Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive137

Ed Fagan
Seems a pretty explosive biography :) I've started tweaking a few bits but it looks like it needs a deep clean. All help appreciated - notably his disbarment & work with Holocaust victims & the recent sex allegations. --Errant (chat!) 11:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Amanda Knox (sexual harassment)
Amanda Knox has made claims that she was sexually harassed in prison (by an unnamed administrator and an unnamed guard). This news has been reported by CBS news, the IBT and numerous other sources. The information was deleted on the grounds that it was a WP:BLPSPS situation. This doesn't seem to apply as the reports have been picked up by numerous, reliable secondary sources. The person who deleted the information seemed to indicate that this does apply as CBS was merely reporting what Knox and her sister had said in letters/interviews. But doesn't every claim of this sort start with the accuser? I have no problem attributing the statement to Knox (as it must be), but seeing as this is being reported by reliable secondary sources, it doesn't seem to be a WP:BLPSPS issue to me.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/10/07/earlyshow/main20117116.shtml http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/227474/20111008/amanda-knox-i-m-a-victim-of-sexual-harassment-in-italian-prison-official-murder-roommate-four-years.htm http://global.christianpost.com/news/amanda-knox-was-called-a-whore-told-she-had-hiv-in-prison-57830/ http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-10-07/news/30277497_1_curt-knox-amanda-knox-high-ranking-official http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2011/10/07/knox-i-was-sexually-harassed-in-jail.html http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/national_world&id=8385323 http://www.news.com.au/world/amanda-knox-alleges-harassment-in-italian-jail/story-e6frfkyi-1226161910741

Above are some sources reporting on the issue.LedRush (talk) 13:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The accusations are also supported by Nina Burleigh's book on Knox (pp. 284–285)LedRush (talk) 22:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Occidental Petroleum
There is a disagreement about the degree to which the alleged behavior of Ray R. Irani belongs on the Occidental Petroleum article. I was asked by another user for my opinion, gave it, and edited the article. It seems another user is unwilling to accept this and I thought it would be useful to have some more views. --John (talk) 19:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you and User:CBuiltother that the material does not belong in the Occi article. I've removed it and commented on the Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hosni Mubarak
It says in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict section that Mubarak is "generally supportive of Israel". This is complete non-sense and false thoughts. Mubarak was a major success key in the October war. He actually was in war with Israel and they hate him. So how could he be a supporter of Israel and why would he? Also, he did support the Palestinian case widely and we can see that but the Palestinians want everything and he can't give them everything. He did what he could, He is no supporter of Israel!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.234.167.56 (talk) 17:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed the first sentence as unsourced. Actually, much of that paragraph is poorly sourced (at least inline), but I've left it, at least for the moment.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Marcia Falkender, Baroness Falkender
The article "Marcia Falkender, Baroness Falkender" has a long history of edits and counter-edits relating to allegations, some of which are well-known and some of which had led in the past to libel damages being paid by the BBC and others. Though many of the allegations have offline citations, it is not clear to me which (if any) of the deleted allegations in the edit war are substantiated facts, which should be retained; and which (if any) are unsubstantiated defamation, which should be deleted. Can someone help? — Richardguk (talk) 03:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * More edits today, with edit summaries alleging libel. This needs attention from an experienced editor and perhaps edit-protecting. — Richardguk (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Richard Rohr article
I will appreciate other editors and administrators having a look at the dispute I am having with another editor about the Richard Rohr article. The article is currently being edited by an apparently conservative Roman Catholic editor in order to depict Rohr in a particularly negative way. This editor's apparent personal agenda in this regard seems obvious from the highly POV comments made on the article's discussion page. Thanks Anglicanus (talk) 08:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Nastia Liukin
User Illyukhina has changed the last name in the article Nastia Liukin in one place leaving it unchanged in another places, see diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nastia_Liukin&diff=prev&oldid=456794456

The list of contributions of User Illyukhina Illyukhina (talk • contribs shows consistent vandalism in mass editing of Biographies of living persons on Wikipedia without providing an edit summary and blanking Illyukhina user talk from all warning and communication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voyad M (talk • contribs) 13:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC) Voyad M (talk) 13:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The article also suffers from fan POV and needs a complete review and editing to remove fan POV. I edited the lead today, but there is much more to be done.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 16:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leander_Kahney
This article seems to be the subject of repeated vandalism where someone is adding the phrase " and a pathetic failure" to the first paragraph of the subject's descriptive bio.

