring and accusing IPs of being socks is not an appropriate way to deal with this this. Again, although the material is critical, it is not offensive or libellous and there seems to be no particular need for it to be removed immediately. Your comments about the author of the material suggest that you have staked a position in this content dispute which is less than objective. Your repeated comments about editors "verifying" sourced content are completely at odds with how Wikipedia works. Perhaps you should have a cup of tea and walk away from this dispute? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * An IP from a DC law firm Baker Hostetler - District of Columbia appearing from out of nowhere, to replace this disputed content twice, without any discussion at all is a disruptive contributor. Go for it - add whatever you want - just verify it and cite it and take responsibility for it yourself. Off2riorob (talk) 19:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed the unsourced material and added references (both existing refs were dead links). It is barely a stub, but more than long enough for a teacher who was a presenter on a kid's show for a couple of years. If it continues to be a source of trouble, I will nominate it for deletion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks - her only claim to notability is that she was for a short time a presenter on blue peter but that is not in itself a wiki notability. Without additional assertions I would also support deletion at an AFD discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Marisol Deluna
I believe this article needs to be deleted as the subject does not meet Wikipedia's notoriety standards. At the very least, it needs a lot of work since most of the article reads like a self-promotional vanity piece written by the suject herself. Every edit gets reversed within hours (sometimes minutes) even when I know the information I am editing is correct and an improvement on what is currently written. There are also almost no outside sources or citations to any of the information contained in the article. Almost none of the information in the biography is verifiable or even knowable unless it had been written either by the subject herself or a close family member. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aa1232011 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that it's very self-promotional and has no citations to any of the information. It's also heavy on the name dropping and as previously mentioned, no outside sources to verify anything written in it. I'm especially curious about the list of people who have allegedly worn her designs. It sounds like an impressive list but no photos, articles, or mention anywhere online of where her designs are sold? Very strange. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.86.207 (talk) 01:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree it needs a lot of work as it's hardly encyclopedic (I've done a little), but I suspect she is sufficiently notable, although many of the sources are difficult for me to verify.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The article has been slashed to almost nothing (by another editor) and then nominated for deletion (by yet a different editor) claiming lack of notability. In the discussion, I've voted to keep the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Jona Lendering
persists in adding this edit based on a web petition signed by 1400 people and a web magazine. Note that the so-called 'academic criticism' is an article by "Saam Safavi-Zadeh is from Tabriz, Iran and is pursuing his graduate studies in the study of ancient Iran in France. Anna Djakashvili-Bloehm lives in France with a keen interest in studying ancient Babylon and Persia." There's been an ongoing web-based attack on Lendering and Wikipedia which may be the background to this. I'm not convinced it has a place in Lendering's article. 1400 seems extremely small. Dougweller (talk) 08:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Lloyd Pye
The guy is fringe "science theorist" but the article currently consists of a lot of content WP:SYNthesized by wikipedia editors to disprove the claims and relying on Pyes posted criticism of his Wikipedia article in some bad WP:CIRCULAR claims - in otherwords a mess.

Can someone come clean it up? (also cross posting on FRINGE notice board. Active Banana    (bananaphone  17:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * And we don't need two articles, Starchild skull and Pye should probably be merged. Dougweller (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Lars von Trier
There has been a lot of activity on the Lars von Trier article in the last day, following his controversial comments at the Cannes film festival. There have been edits trying to present his comments as fact or as a self-admission, or not including enough context, which are being added despite talk page discussion (here and here). My initial reaction was that semi-protection would be a good idea until the news reports have died down, but then three out of the five linked edits were sourced, and they mostly appear to be made in good faith, so it looks like it might not qualify for protection. I would appreciate your advice on how to proceed. <span style="font-family:Palatino, Georgia, serif;"> — Mr. Stradivarius  ♫ 14:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Since writing this I see that von Trier's comments have led to him being banned from the Cannes film festival, which makes this more notable and probably worthy of inclusion. So this might be a non-issue unless there is more obvious vandalism to the article. <span style="font-family:Palatino, Georgia, serif;"> — Mr. Stradivarius  ♫ 15:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The article needs more attention. I am currently in an edit war with a suspicious account (User:Jahlove1234, recently became active after an absence of almost 2 years) that is adding misleading information to the article while refusing to use the talk page. I have reverted a lot on the article recently, and I don't want to be blocked for enforcing BLP. (Once is enough.) Hans Adler 18:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I just realised that Jahlove1234 is a sock of Yourfriend1, the account that seems to have started the nonsense and then disappeared, also without using the talk page. Hans Adler 19:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn
Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn's page contains an intro which now consists entirely of opinion, creatively interpreted poll results, and selectively quoted articles written by reporters critical of McGinn. When taken out, the material is repeatedly inserted.

The page does not meet Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_McGinn

Thugdog Nasty (talk) 20:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC) — Thugdog Nasty (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Exact quote from source: "An Elway Poll of 405 Seattle voters showed that 66 percent of voters say McGinn's overall job performance is "fair" or "poor" while just 4 percent say he's doing an "excellent" job and 28 percent give him a "good" rating." Hardly "creatively interpreted". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that transient poll results belong in the lead of the biography of a mayor of a major city. There may be a place for the polling in a neutral later section of the article, but its position now is WP:UNDUE in my opinion.  Disclosure: I am a Sierra Club member, as is McGinn, but I would take the same position even if the article was about a politician who opposed the environmental movement. Cullen328 (talk) 21:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The poll report in the lead comes on the heels of a sentence about McGinn being controversial. Assuming that sentence is okay in the lead, the poll report has a certain logic to it. An alternative would be to have a much shorter sentence in the lead about the poll with the details in the body. Something like: "A March 2011 poll shows dissatisfaction with his performance."--Bbb23 (talk) 21:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd be entirly satisfied with that. Honestly I'm not all that dedicated to it's present formating if it's going to become a huge distraction. Perhaps we can move this to the article's talk page. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

There's a bit of forum shopping by Thugdog going on here. See EAR here.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thugdog is likely the author of this pro-McGinn blog as the times for the single purpose account and the post roughly match up and much of the same language and misunderstanding of wikpedia policy is present. I've extended an olive branch, hopefully this can be a constructive episode. With the developing political situation in Seattle quite a few IPs have been roating through in a tizzy and the page has already been semi-protected. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I guess my view on these kinds of things is absent strong evidence of a conflict, I'd rather just look at the merits of the dispute. Thugdog accuses you, you accuse Thugdog - frankly, it's not clear to my why either of you suspects the other, but addressing the issues rather than the editors has a healthier feel to it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I'm not "accusing" TDN of anything, there's nothing wrong with coming to wikipedia by way of a political blog. I know a lot of long term, productive editors who started out this way. My comment was more a reflection on the spike in recent edits to the article and an effort at explaining the contention. There's some facebook recall group and some negative coverage of a recent hiring and so a lot of people are going to come the article's way fresh off some heated rhetoric and they'll no doubt find things they don't like. TomPointTwo (talk) 23:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Let me see if I can offend both sides :-)

Tom, you've written most of the article, with relatively little help from anyone else. You've also gone to some lengths to explain your way of writing it, when challenged about it on the talk page. However, you've seemingly made almost no attempts to tone down the writing style or to adapt it to be more neutral. Your approach seems to be to wait for people to come in with complaints, then say "Hmm, OK, maybe you're right, how should we change it?", and if they don't specifically put their own wording into the article (which would be a massive task, to deal with all of it) then you see it as fine to carry on just as before, having changed almost nothing. Until the next set of complaints come in, weeks or months later, then you do exactly the same.

You've made clear that the two main reliable sources in Seattle have a generally anti-McGinn viewpoint. However, surely sources from elsewhere in the USA sometimes report on McGinn? Wouldn't it be possible to pull more neutral information from those sort of sources?

Thugdog, and various IP addresses who may or may not be associated with you, your approach is totally wrong. There is absolutely no point in storming in and deleting sections of the article even though they are cited to reliable sources, just because you (probably rightly) see those sections as non-neutral. There is also no point in storming into the talk page and demanding that Tom be banned from editing the article just because he has added a lot of apparently non-neutral material that is backed by reliable sources.

Being slightly cynical here, because I don't have the time (nor knowledge of the topic area) to do it myself, but Thugdog and friends, what you actually need to do is:
 * Find statements in reliable sources that would present a more balanced and neutral view of the subject.
 * Put those on the talk page and ask how they can be incorporated into the article. (Or just add them directly, but without being non-neutral the other way.)
 * If you feel Tom is cherry-picking negative statements from reliable sources, read the sources, find the positive or neutral statements in the same sources, raise that issue on the talk page.
 * If you feel a part of the article is structured or phrased to give an unduly negative impression, start a new section on the talk page about that specific part of the article, suggest a re-wording or re-structuring. (Or boldly change it directly - but that means re-wording, not just deleting sections.)

If you do all of that, and if then Tom just stonewalls changes or constantly reverts you, then you would have justification for complaining about his editing of the article.