Not sure why. Subjectively he does not appear to be a "pathetic failure" so at best it's inaccurate and at worst it's insulting. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.168.199.121 (talk) 15:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for correcting that. -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 16:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

William Heirens
In reference #34, an article from The Reader is sourced. In that article they have the correct spelling of State's Attorney William Tuohy's name, however it is spelled Touhy on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.124.162.111 (talk) 15:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, corrected. You can also feel free to correct spelling errors yourself, by clicking the "edit this page" link at the top of the article. --GRuban (talk) 15:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Lizzie Phelan
This has a risk of being forum shopping on my part, but I see significant problems with the Lizzie Phelan article. It is currently up for AFD, with a lot of debate about her notability. None of the information in the article is negative - mainly because the article really isn't about her, she is being used as a soapbox for politics. I think the bulk of the sources are not reliable, but that is just my opinion. Looking to get more eyes on the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Caswell Berry
This page is about myself, and my partner is Veronica but people keep tampering with the page, and at times writing negative stuff. It just seems childish and i don't want certain things associated with my name. I dont know how to provide proof, if there is anything you can do to help it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hailsatan666 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The article has just been semi-protected, which means that, for the time being, neither you, nor the person who claims that Berry is about to get married to someone called Elena, will be able to edit the article. Instead, I suggest that you go to the talk page of the article - Talk:Caswell Berry - and mention if there are any reliable independent sources (for example, a skateboarding magazine) that mention Veronica. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, there currently appear to be at least two Wikipedia accounts claiming to be Caswell Berry. If both of them or all of them are you, please stick with just one single account to edit from.


 * Secondly, if you wish to confirm officially that you are really you, you will need to email the address at the end of Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject); the people at that email address will be able to explain the process for doing so. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Amazon Eve
KCRos rvt vandalism, you're on notice. Unverifiable sources, Removed unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CSIcorrection (talk • contribs) 22:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Very strange article. Even with the controversial unsourced information removed and as brief as the article is, it is poorly sourced, mostly self-published sources.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Aleksandra Melnichenko
It is stated that Ms. Aleksandra Melnichenko has worked as a escort and prostitute! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.137.123.147 (talk) 06:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for letting us know about this. The disputed statement is not supported by a reference to an independent reliable source, so I've removed it. For unsourced controversial statements about living people like this, you can often remove them yourself just by editing the page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Bruce Cockburn
Did I do the correct thing in reverting these two edits? No WP:RS, but the editor is the one making the claim that there was a charge of a hate crime. Also, would someone please look at User:Cazedessus's edits in relation to this issue? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Caz is under the continuing and unshakable impression that Wikipedia is the place where he can change the world. He pushes his books and his qualifications, and promotes a museum he is affiliated with. These two themes of his WP involvement violate WP:NOR and WP:COI. Of course, COI is basically a neutral point of view problem, and Caz is anything but neutral. Time for an RfC? Binksternet (talk) 23:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Just so everyone is on the same page, the editor in question is the real-life person Camille Cazedessus, Jr., known familiarly as "Caz". Now you know. Binksternet (talk) 23:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Would appreciate clarification if my action was or was not appropriate. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your reversion was absolutely correct - it wasn't even a close call. The material added by User:Cazedessus was a BLP violation, unreliably sourced, poorly worded, improperly formatted, a clear conflict of interest, and promotional. I've posted a warning on his Talk page, and I'm trying to decide what to do about the rest of his Talk page, which is a walking BLP violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've started a section about the editor issue on WP:ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Cedric Martinez
Your input is appreciated on the content and recent history of this article. I've been removing, and another editor keeps re-adding, the kind of content that in my opinion our BLP policy forbids--gossip based on non-notable websites and other publications. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, but it's hard not to be gossipy in this kind of article (which is almost duplicated in his section in the TV show article). Is he really sufficiently notable for his own article?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed text about the details of the plot of the show. The article is a bio, not a synopsis of a reality TV show. This person has a career as a model, actor etc. The details of his career and early life belong in this article but not events that took place as part of a reality TV show.-- — Keithbob •  Talk  • 15:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Sargon Dadesho
This article has been mentioned here before for being allegedly defamatory and poorly sourced, and for making a number of claims that are difficult to culturally evaluate. There have also been previous attempts to delete the article for notability, and for being an attack page.

This morning, two new accounts, User:Ceepar and User:Dyonan209, were created within minutes of each other, and then both immediately proceeded to edit the article, inserting and then taking out (mostly) very similar material.

An initial question from me on Ceepar's talk page hasn't yet produced any response.

It's possible that these two accounts were merely adding some friendly slogans and nicknames and other material, partly in a non-English language, and then changed their minds and removed most of it. However, in the past, such additions of "nicknames" have often turned out to be derogatory, and I'm wondering if there might be an intention to get negative unsourced material into the edit history of the article. (The point being that, by adding then removing material in rapid succession early in the morning, no-one other than Google will ever notice.)

Google translate isn't helping me work out what the non-English parts of it mean - from the subject's origins, it might be in Arabic or it might be in Syraic (a form of Aramaic). I'd welcome input on whether the material is derogatory, or thoughts on what to do next. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Tariq Alhomayed
The page is being edited to by user: A.El-Dakhakhni who is Tariq Al-Homayed's personal assistant. He is removing key facts of Alhomayed's bio to make the profile appear more postive.

Everything posted on the page in the achievements and/or controversies section has been verified and is backed by supporting references, these include BBC, the Jewish Chronicle, Fox News and even Arab News, a sister publication of the newspaper Alhomayed is editor of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandalairo2010 (talk • contribs) 13:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It is generally not a good idea to have criticism sections (or for that matter praise sections), as they can lead to undue weight and neutrality problems. Just because something is sourced doesn't mean it should necessarily be included. I think the whole criticism section is problematic, particularly the headings, and the content does not seem to match what is in the sources quoted (e.g. "Alhomayed is widely criticised" is not backed up by the source). Polequant (talk) 14:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Elbegdorj
The page on Tsakhiagiin Elbegdorj, president of Mongolia contains false information. In the early life section, it claims that he went to Harvard University, which is completely false. The link to the claim does not exist. Please fix this as other people might be mislead by this false information. Thank you
 * It's reliably sourced by the second ref (first is dead). Do you have a source that says something else?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Lisa Marie Presley
A single purpose account (sockpuppet?) keeps re-adding material. I tried to improve the article a bit, but I currently don't have time for Wikipedia, so I'm just leaving a short note here. (Some of the article may be copy vio of for instance this ref, and some of the refs may not be acceptable.) Dugnad (talk) 03:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mickie_james Personel Life
There is False Info on the Wikipedia page of Mickie james and Brutus Magnus can you Please Remove it there has been nothing said about them Dating the article is Made up and Rumored  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickiefan2005 (talk • contribs) 07:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The information is sourced. I don't follow wresting so I don't know if the Wrestling Observer Newsletter is a reliable source but others have said it is reiable.  As has been explained before in your pursuit of this, you should discuss this on the talk page of the article.  You seem to be posting this anywhere you can in hopes that someone will remove it for you.  You should keep the conversation in one place and the best place is Talk:Mickie James.  GB fan 11:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Wrestling Observer is Not a Real Source other News people didn't Post it so its not True — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickiefan2005 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Skin (Rihanna song)
Can I get a second look at this? Someone's adding material on a controversial incident sourced to the Daily Mail, and they don't appear to understand BLP. Hut 8.5 09:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't have a strong opinion about whether the material should be in or out, but I'm not sure there is a BLP issue. The material looks like it complies with BLP because it is reliably sourced (the Mail is a reliable source for the views of its columnists). It falls under WP:BLP. There might be a question about how much coverage is allowed before it becomes disproportionate, but the idea that Rhianna's act is aimed at your dad more than your mum is probably not one held by a "tiny minority". --FormerIP (talk) 12:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Freeda Foreman
Article is insufficiently sourced, mostly promotional in content, may be a copyright violation, and appears to be written by coi accounts. We're getting into template deletion territory, so I'd appreciate more eyes on this. Thanks, 99.149.87.132 (talk) 01:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I started to edit the article, but I backed out my changes because of a tag from another editor who wants to be able to do some copy edits. I'll wait and see what it looks like afterwards. At first glance, she doesn't look notable - she was in a few fights a long time ago (have no idea how notable the events were), and that's it. I'm not sure if I will nominate it for deletion, though - sports bios are tricky, and I've been slammed before for nominating some. Doesn't seem like the threshold of notability is very high.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The quick responses are appreciated. And I concur with your assessment, re: both marginal notability and the low bar set for athletes' notability, complicated here by the fame of the subject's father. 99.149.87.132 (talk) 01:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Have a go, I trimmed it back, added a couple of references. My feeling is she probably reaches GNG, but it's a close call. One source I added is her father's book, please feel free to edit as necessary--I tried to keep it neutral, but just took a quick pass. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Methinks they're determined to use Wikipedia for their own ends .... 99.149.87.132 (talk) 01:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Martha Wilson
I am currently writing a page on Martha Wilson for my module of Applied and Interactive at the University of Hull, Scarborough Campus. As it falls under a biography of a living person, i would like to get feedback on the page and what changes i can make to ensure it falls within the guidelines of the wiki community.