The poll thing is just one example. I agree with comments made already, that it really shouldn't be in the lead of such a major article in the form that it currently is. Tom, you did make some attempts to broaden the polls used, but really you should have gone further and re-phrased it and given it appropriate weight, without having to be pressured over and over again about it. Thugdog, you rightly criticise the usage of the poll in the article... but aren't there polls that are reported in reliable sources that give a different view? Aren't there reliable secondary sources (not the poll itself) that mention that 66% of people in this specific poll rated McGinn "fair" or better? If so, that's the material you should be adding to the article or bringing up on the talk page - or suggesting a way to re-structure or re-word what is already in the article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The more I read this article and study its history, the greater my concerns. I need to give it more study, and I encourage other experienced editors to study it as well.  TomPointTwo is a skilled editor and knows our policies well enough to fend off indignant newcomers, but he seems to be very weak at maintaining the neutral point of view when it comes to this topic.  Over and over, other editors point out problems with the article on the talk page, and sometimes TomPointTwo seems to concede the point, but the changes simply aren't made.  There is one poll by a public opinion organization with itself a somewhat controversial reputation, and that single negative poll has been given undue weight in the lead of the article for nearly two months, despite complaints from several editors.  The lead is dominated by a negative overview of McGinn, and the overall tone of the article comes off more as campaign research for McGinn's 2013 opponents, rather than a neutral, unbiased biography.  TomPointTwo repeats that McGinn is "controversial" and that the article should reflect that fact.  I would submit that almost every single politician holding high office today is "controversial", and that it is a violation of BLP policy to place such great emphasis on the controversial aspects of this mayor's career. We are obligated to use the "greatest care" to maintain the neutrality of BLPs. Cullen328 (talk) 01:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Some politicians are far more controversial than others. You seem to believe that "controversial" is always a negative. Some desire that "title". Niteshift36 (talk) 02:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, Cullen328 was being a bit generous there. Tom hasn't really just put in that McGinn is "controversial", which he surely is, but the entire article, from top to bottom, is pretty much "his tenure has been characterised by deadlock" etc etc ... deadlock as a government situation is a really strong word, it's something that either should really mean a voting process being genuinely constitutionally deadlocked or similar, or else a historian assessing the situation with the benefit of hindsight and saying that the government was deadlocked on certain issues during this period. Not two local newspapers usually being anti-McGinn and a "deadlock" conclusion being drawn from that while he is still in office and with a re-election campaign forthcoming. (Statement on my interest in this - I had never heard of McGinn or the Sierra whatever, before they were mentioned here at BLPN.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Generous or not, I really don't care. Acting like "controversial" is an automatic BLP violation and that "almost every single politician holding high office today is "controversial" is just not very realistic and that needs pointed out. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem that I see here is that the citation in the lead does not support assertions like "His term as mayor has been defined by conflict and political deadlock ". There are no hits for "define" or "deadlock" when a search is done at the source. This is problematic because it sounds like a personal conclusion, i.e. OR. In addition adding a poll at the lead is an example of recentism and possibly WP:UNDUE. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 03:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I used the term "deadlocked" for the sake of brevity and neutrality. The reference actually uses much more hyperbolic language that I wanted to avoid i.e. "badly out of sorts", "chasm", "cultural war", "finding ways to keep the warfare hot", "polarize", "brutal battle", etc, etc. The simplest and most straight forward synopsis was "deadlock" as it covered the meltdown without using language that could be perceived as placing blame. When I wrote the sentence I was actually rather pleased that I'd found, what I thought was, such a neutral way of summarizing the article. I understand if there's objection to the term because it could be confused with the more formal legislative definition but I never considered it to even possibly be a POV or SYNTH issue. Regardless, I'm open, as always, to new language. TomPointTwo (talk) 17:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. I understand your predicament but the problem lies in the use of sources which use such loaded terms, hardly neutral and smacking of an opposite political agenda. If political commentary uses such polemic language to describe his tenure, it should be avoided in favour of more balanced and detached commentary from a more unbiased source. Trying to ameliorate such polemic language using our own invented terms is like trying to mitigate the polemics using OR. The question here is to find a more detached and less biased source. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 17:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I generally find it's best to avoid your own adjectives, even if you think they're neutral, and simply stick to the facts reported in the source. You not only used the term "deadlocked", but as Dr. K points out, you said that McGinn's term "has been defined by", which is an even bigger characterization, even if you think it's accurate and neutral. It doesn't help that the cited source is an opinion piece.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. We cannot cure political polemics with OR. Maybe the commentary can be moved to a criticism section where it can be attributed to the specific commentator(s) who wrote it. But we cannot put it in the lead, unattributed and pretend it is the verdict of history. The poll must also be removed from the lead because it is recentism in action. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 18:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't consider this piece to be polemic at all; if you read it in it's entirety it's not a rant against McGinn but coverage on the deteriorating political scene in Seattle centering around the Mayor's office. It's also not an opinion piece but a news article by David Brewster, a well known local journalist. The formatting is that of a blog but is acceptable for inclusion as an RS per WP:NEWSBLOG. Admittedly, the use of "defined" may be a bridge too far with only this ref used as an inline. I could dredge up a half dozen other new stories which imply the same (may even find verbatim assertions) but I don't think it's a critical point that needs to be made in the lede with the sources at hand and could even dance too closely to the SYNTH line anyway. Do either of you have an another direction you'd like to take it or a different phrasing in mind? On one last note: I'm always hesitant to create "criticism" sections as they tend to get nasty, unwieldy and act as magnets for POV editing. TomPointTwo (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There is already a criticism section in the article. I moved the poll there and toned down the commentary in the lead. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 18:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

No, no, that's a criticism sub-section from his Mayoral campaign, the poll doesn't belong there, it's recent and deals with his tenure in office. I created that to delinate between all the fur flying during the campaign season so people didn't get positions confused. TomPointTwo (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I realised that, but I just parked it there temporarily, thinking that we may expand the section or move the poll somewhere more appropriate. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 23:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've put a brief sentence in the lead about the poll (you agreed to that earlier) and moved the details to Policy positions, which appears to be the best section to stick it in the way the article is currently organized. No source in the lead because it's sourced in the body. Put both in the past tense because the poll was taken in March.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to identify the polling company (for transparency) and date it too. I'm not thrilled about it placement but, as you said, it's really the only other place to put it until/unless the article is reorganized. Thoughts on the reorganization? TomPointTwo (talk) 20:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for others, but I don't have a problem with your edit of the lead. As for a reorg, doesn't it seem odd that the entire section on his tenure as mayor is labeled Policy positions? You'd think you'd have an overall header, like Mayoralty. See Michael Bloomberg and Thomas Menino.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think by subject is the easiest way to fit public office into a biographical article. I thought about having policy position be a subsection of a Mayoralty section but then we're looking at subsections of subsections. Possibly two different sections, one more a chronological recount of his term and one a more specific section on his views/policies? TomPointTwo (talk) 21:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * One easy thing to do is to replace the Policy positions header with Mayoralty.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I find the placing of the March poll at the lead to be particularly unjustified. This is a biography and the lead is about the most important aspects of that biography per WP:LEAD. A transient measurement of his popularity in March is anything but permanent. New polls will replace it and it will become redundant soon. There is no reason whatever to keep adding polls in the lead as they are coming up. We don't do this to Obama we shouldn't do it to this guy either. In ten months from now this poll will be irrelevant. When writing a biography we must take a long-term historical view of the subject. This holds more so for the lead which should include only the most salient things of the bio. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 23:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * To some extent, if your view is correct, then even the stuff about conflicts preceding the poll don't belong in the lead. Things could change there, too. As I said earlier, if the lead accurately represents that McGinn's tenure has been rocky, then the conflicts and the poll make sense as a summary of his mayoralty to date. I don't think it's constructive, though, for you to edit out the stuff while it's being discussed here. It would be good to get some consensus before editing the article. Removing "widespread" is fine because it's just correcting something that is inaccurate, but these kinds of judgment calls would be best resolved by more editors voicing their opinions.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I acted well within policy per WP:LEAD and WP:RECENTISM. Per WP:BLP we must be also more cautious when adding recentist stuff in the article. So I disagree with your criticism. I also do not appreciate you using the adjective "not constructive" when you refer to my good faith edits because the term "not constructive" is mainly reserved for vandalism and has no place in a discussion among good-faith editors. And I don't understand why you want to limit my editing of the article to the obvious mistakes and wait for others to voice their opinion about the poll in the lead when the poll in the lead was placed by a judgement call of TompointTwo. Are you implying that TompointTwo's judgement is so inviolable and represents such firm consensus that I must edit his edits by committee? I thought the reason we are here is because the poll was deemed problematic. All I did was to try to fix an aspect of the problem. This is the thanks I get. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis  00:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, I changed what I originally had, "inappropriate", to "not constructive" because I thought it was nicer and I didn't want to offend you. Just goes to show, the best of intentions ... Now we're both annoyed. Sigh.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. I take it at face value. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 00:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no need for us to get tense. Almost everyone giving their input here is a well established editor in good standing. I have no reason to doubt good intentions by all. Still, considering the bulk of the article (and the entirety of the subject's notability) is defined by their tenure as a candidate for, and term as, the Seattle mayor I'd say broad coverage of and response to that tenure in the lede is appropriate. I'm not excited about the unilateral removal of the poll and I'd prefer if we could discuss changes to the article on it's talk page first. That is, after all, what it's there for. I'd also assert that all polls are by their very nature " transitory" and so to cite that attribute as reasoning for the poll's removal isn't agreeable. With that said I'd still like to simply create a subsection for polling and leave it at that. Finally, I've been exceedingly busy in real life latley so I'm not sure I'll be able to give this the attention it deserves over the next day or two but I'll try. TomPointTwo (talk) 02:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Ty Herndon
Charges of solicitation for sex, indecent exposure, and possession of meth are sourced to such sources as Allmusic, Out & About Newspaper, PopMatters, and The Dallas Observer. Shouldn't such allegations be sourced to higher-quality sources for a BLP? Drrll (talk) 00:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * They're available in standard newspaper sources. The subject didn't disavow his actions, and in fact he campaigned on behalf of the judge in the case. It's a widely reported incident and part of his bio. We can certainly improve the refs.    Will Beback    talk    12:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that they should be in his article if they are widely reported in good sources, using those sources instead of the current ones. Drrll (talk) 13:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for improving it.   Will Beback    talk    23:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Dublin Philharmonic Orchestra
Some more eyes are needed on the Dublin Philharmonic Orchestra article, as the main conductor,, is getting rather frustrated with relation to a recent New York Times article, claiming that most of it is "heresay". I don't want to make any calls here, as I have been involved in some communication with Gleeson via email (following an WP:NLT block, which was retracted), but if others can assist and try to get to the bottom of what is going on there, that would be greatly appreciated. –MuZemike 00:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Although Gleeson has declared his conflict on the orchestra's Talk page, he is making edits to the article directly and shouldn't be. He should be discussing any issues he has on the Talk page. Plus, he clearly says he's not basing his edits on reliable sources but on his own knowledge: "I am the Music Director & Conductor of the Dublin Philharmonic and I know the Exact Facts of this article. Please DO NOT change my addition or changes as my comments are the true facts." Unless Gleeson is challenging the reliability of the NYT article or Wikipedia's interpretation of what it says, it sounds like his beef is with the NYT, not with Wikipedia. As for the supposed hearsay, journalists report hearsay all the time - goes with the job.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The article has been fully protected, and Gleeson has been indefinitely blocked .--Bbb23 (talk) 00:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I already directed Gleeson to do that; however, the problem is that others are just reverting and not trying to reason with him about it. We need that more than anything else now. I've now been forced to full-protect so that everyone can sit down and discuss this or, at the least, to explain the situation to Gleeson. Nobody has bothered to communicate with him before or after the block. –MuZemike 00:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, Derek Gleeson was blocked (by me) for legal threats, but I unblocked him after he retracted the threat via email. –MuZemike 00:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've put a belated welcome template on Gleeson's talk page. I've also put in a section giving him some advice on how Wikipedia works and how he should go about expressing concerns about what he believes are inaccuracies in the orchestra article. It's a start, anyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, "not being welcomed" is the least of our concerns, as well as the least of his concerns. We have a NYT article out there which is potentially causing some damage; I don't think "properly welcoming" is going to help determine whether or that should stay in the article (and whether or not the NYT may have messed stuff up or if we otherwise have an attempt at a whitewash). –MuZemike 00:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The Welcome was intended to give him an overview of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. He never got one, and I'm not sure he understands how things work. The other section was intended to give him more concrete advice about the current problem. You complained that no one communicated with him before or after the block. I was merely trying to help (he says peevishly).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we could consider allowing the presented external to be used as a rebuttal, although it is a bit blogg-ish it is used in some articles and some few BLP articles and we could attribute it well blog.foreignpolicy.com - New York Times to classical orchestras: Show us the birth certificates! - The externals usage on the en wikipedia project is here - Off2riorob (talk) 09:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Harold Camping
The Harold Camping article begins "Harold Egbert Camping (born July 19, 1921) is a (Redacted) ." It is semi-protected so I can't revert it. Thanks, 86.146.22.108 (talk) 14:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Cluebot got it less than a minute after it was posted. I have added the article to my watchlist.  GB fan (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well done Cluebot. :) 86.146.22.108 (talk) 15:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You really shouldn't repeat the allegations here, though, even though whether or not accurate. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Dustin Diamond and Barry Chamish


These two articles have had long-term issues. Diamond suffers from constant additions of bad stuff about sex-tapes. Barry Chamish was extreme stubbed after after a complaint to Jimbo, and has had a succession of socks add unflattering quotes and stuff about Holocaust denial.