If you would like to discuss this page, please feel free to write in my talk box on my user page. --Mr.D.J.Brown (talk) 13:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If no one gives you any feedback (or you want more), add new unreviewed article to the top of the page.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've welcomed the two primary authors of this article and made some suggestions. It seems to be a college class assignment.  As I've taken a closer look, I've seen evidence of copyright issues.  Other experienced eyes on the article would be appreciated, as my Wikipedia time is limited today.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  16:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Cullen (I think :-) ). I started removing multiple pieces for copyright vios, but it became quickly apparent that potentially all of the text is plagiarized. So, I removed all text (sentences, paragraphs, but not lists) from the article. It's too tedious to go through each section, and there was too much evidence that the article can't remain as written.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Bbb23. I agree with what you've done, and the students will have to rebuild the article in full accordance with our policies.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  18:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Travis McHenry
Hi, I am Travis McHenry, and the article on me is very poorly written and is full of factual errors. If the author did an extra ten minutes of research, he could have found my proper ancestry and place of birth. Frankly, I haven't done anything worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, so the entire article might just as well be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.82.160 (talk) 00:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've gutted the article as it was poorly sourced in its entirety. Not sure whether I will nominate it for deletion at this point. If I do, I will take into account your wishes (assuming you are indeed McHenry).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Creator of article has now redirected the article (based on my having "destroyed" it - heh). Not sure if that was the "right" thing to do, but it doesn't bother me, so I'm not about to object to it.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/J. Hutton Pulitzer and CueCat
We have a new account User:Ran kurosawa who seems to be engaging in a campaign to rehabilitate J. Hutton Pulitzer, the man behind the CueCat. As far as the latter is concerned, I've reverted a huge whitewash of the fact that the CueCat scheme is routinely included in all sorts of "worst" lists having to do with computer accessories, marketing, dot coms, you name it; google "cuecat worst" if you want to see. We now have an article on this guy bottled up in WP:AFC, and it poses the same problems. Just for starters, it fails to mention that he changed his name (originally he was J. Jovan Philyaw) after the CueCat debacle. It's possible he has some notability independent of this failure, but outside of his own promotional material I haven't found anything that wasn't overwhelmingly negative. I can't see letting this article be created as it stands, but I was looking for some other input. Mangoe (talk) 03:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Your argument sounds reasonable. The biography should not be recreated. Binksternet (talk) 15:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: I've just had to revert the CueCat article again. Black Kite (t)   17:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * And we now have a new account, User:Factiod, editing CueCat. After I deleted WP:OR from the article, Factoid posted a note on my talk page, claiming to be 'a patent prosecutor' and telling me to 'cease and desist': User_talk:AndyTheGrump. Factiod has gone on to revert the article again... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Easy answer to WP:NLT is a block. Binksternet (talk) 17:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and I've reverted Factoid's latest changes. Horrible "rewrite".--Bbb23 (talk) 17:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Jimmy Savile
Jimmy Savile - a very famous English DJ and TV-star - recently died, and it's all over the UK news. Consequently, the article is getting some silly vandalism; hopefully it won't need protecting - there's good edits too, updating the article - but, it would be helpful if more people could monitor it. Thanks,  Chzz  ► 14:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Marco Rubio
has now thrice removed the word "exiles" from a summary of the statements Rubio makes about his own parents. As the text makes clear, Rubio has made this statement numerous times, and a sufficient source in this regard is his own autobiography. There are then puzzling talk page statements implying that the Washington Post does not meet WP:RS. I invite other views as to whether it is appropriate to include the word "exiles" in relation to what Rubio himself has said about his parents. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * User:Nomoskedasticity edit warring to preserve wording indicating that a controversial assertion about Marco Rubio is endorsed by Wikipedia rather than careful phrasing of the type recommended at wp:NPOV. - diff, diff. Talk page discussion: Talk:Marco Rubio.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 19:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've reworded the material to conform to the one source (Washington Post). Hopefully, it will satisfy both of you. But then again maybe not.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks okay to me -- except that the first sentence in that paragraph is no longer grammatically correct -- after "son of exiles" another verb is needed, e.g. "asserts". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks great, Bbb23 - thx.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 19:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Great. Nomosk, I agree with your comment about the grammar and have reworded it.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Part of the material, however, does appear to be the opinion of the WaPo - which likely should be reworded extensively. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a news story, not an op-ed. It has an analysis -- as all news stories do.  But it is not an opinion piece.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Analysis" = "opinion".  If something is an opinion, it properly should be so referred to.  Many "news articles" do, in fact, have opinions therein.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty defective understanding. There is no "fact" without analysis in news stories, and there is quite a bit of distance between analysis and opinion.  The main point to note in relation to the piece in question is that it is not an op-ed.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with Nomosk. The Washington Post article is essentially a piece of investigative reporting that draws conclusions from the investigation. Those conclusions could be called "opinions" or they could be called "interpretations", but that's somewhat true of all journalism. Even at its most "factual", a journalist is interpreting events. At the same time, I'm sympathetic to Collect's point because journalism is not black and white but more of a spectrum going from one end (opinion) to the other end (fact). This particular article lies somewhere in between, but I don't see why it can't be used as a reliable source. For example, I put the word "embellishments" in quotes because it struck me that it's a somewhat POV term used by the Post, and I thought it better to distance Wikipedia from the word. That, plus the "according to the Washington Post" seems to me to be sufficiently clear to support the material in the Wikipedia article.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I said "reworded" and not "deleted" - the material is also then properly subject to balancing articles, to be sure. Collect (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