I've been monitoring both using flagged revisions for several months. However, the powers that be have decreed I can't do that any longer. So, help me out. Can I have 5 clued-up people to watchlist these. Then I can remove flagging, stop people shouting at me, and know the articles will be safe. TIA.--Scott Mac 00:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)




 * I've changed the heading to the more conventional usage: the names of the subjects. Let's not make this about any users.   Will Beback    talk    03:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you'd like to retain flagged edits then maybe an RfC would be appropriate. The community seems to have decided against them.   Will Beback    talk    03:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Will, I'm not trying to retain anything. FR will be removed from these articles whether I like it or not. I'm concerned that we find an alternative way to ensure edits to them get proper scrutiny. Having them on some additional watchlists seems the best method. There's no agenda here - just asking for eyes on the articles. Would you be willing to watchlist?--Scott Mac 03:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * They are already on my watchlist.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Appreciated.--Scott Mac 03:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll add them. Lot's of folks come here to ask other editors to watchlist BLPs. No need to make a big issue about it.   Will Beback    talk    04:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

J.Williams (singer)
I stumbled across this while clearing the backlog at RfPP. It looks like multiple editors have been edit warring ovewr a claim that the subject abused his former partner. I've fully protected the article, without the allegations of domestic abuse in it, and I'll leave it to you folks to work out how best to deal with it from here if that's okay. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   20:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't really see the issue with including the information - it is backed up with a reliable source (I can find more if you want, it's a big media feast). It seems that the anons removing the info are just doing so because they like him. WP:NOTCENSORED - Wikipedia should present the truth. Adabow (talk · contribs) 20:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * First, the accusation, without more, of a former partner of domestic abuse does not belong in an article about a BLP. Second, it had no context; you just tossed it in the lead. Third, it has no connection with his notability. There are no doubt other reasons for not including it. Just so it's clear, just because something is reported in a reliable source doesn't mean it must be included in Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I personally did not place it in the article, but thank you for explaining - I will leave it unless the incident develops into a conviction etc. Adabow (talk · contribs) 21:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually you did place it in the article. It was not there and you added it to the article, you added it twice and then the article had to be fully protected and your addition removed. Off2riorob (talk) 13:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's fairer to say that Adabow repeatedly supported the inclusion/retention of the material in the article. I believe the material was originally added by another user here.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, an admin, User:Tristanb (check this out for a minimalistic RFA) that from comments on his userpage has no time for this place anymore. Editors need to be aware - if the content is not in the article and they add it to the article they become completely responsible for it - They should think to themselves, why is this content repeatedly being removed...hm, it is a bit personal and there are no charges or conviction, maybe, just maybe even though it has a citation I should leave it out for the time being and open a discussion about it on the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 00:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe he should cease being an admin if that's how he feels (and if that's the kind of edits he makes). Some of his comments on his user page are downright offensive. He manages to disparage the disabled and lesbians in just a few comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, support for that. He has almost never even used or assisted the project with his admin status - he undeleted some of his uploads that were deleted is about the sum of his admin contributions. Off2riorob (talk) 10:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not just about whether he is convicted. Certainly, when there are accusations of this sort and the accused denies them, it's generally not appropriate to put them in the article. However, as I read the source, Williams admitted to at least some form of domestic abuse, so it's not the usual he-said-she-said sort of thing. However, I don't see any connection to his notability. For example, Charlie Sheen's personal problems have spilled into his professional life, making them relevant to his career. Similarly, Tiger Woods's personal issues have affected his career. Now I'm sure you'll find editors who believe that if Williams is charged with a crime and subsequently convicted, it's important enough to include in his article, irrespective of its relevance. My view is it depends - on the crime, the aftermath of the crime, and probably other factors. In this instance, we don't have to go there because it's merely an accusation.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not just an accusation. It has lead to his resignation from a public and honorary position (as an Auckland ambassador for the Rugby World Cup), which makes it relevant to his career. dramatic (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That makes it more relevant, although it's still a bit attenuated. However, I revisited the article originally cited and it doesn't say that. Do you have a later source for it?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This - "Auckland ambassador for the Rugby World Cup" is not a part of his "career". - its a promo position - he is a singer. Off2riorob (talk) 00:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's why I said it was "attenuated". Still, if he weren't famous as a singer, I'm assuming he wouldn't have the position. Assuming there is a source supporting the loss of the position, I'm perfectly happy leaving out the domestic abuse stuff if Rob and others feel it's not relevant.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hehe, I was going to google "attenuated" but I guessed that was roughly what it meant. There are not going to be any charges, no official complaint has been made...I wouldn't add it myself but perhaps a minor comment as the subject has commented himself about it, if someone wants to add something perhaps they could present it for us to consider. As I read, the press reports about it made him feel his position as an ambassador was being undermined and he stood down for that reason. Off2riorob (talk) 14:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * In May 2011 Williams former partner told the Herald on Sunday that she had suffered domestic abuse during her relationship with the singer. Williams expressed regret for his mistakes and apologised. As a result of the story Williams felt unable to continue in his position as one of Aukland's fifteen ambassadors for the Rugby World Cup and stood down..

How about this: This business shouldn't be in the lead of the article. The Herald article with the partner's accusations appears to have been an exclusive. However, he resigned the ambassador position the following day and this was widely reported. The article should include his appointment to the ambassadorship (as it usually would) and his resignation from it. dramatic (talk) 22:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Details about subjects' homes, precise birth dates or names of children (Middletons again, but not just)
Sometimes subjects' homes are obviously notable, e.g. Prairie Chapel Ranch or 10 Downing Street. But how about the following? (In the second case I removed the days of birth and just left the months.)
 * Bristol Palin: In December 2010, Palin purchased a five-bedroom house in Maricopa, Arizona, a suburb of Phoenix, for $172,000 in cash, according to Pinal County property records.
 * Rob Lowe: Lowe married makeup artist Sheryl Berkoff in July 1991; they have two sons: Matthew Edward Lowe (b. Sept 24, 1993), and John Owen Lowe (b. Nov 6, 1995).

These were brought up in an WP:OTHERSTUFF type argument for the following:
 * James William Middleton: He now lives in a Chelsea flat, reportedly purchased by his parents for £780,000 in 2002, with his sister Pippa and his black cocker spaniel puppy Ella.

Besides, is being related to famous people and going to a wedding really enough to get your precise birth date reported in encyclopedias while you are alive? The reference for the following is an article with the title "Pippa Middleton Bersinar di Pernikahan Sang Kakak":
 * Pippa Middleton: Philippa Charlotte "Pippa" Middleton (born 6 September 1983) [...]

I don't know how to assess how widespread this problem is, but a Google search for "bought a * house" and "living people" brings up some more:
 * Meg Bennett: They also bought a $2.8 million house in Beverly Hills, California in 2003.
 * Richard Dreyfuss: In February 2008, they bought a $1.5 million house in the rural community of Olivenhain in eastern Encinitas, California, and plan to renovate the 1970s structure with state-of-the-art green technologies.