tyler walker(nascar)
there was a revision of the biography made on oct. 1, 2011 that is unproven and probably libelous to mr. walker. it has never been stated by mr. keen why he released mr. walker from the car. mr. walker's press release stated that he left the ride due to medical issues related to a type of dizziness that he felt made him unsafe to race at the knoxville, ia. nationals,the biggest sprint car race in the world. there are multiple sources for both press releases such as, www.hoseheads.com, www.ibracin.com, www.mrn.com as well as others. unfortunatly, the fans of this type of motor racing are prone to to making such statements about those they do not know but may not like or have an "axe to grind" with them. i have been involved with this sport for 30 years and it has devolved to the point that i am getting out and away from it because it's sunk to the level of hooliganism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.112.151.42 (talk) 23:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have removed the statement as unsourced. The entire article is pretty thinly sourced, but I don't care enough about the subject to do anything about it. Buddy431 (talk) 23:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * There were additional unsourced BLP violations, and I've removed them. The article is now a shorter mess.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Olivia Wilde
I was looking at the entry for Olivia Wilde yesterday. I noticed that she was listed as an American actress despite having both American and Irish nationality from birth. In accordance with MOS:BIO I amended her opening paragraph to reflect the fact that she holds two nationalities rather than one. Another editor disagrees with me so rather than engaging in an edit war he suggested I raise my point here.

My point is that MOS:BIO states that the nationality listed in a biography should be that held when the subject became notable. As Olivia Wilde held both US and Irish citizenship from birth she should be listed as an Irish and American actress rather than an American actress. Irish-American doesn't fit as that is for Americans who have Irish heritage. Wilde isn't an American with Irish heritage but a national of both countries. Sue De Nimes (talk) 10:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In my view, WP:OPENPARA is poorly drafted in this regard. I usually apply it the way the other editor did, meaning you put in the country adjective of where the person became notable. Not everyone agrees with me, though, and sometimes I find myself compromising and not including "nationality" in the lead, which bothers other editors because it's against the style guideline. Let's take a hypothetical: An actor is born in France. He is a French citizen. He moves to the U.S. when he is 2 days old. He remains in the U.S. as a permanent resident but never changes his citizenship. In my view, he's an American actor, not a French actor. He never did anything in France except being born. Yet, if one follows the precise wording of the guideline ("or was a citizen when the person became notable"), when he became notable, he was a French citizen. Pretty silly.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I think if your French born actor had two French parents and identified as French then it would be eminently sensible to describe them as French. If we talk in hypotheticals let us imagine an actor who was born and raised in France to French parents and lived there until they were 40. At this age they move to America and become an actor, establishing a notable career. Now this person is only notable for work they have performed in America but I don't think any of us would classify them as an American Actor? The wiki guidelines are quite clear on this and if we start ignoring them then it opens us up to more squabbles Sue De Nimes (talk) 09:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Brandon Johnson
Someone on Brandon Johnson's (NFL) facebook wiki page has listed an incorrect alternate name for him as well as the name of his daughter and daughters nickname. Please remove this information immediately as the family never wants the name or image of his daughter released for safety and privacy reasons. If you can trace who listed these names please block them from making future post as they are maliciously reporting false information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.6.43 (talk) 06:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the report. I see you have reverted the edit. May I suggest using an edit summary that does not generate excitement (also, anyone can claim to be a relation, so it is not helpful). If a vandal abuses an article (as was done in this case), they would receive maximum stimulation from such a response. An edit summary like "not correct" is best for a situation like that. I am watching the article and am likely to revert any repeated bad edits, particularly if by . Johnuniq (talk) 07:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the report. I see you have reverted the edit. May I suggest using an edit summary that does not generate excitement (also, anyone can claim to be a relation, so it is not helpful). If a vandal abuses an article (as was done in this case), they would receive maximum stimulation from such a response. An edit summary like "not correct" is best for a situation like that. I am watching the article and am likely to revert any repeated bad edits, particularly if by . Johnuniq (talk) 07:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I see that every edit by has been vandalism, and they are at maximum warning level, so I am not going to look silly by posting another warning. Would an admin please block the user as WP:VOA. Johnuniq (talk) 07:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Babyjoker95 has been blocked. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Dorothy Reitman
The information provided in this biography appears to be intentionally designed to enhance this person's public persona over and above what it actually is.

This Wiki appears to contain unsubstantiated information which may be false or misleading:


 * 1) According to the Match International Facebook page there were only two founding members of the Match International Center. Dorothy Reitman was not one of them
 * 2) Dorothy Reitman does not appear to have been a McGill University graduate. If she didn't graduate, her "education" there is quite irrelevant to anyone other than a prospective employer and misleading


 * 1) She is not mentioned in the online history of the Canadian Unity Council as a founding member

Proper citations need to be provided to substantiate the claims made in this Wiki or those claims need to be removed/clarified.

Essentially Ms. Reitman, was a fund-raising volunteer for the most part.

The Order of Canada was granted to her under the category of volunteerism.

Tobeme free (talk) 11:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've reworded the Order of Canada to conform better to the source, although there's no "category" for the Order that I see. I've removed the Match Int'l claim (even though it's sourced) after looking at their website (not the Facebook page). I suppose it's possible to be a "founding member" without being a founder, but it's misleading. You'll have to provide a source for the Unity Council issue. Nothing wrong with saying she was educated at McGill, even if she didn't graduate. It's not irrelevant.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

brent david fraser
this article allows sources from imdb but will not accept the complete filmography from imdb. it is unjust, inaccurate and incomplete to include imdb sourced info, but not all imdb sourced info. whomever administrates this page should be fully accurate and give all info in this, if he/she is going to contribute any info at all.

thank you,

brent david fraser

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brentdavidfraser (talk • contribs) 19:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * First, you shouldn't be editing your own article, and you've been advised of that fact (and reverted). Second, IMDb is not cited inline - it's only in the external links. But because there are no other sources, it's assumed that IMDb is the only source, which is precisely what the tag currently on the article says. If you believe that implicitly sourcing your works to IMDb is "unjust" without being permitted to cite IMDb for other purposes, fine, I'll remove all of the data from your article until there are reliable, secondary sources. As it is, I intend to remove all of the works for which Wikipedia does not have already have an article as unsourced. I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but, as a Wikipedia editor, you must abide by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Joe Morris (film maker)
The article is about me and I want it taken down. It's completely redundant and embarrassing and I would like it to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.38.38 (talk) 22:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please look at WP:OTRS for instructions as to how best accomplish that feet. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure what he means by "redundant" - "embarrassing" I understand. I've shortened the article to conform to the few cited sources and removed the casual tone and copyright vios.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Davina Reichman
Sasha-go cited to his/her own work at FashionFuture.com.au. I reverted that addition, since I considered this to be a self-published source about a living person. Sasha-go replaced the information and simply asserted it's not self-published and that it was based on "research". I haven't brought this to the reliable source folks, however I'm not convinced the site is reliable or anything other than self-publication. See that author's profile at FashionFuture. I'd like not to approach WP:3RR or rely solely on the BLP exception. Could I get an opinion on whether this particular addition belongs in the BLP? Thanks! JFHJr (㊟) 23:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't rely on the BLP exemption because it's not derogatory information. However, I agree that the editor's own articles are not reliable sources. They also violate WP:ADV (even though that normally pertains to external links). I've reverted the editor.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks a bundle. JFHJr (㊟) 00:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