I think it would be worthwhile to go through BLP articles systematically and remove such trivia, but that would probably be a big effort and would also require strong support each time a trivialist tries to protect their right to invade subjects' privacy in this way. Hans Adler 10:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I cant see in any of these cases the value of the property ever being notable in any blp article and the location is probably only of note if it relates to the subjects notability or public persona. Certainly not notable in nearly all circumstances unless the animal has its own article is how many dogs (or other related domestic animals) they have. Although the number of children and possibly the year is probably OK the actual birth date is not really notable to the articles subject so I would support your removal of childrens full date of birth. MilborneOne (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem I am having is how we are determining what is/is not notable. How is Kate's birthday any more or less notable than Pippa's? Yet Pippa's needs removal? Hans Anderson has publicly stated that he is opposed to the existence of Pippa's article, believing it to be a non-notable subject (despite it surviving two AfDs and a merge discussion) - so is that the standard - what one editor thinks is a worthy article can have such details? Furthermore, how is DOB, place of birth, religion, spouse, or children (almost) ever the subject of a person's notability? And yet those details alone are included in the infobox as commonplace material. It would seem to me that anything that is widely reported by reliable sources is worthy of inclusion in articles that have been deemed worthy of inclusion on this wiki, unless clear guidelines about what is/is not appropriate are formed and justified. Because I just don't see how place of birth is any less "trivial" than a person's widely reported, reliably sourced place of current residence. --Zoeydahling (talk) 23:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well he's quite right in his comments about the Middleton article - it is a disgrace which the community ought to be ashamed of. Let me put it this way: suppose something happened to a relation of yours that made them famous, would that justify me creating an article about you, your daughter or son, listing DOBs, religion, their children and where they go to school, what midwifery was practised during the birth, what pets they have, the car they drive, how much their house cost, whether they are behind in their mortgage payments, what their credit status is, what their classmates think about them, etc, etc. John lilburne (talk) 23:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Then shouldn't that information be banned from all articles? There is no such thing as "sort of notable." Both James and Pippa had AfDs (Pippa had two) which were decided as Keep, and thus the community deems them worthy of articles. Once they have been determined notable, why are they not held up to the same standards as any other BLP? Why is such information allowed to be included on some articles and not others and how do we determine? There is no policy regarding the treatment of "somewhat notable people who have passed AfDs determining their notability but whom certain people refuse to accept and therefore are less notable than any other BLPs"... at least not to my knowledge. The Middletons need to be treated the same way as any other notable person. If that means removing that type of information from all articles, then that should be a clear consensus across the board. But to only apply it here on these articles that a few people deem less-than-notable despite consensus otherwise seems to represent an unfair bias toward these articles. --Zoeydahling (talk) 23:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with John. Such articles have no business being in an encyclopaedia, and that they exist is bad enough. That 'contributors' then choose to fill them with irrelevant personal details (often in breach of WP:BLP policy) only compounds the issue. At some point, Wikipedia is going to have to decide whether it wishes to be an online encyclopaedia at all, or just a dumping-ground for irrelevant tabloid tittle-tattle, overblown ethno-taggery, and other vacuous dross. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You're asking me whether trivia should be removed from articles? Of course it should be. Neither of the siblings are notable, they have done nothing in their own right that would warrant a biography. That the community seems hell bent on having biographies of them leads to a problem, because there is nothing to write about except to regurgitate tabloid trivia. What you are asking is for WP to be turned into a down market version of "Hello" magazine, perhaps it already has been, but that shouldn't stop us from trying to reverse the trend and point out that an encyclopaedic biography is NOT a collection of press cuttings. John lilburne (talk) 00:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the assertion that the value or location of a home is never notable. To begin with, those facts are frequently noted in highly reliable sources. Second, there are good reasons. The cost of a home is directly related to its size and prestige. If a Saudi prince builds a $55 million chalet then that's very different from the daughter of a politician buying a $180,000 home. Second, the location(s) where one lives is clearly a key biographical fact. Saying that someone bought a house in Beverly Hills informs readers about a person's place in the scheme of things, and saying they moved to Phoenix from Alaska is also informative. That said, the information should only be included if it has actually been reported in multiple reliable secondary sources, and thus risen to the level of notability. We should not troll through property records or gossip columns to find this kind of information. As for birthdates of relatives of biographic subjects, I think we should be very careful especially with minors. It's probably worth indicating whether the subject's children are adults or infants, but the birth year would be sufficient for that distinction.   Will Beback    talk    00:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree in some cases the value of a home might well be important to a subject's biography. But its is not relevant in all cases, and I don't see a case for it being relevant in this case. Also I don't see that your Beverley Hills, or Phoenix examples are at all relevant. $2.8M house for two writers in the entertainment industry seems probably average, not a slum and for writers not particularly palatial either. As for Phoenix if you move from Alaska I suppose you have to live some place else, and warm might be a change. John lilburne (talk) 00:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem, in general, with giving the price of a house and a vague geographical location (like Chelsea of Beverley Hills). However, what we have to bear in mind is that, questions of notability aside, the se are not public people (with the exception of Kate) and so we should err on the side of caution. They have a right to privacy and knowing where they live, what their dog's name is or when their children were born does not enhance the reader's understanding of the subject and so should not be included. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Since it was framed as a general question, I answered generally. As for the Middletons, I'm afraid that we're never going to hear the end of them and they will remain private persons only so long as they make no attempts to profit from their connection to the Cambridges, which I expect to happen sooner or later. In the meantime, they should certainly receive circumspect coverage on Wikipedia, if any.   Will Beback    talk    00:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not possible to codify rules for good judgement, so there will always be times when we need to discuss the merits of specific content rather than expecting guidelines to cover all cases. Responding to some of the specific points above:
 * "The subject of notability" - just to clarify, the issue is not whether those alone are enough to make a person notable, it's whether they're notable enough to be included in a bio article.
 * Religion, place of birth, spouse, and children all have the potential to be highly notable because they often have a strong influence over the person and their values (or over perception of that person). Hillary Clinton's influence has been a significant aspect of Bill Clinton's political career; Julia Gillard's unmarried status gets quite a lot of coverage over here in Australia. Both Obama's religion and place of birth have attracted major political interest in recent months, and a biography of Disraeli would be rather deficient if it failed to mention his religion! And as long as we're talking Royal Family, the Act of Settlement 1701 means that William would have lost his claim to the throne if Kate M had been a Roman Catholic.
 * In a lot of other cases these things probably aren't terribly notable. Year of birth is important in putting somebody in historical context; beyond that, I'm not convinced that the precise date matters that much, with rare exceptions. And note what WP:DOB says on the issue: we publish DOB if it's already widely publicised, or if there's good reason to think the subject doesn't object, but if they object then we'd usually delete it. Privacy trumps very marginal notability. (In most cases, the "nobody really cares" factor trumps both, which is why you'll probably see a lot of other articles that don't adhere to that particular part of policy.)
 * NB - any info that gets past WP:RS is already likely to be publicly available somewhere, but WP can still do harm by propagating it to a much wider audience. --GenericBob (talk) 00:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I see the term ethno-taggery being used. Affinity to an identity is in many cases noteworthy. Reliable sources often convey such information to readers. Bus stop (talk) 01:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Affinity to an identity is in many cases not noteworthy. Unreliable (and often POV-pushing) sources often convey guesswork about such things to readers. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * In my opinion we learn a lot about a subject of a biography by any light shed upon identity affinities. If sources point that out we should be noting it, generally speaking. I think that such attributes should not be included when there is cloudiness over their applicability. The main way in which I think this arises is in which more than one source contradict one another on such a point. People are complex entities. Sources try to suss this out. Attributes of identity provide indications of personal leanings. Bus stop (talk) 02:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Attributes of identity provide indications of personal leanings". Please take your ethnocentric bigotry elsewhere. This particular lie has done quite enough damage already. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The hatted discussion seems like old times :) Anyway, I sympathize with the topic here.  I don't think this is a notice-board type issue and only directly BLP related (assuming stuff is uncontroversial and sourced), but as a manual of style or biography guideline type issue we should not be reporting on the price of people's homes or the precise birthdates of their children unless it is: (1) impeccably sourced, and (2) sourced to be of some specific biographical importance and not just general background information.  I think the number of children and potentially their names, and the approximate period when someone moved from one city to another, are (if sourced) usually considered biographically relevant and would appear in nearly any complete biography of a person, on or off Wikipedia.  That may be mediated by privacy (and thus BLP) concerns over not doing harm to young children.  And finally, whether someone owns a house or just lives there, and what year a child was born, are in the middle and probably depend on whose biography it is, so perhaps that's best left to editorial discretion. It would make sense to have a guideline somewhere so that we can be consistent. Just my very quick opinion. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * We don't have to report on the precise price of their homes as has been noted above, but a rough figure helps the reader form a picture in their minds of a type of person. Ditto for precise dates of children's births. Bus stop (talk) 03:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yup. Let's not deal with people in articles. Let's instead instead use 'picture[s] in [our] minds of a type of person'. Very encyclopaedic... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * rough figure helps the reader form a picture in their minds of a type of person. Here we go again. What exactly does a £780,000 flat in Chelsea convey to your mind? Hint my grandmother lived in a flat in Pimlico (which is a bit down market from Chelsea), one of the flats in the block sold a few years ago for £750,000. These flats consist of a very small kitchen, a very small combined toilet/bathroom, and a living room. There is no separate bedroom. John lilburne (talk) 08:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Facts and figures only tell part of the story in any biography but those bare bones are important nonetheless. For example, we may write that someone attended Smith University, but we might not know that they barely passed their courses and were on academic probation twice, while we may also write in another biography that the subject attended this same school without knowing that they received top grades. We could say that someone is a Roman Catholic even if they only attend an occasional Easter service. Meanwhile, we can also say that another person is a Roman Catholic without knowing that they go to church at least twice a week. And so on. Just because a $1 million buys a fortified mansion in Abbottabad but only a small studio in Chelsea isn't a reason to omit the facts entirely. Just because some Catholics are devout while others are ambivalent isn't a reason to omit self-identified religious affiliation. Just because some people have life-changing educational experiences while others float through the same college in a drunken haze isn't a reason to omit educational facts. We can't, as encyclopedia editors, tell readers the significance and meaning of these facts unless someone else has already made those conclusions. But we can give information to readers and let them draw their own conclusions.   Will Beback    talk    09:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec)Placing trivia in articles leads readers to believe that the information is important in some way. The current Donald Trump article spends paragraphs discussing his religion when he has self-identified as a Presbyterian, and a grand total of one source called him "Catholic" in passing (Telegraph). It then goes into a long aside abiut whether a church which is Presbyterian in governance is actually Presbyterian. So we lead readers to think this is all somehow "important." In the past, we have included prosecutors press releases saying a person "could get up to 55 years in jail" which remains there -- and then the sentence is 1 year, and then gets overturned as unconstitutional in the first place -- but the entire list of charges remains in the articles. Or that an entertainer was alleged to have sexually attacked someone, but that the complainant has a history of doing so etc. We should be grown-up enough to say "allegations shown to be without sufficient foundation do not belong in a biography, no matter how many newspapers printed the initial allegations." Wikipedia should not contain such stuff - and if a Saudi prince has a $1 billion house, it is still not important to a biography in my opinion. Too many articles have too much stuff added for various and sundry reasons which does not belong in an encyclopedia which is supposed to give an overview of the person, and not list that he paid 89p for a Cadbury bar and listed it as an expense on his Parliamentary account. The time has come to make Wikipedia an encyclopedia, not a bunch of stuff, generally added because people really think the subject is "evil incarnate." End screed. Collect (talk) 10:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * unless someone else has already made those conclusions and just who has made those conclusions? In most cases no one has made any conclusions as to the significance, it has simply been printed in some article somewhere, and for all we know as filler to make up the required 250/500 words required for the article. In most cases you'll need to wait for a full biography of the person concerned to determine significance. John lilburne (talk) 10:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep. But just because we're not aware of the full significance of a fact is no reason to omit it. It's the nature of biographies to tell the notable, interesting, and sometimes even boring details of a person's life. Who (besides family, friends fans or astrologers) really cares about the day of the month on which a person was born? To some, it's the most insignificant detail. To others, it's really important. Interesting or not, we report it when it's well-reported in reliable sources. We have good policies on what to include -only what is reported in high quality sources, with careful attention to neutral presentation and weight. I don't think we should clutter those up by getting too detailed about which facts are appropriate to report, because the apparent significance of the issues are different for different people. The personal affairs of rock stars and royalty inevitably get more coverage than those of university professors, and Wikipedia is going to reflect that.
 * If Wikipedia were around in 1936, what would we have written about Wallis Simpson, another Duchess who married into the royal family? Probably not much until later in the year because the facts were so extraordinary and the sources were so sketchy, or even non-existent in England. We're still learning things, and I suspect there are sealed archives which will someday shed even more light on the significance of individual facts in that biography. OTOH, if there hadn't been news blackouts then WP might have had a relatively extensive biography of Simpson which included all well-reported facts.   Will Beback    talk    10:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * See collect's reply above, of which I fully agree. Just because a previous marriage status, or religious affiliation may be important in the life of one person, does not mean it is important to every person's life. In the case of Wallace Simpson, what if "the sources" had been wrong? John lilburne (talk) 10:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is first and foremost a source of information that has as its primary underpinning reliable secondary sources. Editorial selectivity in what to include/exclude poses a potential problem to encyclopedic integrity. Of course we want to be vigilant of that which does not belong in an article for a variety of reasons. But I am opposed to arguments that tell us in advance that a huge area of information is categorically not permitted. Bus stop (talk) 10:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It should not be a source of trivia. Every 'fact' that is added has an associated cost. The cost is that people for all time have to maintain it. They have to maintain it against undue weight, miss interpretation, fix it if it turns out to be false, and against vandalism. A couple of months ago the community insisted on having an article about a 13yo youtube singer, this last weekend the article was used as a vehicle for spreading scurrilous lies about her, which are now all over the internet, partially fuelled by the false information (since over-sighted) in the WP article. John lilburne (talk) 11:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources not only serve to verify information but tend to show us that information is apropos and relevant in a way that helps to illuminate the subject of a biography. That reliable sources have seen fit to mention a piece of information tends to show us that we may want to include that information as well—reliable sources also should be understood to be exercising judgement in these matters. Bus stop (talk) 11:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect. All information contained in reliable sources is not de facto appropriate for an encyclopedia article. No where in any of our policies does it say that we must reproduce here any information available in a source that is deemed "reliable."Griswaldo (talk) 11:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I wrote in my above post: "... tends to show us that we may want to..."


 * Also in that same post I used the wording, "...but tend to show us that information..."


 * Just because something is reliably sourced does not translate into automatic inclusion in a Wikipedia article.


 * But some pieces of information found in reliable sources should not be excluded on whim or improper selectivity either, which is to say that when sources of sufficiently strong stature include information, we should be required to supply cogent reasons if we want that material excluded. Bus stop (talk) 13:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I hope you don't mind but I'm going to call this the "Influence of a Frozen Beef Pie". John lilburne (talk) 12:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't mind but I'm going to call this the "Influence of a Frozen Beef Pie". John lilburne (talk) 12:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "when sources of sufficiently strong statue include information, we should be required to supply cogent reasons if we want that material excluded". More nonsense from Bus Stop. It has always been a Wikipedia principle that those wishing to include information should provide a justification for doing so when such inclusion is queried. This attitude stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of what a 'reliable source' is. There are no absolute 'reliable sources'. Instead we have to assess whether a source is reliable for the information being sourced. Again, this is standard Wikipedia policy. To include anything in an article that is contested, it is necessary for those wishing its inclusion to demonstrate that it is (a) relevant, and (b) reliably sourced. Unless both conditions are properly met, an article cannot be encyclopaedic - it will instead merely be a collection of random 'data', and Wikipedia is not a database. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that goes to the question of whether to include contested material, where editors disagree. If we step back and ask whether material ought to be contested, I think that if a sufficient weight of strong sources describe a person's living circumstances, family, personal beliefs, etc., as being relevant to their life story then it shouldn't be contentious to include that information.  For example, many sources describe certain celebrities such as Barbara Streisand or Hugh Hefner as living in mansions (see the Streisand Effect and Playboy Mansion).  For whatever reason, sources often describe the living circumstances of politicians and writers.  In those cases there will be some indication not only that it was important to the sources, but why it was important and how it is relevant to the biography.   - Wikidemon (talk) 14:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I think we have to recognize that reliable sources exercise their own judgement. Reasonable editors can disagree as to the relevance of a given piece of material. But if reliable sources of sufficient stature have chosen to include a piece of material, I think we have weigh that into our considerations concerning the including or excluding of that material. It is incumbent on editors to demonstrate that the conclusions reached by sources should be different from the conclusions reached by editors here at Wikipedia, when several requirements have been met, primary among them is the reliability of the source or sources. A secondary but important consideration is whether other sources contradict or tend to cast doubt on one another in relation to the material being considered. Bus stop (talk) 14:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Bus stop, what 'you think', and what Wikipedia policy and practice dictate, are two different things. If you wish to have policy changed so that a source can be declared 'reliable' for everything it states, and that anything the source says can be included in an article, you are arguing in the wrong place. I suggest you consider this possible change of policy in more detail, and then make a formal proposal - you aren't going to get it changed here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * AndyTheGrump—I am primarily speaking of sources whose reliability is fairly good. Sources can be unreliable too, but I think the issue under discussion arises when a good case can be made that a source supporting a piece of material can reasonably be argued to be reliable. Bus stop (talk) 15:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, you are suggesting a change of policy. This isn't the place to do it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * AndyTheGrump—this thread is primarily concerned with whether certain types of material should routinely be included in articles. It is assumed that the material under consideration is reliably sourced. Arguments have been made that some sorts of material are almost inherently improper.


 * The first post, initiating this thread, mentions the prices of houses owned, the location of residences, the year bought. This information it is argued by some is intrusive or otherwise objectionable. The first post also posits the inclusion of such information as the number of children, the names of children, and even in one instance the name of a pet dog.


 * No one really is arguing whether such material should be included if it is poorly sourced. I think we would all agree that given the marginal or questionable importance or relevance of those types of information, it is debatable whether inclusion would be warranted if sourcing were also on shaky ground.


 * In my last few posts I have simply tried to make the point that the fact of inclusion of such material in reliable sources is in and of itself an indication of a type of relevance or an indication of importance. This, I am arguing, is because reliable sources are to be assumed to also be exercising judgement.


 * I think you are arguing that such material should be omitted if the source is weak, and I think we would all agree with you. But I think the real question is whether certain types of material inherently mark them for exclusion. Bus stop (talk) 16:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You are proposing that inclusion by 'reliable sources' should in itself be seen as an argument for relevance. This would entail a change of policy (one that I would oppose, as just plain bonkers). We cannot make such changes here. Please stick to the topic in question, or make your proposals elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—you say, "You are proposing that inclusion by 'reliable sources' should in itself be seen as an argument for relevance."

I think it is an "argument for relevance". It does not force inclusion. But I think it does tend to support that such material deserves inclusion—on the grounds of relevance and importance. We can always choose to exclude material—no matter how reliably sourced.

You imply above that the inclusion of the sorts of information being discussed will make Wikipedia a "…collection of random 'data'…"

What this fails to take into account is that sources are already exercising judgement as to what to include and exclude. The information that reliable sources include cannot be called "random". I think it has to be assumed that a screening process is in place at every reliable source. It consists of a human being or a committee that choses to omit some information that is available for inclusion. Bus stop (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Newspapers, periodical, magazines and other ephemeral publications, do not collect random snippets of factoids. They may include the factoid in an article that is transient, printed today, forgotten tomorrow. Little harm is done, particularly if the interest is itself intermittent. So some publication, maybe they are doing a one off article on celebs in their area, print the price that X paid for their house. It is printed on Monday and by Saturday no that read it can even remember it let alone care. Along comes a WP editor searching for stuff to add the article on X "Oooh they paid $Y for their house"; drip ... article on X now has for all time, anyone that wants to know about X's career, is presented with this insignificant detail. The "Floppy-eared bunny society runs an article on famous people that owned floppy-eared bunnies. Along comes some other WP editor "Oooh X once owned a floppy-eared bunny" - drip "X owned a house costing $Y and a floppy-eared bunny". The school that X went to (Cardinal Bighat) asks X to give out the annual prizes and it is reported in the local paper. drip "X is a Catholic, who lives in a $Y house, and once owned a floppy-eared bunny". There are 1000s of publications all running stories with their own agendas. John lilburne (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No reliable source would include factoids, which are unverified, incorrect, or fabricated.   Will Beback    talk    22:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you read WP:OTTO? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As with ATG above, you just cannot rely on most of them for anything. However, true or false a factoid is essentially useless unless it has context, and if it had any context we'd not be getting articles saying "X is a Catholic", but "X is a Catholic and as a result ..." or "X owned a floppy-eared bunny and discovered that ..." etc. In the case of the Middletons and the factoid that son and daughter lived in a £750K flat might result in pub conversations in the depth of Cornwall along the lines of
 * but it doesn't tell us anything other than the family has money, but we knew that already. John lilburne (talk) 23:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * John lilburne—you say, "…a factoid is essentially useless unless it has context, and if it had any context we'd not be getting articles saying "X is a Catholic", but "X is a Catholic and as a result …""


 * I disagree. I think "X is a Catholic" is as acceptable as "X is a Catholic and as a result…" We can only convey to the reader that which is supported by reliable sources. If sources support the former, I think we should consider including the former, and if sources support the latter, I think we should consider including the latter. Bus stop (talk) 01:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You can disagree all you like, Bus stop. your opinions are of no relevance here. Article content is decided by editorial consensus, with due regard to policy. And can you tell us whether you think the information referred to in WP:OTTO came from 'reliable sources'? Or are sources only 'reliable' when you want them to be? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

At this point, since Bus stop has once again resorted to editing his/her comments after they have replied to, in contravention of Talk page guidelines, I am going to leave this discussion. It has already been amply demonstrated that Bus stop does not understand policy, or does not consider him/herself bound by it. Such policy nevertheless exists, and should be complied with unless and until such policy is changed.

And Bus stop, don't bother to reply to this. I am sick of your endless trolling of the same old tired arguments everywhere on Wikipedia, and am likely to violate talk page guidelines myself, along with WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "I think it has to be assumed that a screening process is in place at every reliable source". I think Bus stop needs to read WP:OTTO - there is no such thing as a 'reliable source' according to Wikipedia policy. Instead, a source may be deemed 'reliable' over particular content. Whether this content is considered relevant is an editorial decision, to be made by Wikipedia contributors, in conjunction with any relevant policy considerations. We cannot change this here. Stop wasting everyone's time by acting as if we can. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay. Where were we?  I think the overall conclusion, which different people come to with different rationales, is that there are certain types of minor personal details that we shouldn't add even if they're verifiable.  At the other end some personal details may be sourced as significant and relevant enough to include, and barring any reason to do otherwise, they would normally be includable in the article subject to the usual editorial discretion.  Exact price of home and birthdays of non-notable children would normally be in the first group.  There hasn't been much discussion about what details might fall into the second category, or even if there are any life details that normally do, so there's no reason to make a list here.  Action item: it's okay to delete childrens' birthdays and home prices as trivia, unencyclopedic, of undue weight, not relevant, unreliably sourced, TMI in a BLP sense, etc. (take your pick).  Is that a fair summary?  - Wikidemon (talk) 06:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yup. Though if someone wants to argue that in a particular case there are valid reasons to include such data, they should be allowed to raise the issue. It is however for them to justify inclusion, rather than for others to demonstrate the unjustifiability of inclusion - but this is existing Wikipedia policy in any case. We don't need to change policy - we need to apply it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Just like anything else: if it's relevant and well-sourced then it can be included, subject to other policies and assuming it does not intrude excessively on the privacy of non-public figures. We don't need to start creating a detailed list of irrelevant and poorly sourced material that is automatically excluded from biographies.   Will Beback    talk    21:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Quite, one has to exercise some assessment of appropriateness, if the information helps one to understand the person included it, if it is simply a by-the-way-did-you-know, excluded it. One shouldn't be constructing a "Truman Show" in the BLPs. 22:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC) John lilburne (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I saw that movie, but I don't understand how it applies here. Wasn't that about someone who lived in an imaginary world created for the purpose of entertaining TV viewers? I don't see the relevance.   Will Beback    talk    23:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Did they not pick over every last detail of his life? Have fact sheets listing the first time he did x and the last time he did y, play by play recaps and reminders of one minor incident after another? John lilburne (talk) 23:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Articles about football players give every detail of their goals and playing histories, from the earliest available. Articles about politicians describe policy stances and votes all the way back. Entertainers have biographies that list every role, even for child actors. We list all of the papers which professors publish, sometimes those written in youth,. Every murder committed by serial killers, no matter how young the perpetrators, is included. To each according to his or her notability.   Will Beback    talk    10:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The question isn't about goals that footballers score, but whether they got detention at school, the first time they got drunk, nor indeed whether they are playing away from home. For entertainers we don't need a blow by blow account of any feuds with fellow Thespians, a mention that they are difficult would suffice. Serial murderers, for an encyclopaedia, where they lived when they started on their killing spree is probably of import, where they lived 20 years before hand far less so, as are the names of their close childhood friends, brand of underwear they favoured, and many other things that may be stuffed into some publication as filler. John lilburne (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * we do not link all of the papers that professors. We normally list the most important paper-reviewed articles (generally defined as the most cited)--the number depends on the importance of the person--I usually include the top 5 or 6. I'd oppose adding them all except perhaps for the really famous people. We certainly do not list such things as conference presentations and miscellaneous non-peer-reviewed work published in general--I normally remove all such sections I encounter. We do normally list all the books. Such papers (and books) are not only significant content, but necessary in order to show the notability according to WP:PROF. There is no real need to duplicate their CVs, in which they normally include everything at all they have ever done--in fact, we have a NOT policy that WP is not for CVs.   I would extend this sort of discrimination to other professions also. Will says above, "to each according to his notability". I think that I'd interpret it a little differently than he, and perhaps reword it, "to each proportional to his notability." And I'd extend that to miscellaneous biographical detail also, as well as the information that is specifically relevant to notability.  DGG ( talk ) 15:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Assata Shakur in Common (entertainer)
Various users have been re-inserted a rather biased description of Shakur (a living person) into the article about Common. This content uses her married name (even though she was long divorced at the time of the events in question and currently), provides a rather one-sided description of her biography, and is generally biased in tone and emphasis. Yes, she was convicted, but the jury was given an instruction on accomplice liability, and thus the conviction need not reflect a determination that she pulled the trigger killing someone. Further, the article implies the Common praises cop-killing, when the point of his song is to argue for her innocence. I do not have the time to deal with this myself. I think the best solution (even BLP aside) is to leave the coverage of Shakur to the article about her, rather than presenting a one-sided depiction of her in another biography. Savidan 02:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've made some small edits that identify her as Assata Shakur formerly known as Joanne Chesimard, and clarifying Common's position that she was wrongly convicted so as not to endorse the implication that he was praising a known cop killer. Cullen328 (talk) 15:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