We now have more problems with another editor with a conflict. In addition to User:Sasha-go, who admits to writing the article for the WP:SPS that is being cited to, we have another brand-new editor, User:OliviaBlond, who restored all of what Sasha-go wanted claiming that the website is a reliable source. OliviaBlond says on her own user page: "I am Davina's concerned friend. My bête noire is when people dispute and disrupt notable articles." She created her user page on October 5, and her first article edits were to this article - and only this article - today to revert the material. Sasha-go also didn't start editing anything until today.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice, WP:SPA and WP:COI. It might be worth noting User:OliviaBlond is also IP-connected to User:Domenico.y, a particularly active editor with offline ties to the subject, through User:14.200.69.191 (talk - contribs). Here, Domenico owns the IP. Later, that IP gives an edit summary: "We would all appreciate it if you would find something else to do. and someone else to irritate ." Domenico was confronted with this once before, during an edit war he participated in, saying it was someone else on the same computer, someone connected to Davina Reichman. Domenico then offered User:OliviaBlond as the person in question.
 * Has anyone ever filed a report at WP:SPI? Of course, it's possible that some of these editors are meat puppets rather than sock puppets. These things can often be difficult to sort out.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There was one allegation regarding a different handle, with User:Domenico.y as the master. Nothing became of it. JFHJr (㊟) 02:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Walid Phares
Incorrect biographical information is being inserted into the profile with questionable references concerning Lebanese Civil War, militia, and related issues — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.12.23.184 (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Naming order of a Japanese person
Hi! I haven't gotten a lot of feedback on an issue brought up. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style on Japanese names states that Japanese people born after the first year of Meiji should have their names written in Western order (having the family name last) as per common practice in English language media: MOS-JA - In the Japanese language the names are written with the family name first. This concerns 木津 尚子 Kizu Naoko (User:Aphaia), a Wikipedia user quoted by a newspaper article and a journal article regarding the Japanese Wikipedia and the Logo of Wikipedia. "Kizu" (木津) is the family name, "Naoko" (尚子) is the given name. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * She has a strong preference for keeping her name in Japanese order (family name first), and feels offended when her name is written in Western order (family name last, like a Western name).
 * Compare the revisions With name in Western order and With name in Japanese order
 * One source (acknowledgement section of Andrew Lih's book) uses name in Western order. One newspaper article (Noam Cohen's article), one journal article (the Riehle article), and one newspaper using the Riehle journal as a source use name in Japanese order. For more information, please see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Japan-related_articles.
 * I would like to contact Noam Cohen, the author of that newspaper article, to get more clarifications on the issue; it is very unusual for an English language newspaper to use Japanese order with a Japanese person
 * The usual practice in English language media is to put the Japanese name in Western order. I wrote Japanese name by using several sources to explore the issue.
 * There are discussions on Commons about the same issue:
 * Commons:Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2011/07
 * Commons:User_talk:WhisperToMe
 * Commons:User_talk:WhisperToMe
 * Commons:User_talk:Sj
 * Commons:User_talk:Aphaia
 * Commons:User_talk:Aphaia