MILF
The article on the sexual slang word MILF ("Mother I'd Like to Fuck", i.e. a sexually attractive woman aged 30 to 50) has a picture of Pamela Anderson as its lead image. I don't think it adds anything of encyclopedic value, and it feels wrong to single any one person out in the lead picture, whether it's Anderson or Sarah Palin (who is also mentioned). Views? -- JN 466  12:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The article really shouldn't have any images or examples in the text of living people. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 12:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. -- JN 466  13:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed the image. I found no reliable sources which identified Anderson as a MILF (although I did find an article entitled "Philippine military pounds breakaway MILF group in south") and there is no reason to use the image of a single individual unless they are a strong exemplar of the term. I don't have a strong opinion of inclusion in the text, but they seem out of place if the entry is just a dictionary definition. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've taken the Palin reference out as well. It's from a gossip piece in the Huffington Post, and undue. -- JN 466  13:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Totally against BLP, AFAICT, to use the term for any specific person at all. Collect (talk) 18:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it would be fine for Murad Ibrahim. Guettarda (talk) 00:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So why not make this MILF article into a redirect on the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, per NOTTHEURBANDICTIONARY or at the very least make the Islamic group the primary article for the acronym?Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The article has survived two previous AfD's over similar concerns. Unless it can be demonstrated via another AfD that consensus has changed to delete, and I doubt it will have, I think MILF should remain the primary article for the acronym over Moro - MILF has like fifteen times as many daily views.  Kevin (talk) 09:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's internet porn bias. I doubt a realistic assessment of things like reliable news and academic sources would show anything similar. Guettarda (talk) 11:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What Guettarda said. If all we care about is how many daily views an article gets I'm sure there's plenty of ways we could easily increase those, especially with an article like that. But somehow I still remember that we're supposed to be an encyclopedia. So ok, the article survived two AFDs in yet another spectacular Wikipedia failure and further proof that when it comes down to it its policies are a dead letter. Fine. But there's no reason why the primary article shouldn't be on the Islamic group. If you actually look at how RELIABLE, ACADEMIC sources use the term, it's that . Article titles reflect usage in reliable sources not page views, and this should be true ESPECIALLY in a case like this. Who knows maybe some of those "daily views" will actually end up learning something. Or would that be too much like, you know, an encyclopedia serving its purpose?Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well said, mate. -- JN 466  22:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Made the switch.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Federico Todeschini (economist)
Irrelevant, Without any public interest whatsoever, mixed with facts the author made up about himself.

Author was warned regarding the irrelevancy of the content. Article should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.108.97.66 (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * - note - WP:PRODDED - Off2riorob (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Stan Leopard
Please remove this posting....it is a self promoting add submitted by his colleage (Amy at Invisible Fence - please see the source of the edits). This person has recently left the techology sector and making himself appear he has extensive experience in real estate..which he does not. He currenlty moved to Boise, ID and is provided free office space by a real estate developer who is trying to help this guy along because of rough times in the tech sector. He is not a "strategist" (who says that anyway..I'm surprised Wikipedia allows such nonesense). Moreover, he has not invested hardly anything worthy of being included in Wikepedia. The owners of the real estate company that "employ" him aren't even elible for a posting on Wikepdea and have SUBSTANTIALLY more accomplishments. The purpose of his posting is to appear credible when he solicits investors for a fund (The Joeski Fund) which is currently being marketed. Please take note of this....Thank you. I am a credible source and can provide additonal information upon request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bnosoup4u (talk • contribs)


 * The article was nominated for deletion, discussion here.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Political activities of the Koch family
Currently has an ongoing dispute about one edit: (multiply added and removed - at least once with an edit summary that material from "socks" can be removed at will, despite no one being accused of being a "sock.")  Is the edit reasonable and proper in a BLP when the material is clearly cited as opinion? Are the other clear opinions properly in this article? Are the "sock" implicit accusations a problem? Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Josh Elliot
"He and his wife have a daughter named Sarina." Citation [1] supports a daughter, but does not support that Josh has a wife. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.154.214 (talk) 14:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Removed the uncited wife and kept the cited daughter. A google foo revealed some discussion threads speculating but nothing reliable. Off2riorob (talk) 14:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Complete and utter disregard of the BLP policy
This view in regard to unreferenced geneology info is poor, but not a major issue... but this attitude in regards to this edit is appalling. If he has a ref for it, then add it to the article, don't just talk about it. Note: there is an open, but sidetracked and now largely ignored AN/I issue on this user, but I reckon BLP issues should outrank anything else. The-Pope (talk) 17:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you say that the ANI discussion is "now largely ignored". It appears to be ongoing here. You've reverted the heroin edit, so it's not really an issue anymore. The editor is generally energetic, contentious, and disruptive, but best leave that to ANI. This really seems to be a user issue more than a BLP issue unless you have a more continuous BLP violation that you're having trouble controlling.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Yitzchak Ginsburgh
I have removed (here) a passage from this article that is not supported by any source, and User:Debresser has restored it three times today. I could probably delete it again relying on the BLP exemption from 3RR, but I'd rather not -- instead, I ask other editors to consider whether it is proper for this material to be restored in the absence of a source. The details: it is claimed that three rabbis have been influenced by Ginsburgh, but the source at the end of this brief section refers only to Yitzhak Shapira, not to the first two people in the list (so my edit removes those two and leaves the third). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Jerry Seinfeld - Scientologist?


There appears to have been a discussion on Talk:Jerry Seinfeld about whether or not to label Jerry Seinfeld as a Scientologist. While Seinfeld seems to have been open about having taken Scientology courses, he does not seem to have self-identified as a Scientologist. In fact, our article currently says "He has denied ever being formally a member of the church...", yet includes him in Category:Former Scientologists. He is also listed on List of Scientologists as a former Scientologist.

WP:BLPCAT is quite clear that to be included in lists and categories "unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question". (I have added emphasis for those editors who cannot tell the difference between the subject publicly self-identifying and the author of a biography claiming that Seinfeld told friends he was a Scientologist.) Sorry to bring yet another Scientology-related BLP problem here, but it seems to be an area in which clear policies continue to be ignored by a small set of editors. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You've created a needlessly inflammatory post here. No-one is "labelling [him] as a Scientologist".  Very poorly done.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you suggest an alternate word? Also, please do not put quotes around things I have not written. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue of the category hasn't come up at the talk page, so I'm not sure who is being accused of ignoring policy or why this wasn't brought there first.   Will Beback    talk    20:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Will, you commented in a recent discussion on proposed changes to WP:BLPCAT, so I assume you are familiar with it. Even if the specific question of category was not raised on the Seinfeld talk page, that discussion also encompasses List of Scientologists. WP:BLPCAT is explicitly about sexual orientation and religious beliefs in regard to lists and categories, so when discussing the inclusion of someone's BLP in a list based on religious belief, it would seem obvious that BLPCAT should be observed. As for why I didn't bring the issue to that talk page, the single edit I made to the BLP of someone who is not in any Scientology categories earned me a warning under WP:ARBSCI so I do not edit even the talk pages of Scientology-related articles. Also, having observed the discussion, I felt more eyes would be useful. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In what way, even if he were a Hubbardista, is it relevant? Is his notability in any way contingent on Hubbardista status? If not kill the CAT. John lilburne (talk) 20:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no requirement that his notability be "contingent on" his involvement with Scientology -- only that it be relevant to it. The available sources demonstrate the relevance.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Really 'cos there are a whole load of admins and others over at the DSK and Anne Sinclair articles removing religious cats and labels, that the Jew baiters want adding. Now I'm pretty sure that what is being said over there is "self identification' and WP:RS for why their religion is part of the notability. John lilburne (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not very familiar with the ins and outs of Scientology. It sounds like the principle activity is attending classes. Seinfeld says he attended Scientology classes, and that the lessons he learned there were valuable to his comedy career and that he still uses them. How do we define "Scientologist" - is it someone who has attended Scientology classes? Someone who's reached a certain level within the organization? Beats me.  Will Beback   talk    22:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest it should be the same way that we define "Roman Catholic" or "Baptist" or "Zen Buddhist", i.e., that the person self-identifies as being a member of that particular faith group in their own words as reported by a reliable source. Attending courses offered by a particular faith would not be sufficient; my friendly neighbourhood Lutheran church offers courses as well (for which they charge a fee), and the minister tells me that over 70% of the attendees do not adhere to that faith.  Risker (talk) 22:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Risker. -- JN 466  23:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup. Policy (WP:BLPCAT) is quite clear over this. If Seinfeld doesn't say he is a Scientologist, we don't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And I'd agree too. And if Seinfeld doesn't say that he was a Scientologist (as in former) then we don't either. Lots of people go to a few classes, places of worship, political meetings etc. It doesn't mean they have signed up and joined the cause.  And in this case, I gather Seinfeld has specifically stated that he didn't sign up.  --Slp1 (talk) 01:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Make that another agree here. No to the category and no to the list inclusion.Griswaldo (talk) 02:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone is arguing for the category. I'm not sure why this thread was necessary, since there doesn't seem to be any dispute.   Will Beback    talk    09:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That is somewhat disingenuous, Will, since it involves Seinfeld's inclusion in List of Scientologists as well. Even given this discussion that you dismiss as unnecessary, you today said "There are people like Seinfeld who commonly appear on lists of former Scientologists. Perhaps it'd make sense to have a section for "non-members" - those who have taken classes and been accused or alleged to be members, but who have denied it. Otherwise readers would likely assume we left off the names accidentally". I find it concerning when admins seem not to understand clear policies despite having been reminded of them. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't make accusations - that's unhelpful. I'm discussing possible solutions to complex issues. I haven't made any edits in this regard.   Will Beback    talk    21:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That was an observation, not an accusation. There's is no need for me to accuse you of anything when I can quote you making suggestions that would be counter to policy. The situation of the list seems quite simple to me - if I have misunderstood, please elaborate. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, you accused me of being disingenuous for sayng that no one was arguing for keeping the category. Discussing possible alternatives doesn't violate any policy. And policies are flexible. Editors are allowed to suggest ways of following and altering them. If that's not permitted then we might as well shut down the talk pages associated with policy pages. I still don't see a dispute here. If there is, then let's discuss it on the relevant talk page first.    Will Beback    talk    23:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to suggest that discussing changes to policy or disagreeing with policy was somehow wrong, what I meant was that your suggestion, if acted upon would be contrary to existing policy. I am sorry if that wasn't clear to you. Given this clarification, do you agree that your suggestion, if enacted, would be contrary to WP:BLPCAT? Not that there is anything wrong with disagreeing with policy, but I think it helps to be clear that you acknowledge what the existing policy is in this case. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 06:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't made any suggestions on this page so I'm not sure what's being referred to- could you be more specific?   Will Beback    talk    10:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the quote already posted and linked above, which reads in part: "Perhaps it'd make sense to have a section for "non-members" - those who have taken classes and been accused or alleged to be members, but who have denied it". If we did that, Will, regardless of the intent, would it be in keeping with the WP:BLPCAT? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The BLPCAT policy is intended to keep us from labeling someone as belonging to a religious or sexual orientation grouping with which they have not self-identified. Is there any disagreement on that? The purpose of the policy is not keep us from saying that a person has been wrongly accused of belonging to such a group and has publicly denied it. That could be a benefit to readers and to the BLP subjects themselves. Why do you think that'd be harmful?   Will Beback    talk    22:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Will, please answer the question in a straightforward manner rather than attempting to pose a different question - if we did what you proposed, regardless of the intent, would it be in keeping with WP:BLPCAT as it is currently written? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this thread is solving any problems. If you want to engage on the article talk pages then you're most welcome.   Will Beback    talk    04:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have already explained why I will not be engaging on the article's talk page, so your repeated suggestion that I do so seems, to be frank, a bit passive-aggressive. I was hoping that you would acknowledge, as several others have already stated, that your suggestion would be in violation of our WP:BLP policy (specifically BLPCAT). I would be happy to see a discussion here about the inclusion and/or rebuttal of rumours in BLPs, but if you are unwilling to answer simple questions about clear policy issues, there seems little point in getting into more nuanced areas. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No answer is also an answer. -- JN 466  00:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If DC doesn't want to engage in discussions on article talk pages then I don't think that interrogations on noticeboards is a productive way to discuss editing.   Will Beback    talk    09:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Will, I was simply trying to get you -- an experienced editor and admin -- to acknowledge that what you were proposing was against policy. If you felt that I was interrogating you, I apologize. That was not my intent. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Was this actually libel? [Edwin Black]
See - this seems to be just a factual statement about the contents of a book by a noted mainstream author which did not suggest in any way that he was a crockpot and I'm concerned at its removal and the claim it was libellous. I'd replace it but I don't want to take any chance of replacing a BLP violation. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 06:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I would question whether this and some of the other hypotheses listed as "conspiracy theories" belong in the article. The assertion that oil companies discouraged production of the electric car seems more in the nature of rational speculation, even if it is not a major viewpoint.  If they do not belong then referencing people who promoted them incorrectly identifies them as promoting conspiracy theories.  TFD (talk) 08:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the fact that you held back from replacing it probably asserts you shouldn't replace it. As a not legal person someone might claim that finding yourself on such a list might by association encourage readers to pigeon hole you in the Conspiracy theorists category which might be detrimental to your public persona but its a bit of a stretch.- a mighty long stretch, if fact if that was libel of any description I will eat my hat and the whole en wikipedia needs deleting. The whole article needs a good going over as Four Duces says, that bit about trams is not the type of information I would expect to find on a list like that and then to specifically associate Blacks name to the issue seems to unduly associate him to it as though it is specifically his conspiracy theory and not just one he has written about. Off2riorob (talk) 09:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm confused. Then we cannot use reliable sources for any of this article as it might associate them with conspiracy theories? I think it should be replaced, but as it seemed very odd I thought maybe I missed something, especially as it's claimed that Black complained. If Black writes about conspiracy theories, how do we use him? Or don't we? Black's book for instance has a chapter called "The GM conspiracy". and also see But we can't use him? Ah, found the web page for the book  with reviews, eg " Black has given his readers a portrait of the world's modern energy crisis. From the corporate conspiracies to the political intricacies," Dougweller (talk) 12:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of my comment above was just speculating as to what the problem might be but to cut to the chase - imo there is nothing libelous at all about that addition. You could get over the undue consideration by adding a simple qualifier such as, ''many books have been written about the conspiracy theory including one from ..... Off2riorob (talk) 13:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've asked my library (via the web) to get it for me, so I'll be able to cite it properly. Dougweller (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - Mr. Black, whom I met during the process of editing his Wikipedia biography, raised the concern directly with me in an email off-list, in which he felt that including his name as the author of a work of serious scholarship among a list largely populated by koo-koo theories was "libelous" (his word). I note that Mr. Black does not use that word lightly, when he says "libelous," he means "libelous." I'm not a lawyer, I don't play one on TV, I won't opine. HE feels it is "libelous" is all that matters, from my perspective.
 * This page, List of conspiracy theories, seems to be among the oldest on Wikipedia, dating back to November 2003. As someone who spends a major part of my "For The Project" time in AfD, I don't feel that there is the slightest chance this page would lose a deletion debate, even though it suffers the same basic problem that a recently deleted page on "List of Right Wing publications" suffered: when one started lumping mainstream conservative papers with a mass of xenophobic and fascist papers, the actual result is defamatory of those publications (POV). Similarly, a list including the New York Times or The Nation with the publications of the Revolutionary Communist Party, Progressive Labor Party, etc. as "left wing publications" would be in essence a POV exercise. Black feels that his work is being treated the same way, lumping serious scholarship with the wackydoodles, essentially reducing the thesis to wackidoodleness.


 * Just getting Black's name off of that page struck me as the simplest solution, although I recognized from the start that there would be danger of reversion. So here we are... Carrite (talk) 15:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If we simply use Black as a cited source, page number, etc, not mentioning him directly in the article, I see no problem from a policy viewpoint. If he is a reliable source, we can't decline to use him because he believes it would be libelous. That would lead to never being able to use serious or academic sources in fringe articles. I don't think any of us would want that. Dougweller (talk) 16:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You would need a good source that called his view a conspiracy theory. It is a very strong term, and means more than a theory that a conspiracy existed.  TFD (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok. Black talks about what he sees as real conspiracies, eg is that the problem?  Are you saying we can't use his discussion of what he sees as real conspiracies in an article on conspiracy theories? I simply wanted to use him as a source discussing conspiracies.Dougweller (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure "killing the electric car" belongs in that list at all - particularly if someone like Edwin Black provides good evidence it's true. NB Conspiracy theories has a section for "proven true", but List of conspiracy theories does not. Rd232 talk 20:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I assume his objection has to do with the fact that "conspiracy theories" implies tinfoil-hat brigade, paranoid wackiness. To call an argument a conspiracy theory is to try to discredit it.  It's certainly not libel to include him in the article in question, but given that in this case his "theory" is true, I'm not sure it's appropriate to include him.  I think the most important question here is: is there a reliable source for the notion that his argument is a "conspiracy theory"?  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Conspiracy theories operate under a different type of logic and are not the same as rational speculation. TFD (talk) 22:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Theorising about conspiracies is not the same as conspiracy theorising... :) But how do we avoid confusing the two? Rd232 talk 22:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We should refer to the considerable literature about conspiracist theorism. TFD (talk) 23:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably. As for the question of sources saying his argument is a conspiracy theory, see but Black's website has a snippet from a review saying he " avoids falling into the conspiracy theories or alarmist prose that this subject can elicit." There seems to be what is called a conspiracy theory around the subject, Black says there is a real conspiracy. Hard. Dougweller (talk) 05:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It one types in key words to a Google search one will find sources to back up anything - in this case the source found was a reference in a footnote of a book about the age of the automobile, that uses the term "conspiracy theory". My recommendation would be to use sources that describe conspiracy theories.  In this case we do not know what the writer means by the term, and his comments have not entered the body of discussion of conspiracy theories.   Before we call something a conspiracy theory we need to show that that is how it is generally considered.  And usually that means that it is part of a Manichean worldview where sinister, all powerful forces control world events, rather than just businessmen operating secretly to maximize profits.  TFD (talk) 07:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

That's an interesting distinction - on how a particular theory about a conspiracy fits into a conspiratorial worldview. Perhaps we could actively build on that. (Your remark about "operating secretly to maximize profits" brings to mind Adam Smith's famous remark on the origin of mundane conspiracies, "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.") Rd232 talk 09:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Black asserts that there was a conspiracy, right? Can we all agree with this and then go from there? Dougweller (talk) 11:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no opinion on whether there was a conspiracy to "kill the electric car" or not. However, I am seriously concerned that there can be such a long discussion here, apparently without anyone checking whether the entry satisfies the list's inclusion criteria in the first place: "The list [...] is a collection of the most popular unproven theories related but not limited to [...]. They did not have any link to the actual incidents. Some theories are meant to cover up the accusers' own schemes, such as Holocaust denial. Most of them are imaginary works of some people." Do we have any reason to believe the inclusion criteria are satisfied here, or is the entry merely included on the grounds that nobody knows whether it's a conspiracy theory in this sensen or not?Hans Adler 11:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * That is an incomplete description. Conspiracy theories cannot be proved because they are not subject to the same rules of logic as mainstream speculation.  They are to history what pseudo-science is to science what Christopher Hitchens called "the exhaust fumes of democracy".  TFD (talk) 17:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Meera Nanda


Notapanel is repeatedly inserting attacking NPOV statements accusing the subject of so-called "anti-Hinduism" in this article. See the diffs here and here. Haigee2007 (talk) 06:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Without commmenting on the merits of the use of the term "Anti-Hinduism", it seems that the other involved editor had provided a source for the characterization, and that the subject is well-known as a critic of Hindu nationalism. I recommend that you discuss the wording and the acceptability of the source on the article's talk page, rather than edit warring about the wording. Cullen328 (talk) 07:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Possible BLP issues on David Thorne (writer) talk page
This relates to a section and comment created on Talk:David Thorne (writer) by which was removed by Talination, who didn't leave an edit summary but left " == Opinion based statements removed. == ". The comments were restored by Zarel, which I then removed on the grounds of WP:BLP (As I felt and still feel that it fails WP:GRAPEVINE/WP:BLPGOSSIP, since the first link in Sam Hocevar's comment is a social forum and the other is a web blog, none of which are closely reliable. Sam Hocevar's comment had no place, the article and talk page has had BLP issues in the past) and the talk page header which states "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous" but it has since been restored by Angr. Bidgee (talk) 13:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem particularly bad, or worth removing. It was raised that there is a theory that the work is creative rather than actual things that happen to him. If all that exists are unreliable sources/speculation then editorially that is a no go. But it doesn't seem a BLP violation to the point of removing the discussion. Just let them archive. --Errant (chat!) 13:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've got an issue with this too. I've had a debate with another user (see talk User_talk:Skomorokh) about the extent to which we can use Thorne's own claims as reference material.  If we can't report that he has been arrested as he claimed in one story(because no-one independently verified it), then surely we shouldn't be reporting as canon everything else he writes?  Furthermore, if as he states, the email articles are verbatim, then it turns out that User_talk:Simon_Dempsey  has lied through his teeth continually about his relationship with the subject (see discussion at the top of Thorne's talk page). Thedarxide (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:BLPTALK states "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices, should be removed, deleted, or oversighted as appropriate." The discussion that was removed and restored is directly related to making content choices.
 * Currently, the discussion is there, but the links are still removed. I believe the links should be restored because they are also directly relevant to making content choices. Having viewed the links in question, I personally do not think their viewpoint is substantiated enough to be included in the article, but that doesn't mean they should be deleted even from the talk page. --<span style="color:#264aa3;font-family:Georgia,serif">Zarel (talk&sdot;c) 22:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Timexx Nasty
In addition to a lack of inline citation, this article does not appear to meet the standards of notability for living persons, including criteria established for musicians and entertainers. Furthermore, what sources do exist for this biography appear to be self-published or trivial. TheMightyGrecian (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * - WP:PRODDED - the creators talkpage reveals similar creations and deletions User_talk:Drivinrain - Off2riorob (talk) 17:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Marshal Yanda
Just um....check out the article. Someone has a beef with him/his sister. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.23.17 (talk) 21:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Vandalism reverted, article watchlisted, defamatory unregistered vandal given an only warning. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Brian Keene
I tried to find where Brian Keene is noted by the NY Times, History Channel and Howard Stern, as article claims but couldn't find it. However I did find the exact same profile information on his Facebook profile, though. Not sure if he even meets notability, but perhaps I am missing something here. Most of his books are out of print although he did win awards at one time. The page suggests WP:PEACOCK to me. I'm open to any feedback.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 15:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I would tend to agree with you - he does have five articles about his books on this wikipedia. I would say, as with other authors - he has a few notable books but as for writing a cited life story - his private life is pretty private, with little reliable coverage. Content in the article is uncontroversial - advice - trim some of the uncited fluff and add it to your watchlist Off2riorob (talk) 15:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have taken your advice and trimmed some, but not all of the fluff there. Note, many of these issues stem from Bloodletting Press, an independent publisher with an article on WP that violates WP:SPAM and WP:PROMO.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 14:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

BLP issue with self published Anti-Scientology material accusing Living person of criminal acts in Article
is one my watchlist File:Speaking Out About Organized Scientology.pdf was inserted this morning by an editor in good faith. This media file is WP:SPS that makes a number of serious allegations of criminal acts against living person David Miscavige and several other officials in the Church of Scientology. This strike me as essentially backdoor way to insert way to insert libelous material without the scrutiny that would be rendered if the accusations would be inserted directly into the article itself. I frankly can't find any rule against it in our BLP policy though I am sure it break the spirt of the policy. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 12:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Given that the author, Brennan, isn't mentioned in the article, it looks questionable. I'd remove it as lacking any context, and ask anyone wishing to reinsert to explain why they think it is valid. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not aware of this case being explicitly addressed in any policy, but even though it is presented to the user as an image, for all intents and purposes it is an external link. Per WP:BLP and WP:EL it would be unacceptable as an external link. I am not sure how this file could ever be used on Wikipedia, which makes me wonder why it continues to be hosted on Commons. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My thought as well, I have checked commons and they have no policy against it. Similiar items have been up for deletion but are kept with the rationale that its educational. Commons has no concern over BLP issues it as long at is Free and can be educational. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 17:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Caylee Anthony homicide
Can someone take a look at this - 1) It's full of unsourced statements about BLPs and their possible guilt and 2) It has a bio hidden in the article to get around the usual guidance on how articles about such matters such be written. --87.194.194.250 (talk) 14:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Keith Raniere: a challenge
This article is kind of a mess, and currently an edit war is going on. The subject is a somewhat controversial figure (see this article by Forbes), but the content doesn't reflect that. I've trimmed some of the more blatant promotional stuff (and NXIVM probably needs a going-over as well) and have issued 3rr warnings to the edit-warriors; one of them just crossed the line. I hope some of you will give the article the attention it needs--there are those of you frequenting this board who are much more capable than I am of writing a balanced and neutral article. I suspect there are COI issues as well, but that's just a hunch at this moment. Your help is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Qur'an and science
Regarding a removal of content on Qur'an and Science, relating to Dr. Keith Moore's testimony of the accuracy of the Qur'an in Human Embryo development, considering it against WP:BLP and referring to an old discussion on his article too. The previous dispute was majorly based on the following:
 * Moore's academic textbook with Islamic Editions is not in his CV/Resume'
 * His 3rd academic textbook, with Islamic additions, was basically adding Qur'anic versus wherever it applies. I assume that his main problem was that the Arabic editor who helped him with the Arabic text, Al Zindani, was later considered a terrorist and started to work with Al-Qaida. I'm the first person that would remove something like that from my CV. So, if it was manipulating his name, it would of been easier to just announce that it's false. Especially as it's talked about him in all around the internet.


 * His Islamic version text-book is bias and is only used in certain countries
 * Where are the countries that can speak Arabic to read Qur'anic versus in Arabic? The middle-east! I've also seen many comments from Arabic Anatomy students on bookstores saying that his book is required by their University.

I've seen in other articles the usage of YouTube videos to take direct quotes of living personnel, so is this link considered acceptable, too? I won't reference details about the second terrorist editor, but just wanted to write a direct quote from Moore, if possible.

Thanks for our help, as this subject have been in debates fro years... getting added and removed over and over again.   ~ AdvertAdam   talk  08:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment about the youtube external. IMO that would not be a reliable external and the uploader does not appear to be officially connected to the video and copyright status of the medias clip is unverifiable. We also would be unsure if the clip was complete or had been edited from the original in some way. Off2riorob (talk) 10:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * We shouldn't make assumptions about why he does what. What the talk page discussion says is " The 3rd edition of his book The Developing Human contains changes by a Muslim, who removed all scientific pages which go against creation by a god and inserted religious texts from the Koran as well as excerpts from the Sayings of Muhammad, the Hadith." and points out that subsequent editions of the book do not contain those changes.
 * We have no proof that he wrote those passages and given the circumstances should not assume that he did. So it is clearly a BLP violation to include them. Dougweller (talk) 11:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What you're describing is all considered assumptions, also. I think that an admin shouldn't be repeating a comment made by a new user, especially that he didn't bring any sources and only has 6 edits, total. The comment you're referring to was basically ignored because it was made 4 months ago on a 3-year-old discussion!
 * I think it's the publisher's duty to verify if Moore was involved in the textbook, not you nor me. The comment is full of biasness, as I've read the book myself and it's used as an academic textbook in Islamic states. It's not Wikipedia's problem if the Arab media is weak. Whatever is there is there. The 3rd edition with Islamic additions is the exact 3rd edition in the west, except for adding the versus. One edition was for the west and another was for the Middle-East, which are both used till now. There were no additional Islamic versions because the Arabic co-editor was kicked out of the Arab nation after his involvement with terror organizations. Do you have any sources for disputing Moore's textbook?     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  06:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've seen other videos for living persons used the same way. If Moore's textbook mentions his involvement in Islamic connections, can I use the main source of the full video (considering that I completed the copyright rules) as a direct quote.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  06:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you owned the copyright or could find the video in a location that asserted ownership of the copyright then you are over the first hurdle, there may be other issues such as WP:PRIMARY - if he is only commenting about himself and his views related to himself them there is a chance that you could use a small quote but I would have to look at it and get a couple of other opinions to be sure. Off2riorob (talk) 10:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * . I think I'm gonna postponed the videos. I have all the contact and stuff, but I have a lack of timing because of two bias editors that are wasting all my time in endless discussion. Thanks for the tips and I will work on it, sometime soon.      ~ AdvertAdam   talk  07:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Is the dispute--that mentioning Moore's acknowledgment of the accuracy of the Qur'an in Embryology--accurate, stating that it might violate BLP policy? I was just writing what the following citations said! I don't think that the sources are unreliable, just because the publishers have no market here in the west. I've used these sources in my university before, also.
 * His own anatomy textbook: Moore, Keith. The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology With Islamic Additions. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Dar al-Qiblah for Islamic Literature, in conjunction with W. B. Saunders Company, 1983. (ISBN 0721664925)
 * His statement in an article: The Journal of the Islamic Medical Association. Vol. 18. 1986. p. 15-16.
 * Another author who mentions Moore's acknowledgement: Edis, Taner. An illusion of harmony: science and religion in Islam. Prometheus Books, 2007. Original from the University of Michigan. p. 96 (ISBN 1591024498)
 * He also mentions that he gave lectures in Saudi Arabia here, also. Just an answer for the disputers that said that he never went there.

Btw, do I need to use all sources to stop further disputes, or do I just link my edit summary to this noticeboard. I've already got editors' approval when I added it months ago, but it was deleted this week again. Thank you all     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  07:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

David M. Halperin
continues to add plagiarism accusations based on a single self-published source. User has been warned several times. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look. Thanks for raising it. --Dweller (talk) 12:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Bobby Petrino
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bobby_Petrino&action=historysubmit&diff=430565844&oldid=430378931

This user has been warned for vandalism several times since 2009, all over this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tag01 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I've just removed the entirety of that disputed and badly sourced paragraph about a living person. It seems to refer to a blog post that in turn refers to Wikipedia citing that blog post. I imagine that won't be the last of it, so I suggest you and others should watchlist the article too... and I also suggest that you raise, here or at the article's talk page, any other parts of the article that you feel are unreasonable, unbalanced, and/or not cited to reliable sources. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not the paragraph I was disputing, it was the fact that it's even in dispute. The paragraph refers to a radio interview given that was transcribed to a blog. Nowhere has anyone disputed the account other than in the head of the guy that keeps vandalizing the page? tag01 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tag01 (talk • contribs) 10:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't use blog posts as sources for controversial content about living persons, especially not blog posts that say things like "To those who have found your way here from Wikipedia’s entry on Bobby Petrino…Welcome!"


 * If the interview is discussed by reliable secondary sources then it might be suitable for mentioning in the article. Can you point us to any such discussion? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, and I've left "Zeke" a little note on his talk page about his slightly tendentious edits to this article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Brian Kingman
I am the youngest grandchild of Ed and Nellie Kingman. I was born January of 1954. Brian Kingman is my cousin and was not born in 1954. He was born in 1953. G1027565 (talk) 03:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by G1027565 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * A secondary source agrees with the 1954 date: Baseball-Reference.com. —C.Fred (talk) 03:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

A second source, John Anthony Kingman, Brian Kingman's brother, agrees with the 1953 date. User wikipedia user Pragmaticist. G1027565 (talk) 12:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Subject's brother, if he can be verified as such, is a primary source.
 * An additional secondary source is Kingman's rookie card, which shows a 1954 birthdate. —C.Fred (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)