Occupy Wall Street
There are issues with this article in regards to policy and guidelines for Biographies of living persons where the use of authors, academics, celebrities and others are being used in such a way as to question the accuracy. The use of OR and synthesis of information is making claims that cannot be substantiated. Far too many for a single person to deal with on their own and too many disputes to sort through as the talk page has become a literal "War and Peace" of back and forth discussions that seem to go in circles. It seriously needs help in this regard.--Amadscientist (talk) 14:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * SPA .Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really, only recently has the editor been almost wholly involved with the Occupy article. However, it would be helpful if Amadscientist could be more specific about the BLP issues. After all, Occupy is a long (some might say bloated), volatile, and controversial article.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I started this account several years ago and have contributed to many political articles, history, theatre and more. Starting off by having to defend myself even slightly doesn't give me much confidence at the moment. I will take a small break, cool down and gather my thoughts and information to post later tonight. I am not impressed that the first post here was just an accusation against me as a single purpose account. I thank Bbb23 for pointing out that I only recently started work on the article, and while "almost wholly" involved is accurate, I am unaware that this is a problem. I tend to work on articles in this manner at times but have no single article that I am involved in to such a degree to be considered SPA. The Rocky Horror Picture Show is an article I have spent even more time on as well as Theatre of Pompey, Comitium and Meg Whitman. I apologize for the off topic discussion, but felt this had to be said at this point. I will return to give further detail as requested.--Amadscientist (talk) 15:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think you really needed to defend yourself (I never said your preoccupation with Occupation lately was a problem - heh). I did it for you, and Steven courteously struck his SPA comment. So, please move on to substance when you're ready.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I had to sleep and return to this afterwards.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And didn't get back to this today. Sorry. I will have to try again later tonight. Day sleeper at the moment.--Amadscientist (talk) 15:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately it has become nearly impossible to keep up with changes to this article and it may be innappropriate to bring this issue to the notice board at this time. (I'll accept the decision of editors) In order to fulfill the request for specifics the article simply has to slow down. I am afraid I can only give you my concerns for a few items as the page is constantly removing and adding information.


 * I see an issue to look at in regards to the talk page and suggestions about including information about journalists who have been fired for participating in the protest when they were also covering the subject. I think this must be handled with caution as we are talking about accusations about journalist integrity and ethics. To include or not include is not such an issue, it's how it's handles and I do fear the way other matters have been handles by a very few editors that make claims that are simply untrue and may even be promotional.


 * Celebrity section may not be something that is necessarily a BLP concern as, who is and isn't defined as such is a consensus thing, but we certainly could use some guidelines if I am missing anything or any standing general consensus that can be applied. I have no concern as to whether anyone is or is not to be considered such. How to determine notability of a personality as "Celebrity" status...as shallow as it sounds, I figured this would be the best place for this. Some celebrities may also have been given to much weight for the subject and from the references. This is exteremly daunting.


 * Connection to the cause for authors and academics. While this is also a NPOV discussion and subject, I am concerned that too much weight is being placed on individuals in ways that go against the guidelines of BLP. Such as synthesizing information to connect academics in ways that are simply not true or extrapolate far to much from references not making the claim at all. Lawrence Lessig is having a good deal of claims being made about him that I have researched out and seem very much unfounded and unusually promotional and seems to be an ongoing problem off and on by a single editor who has placed the information in several Wikipedia articles in regards to the figure.


 * Quotes, comments and bracketing what they have not said. This really needs to be looked at. While somethings may not be too bad The BLP may have reason to look into the way words may be put into the mouths of people being quoted on the page and in ways that may go against guidelines. How far should prose go in defining the meaning of what they are saying even with a reference? Attributing authors attempting to give opinion on others is something I am unclear on and seems to give undue weight to non-journalist blog posters and possible problems for us to use.

--Amadscientist (talk) 08:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Mohamed Al-Fayed
The BLP of Mohamed Al-Fayed appears to contravene two of Wikipedia's Pillars and the BLP policies - in particular it does not present information in a neutral and conservative way; and over half the information comes from a book that was described by the press as 'portraying Al Fayed as a 'vindictive, sexually- obsessed bully'. This BLP went from 1,700 words to over 9,000 in a day, after being rewritten by a single user. Please consider restoring it to the version of 11th July 2011 (before it was rewritten), allowing minor inaccuracies in the 11th July version to be amended, and the BLP protected from future vandalism. Latika1976 (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * After reading it, I have to agree with you. There is far to much content cited to a single apparently less than neutral book and there is also far to much unattributed content to Maureen Orth at her blog http://www.maureenorth.com/1995/09/holy-war-at-harrods-mohamed-al-fayed/ - the article in general now reads like an attack imho. I left the user that added the large expansion, User:Gareth E Kegg, a note to discuss here. - if someone else would have a good read of it and look at the expansion citations as another uninvolved opinion would be great. - there are over seventy content supporting citations to a single unofficial biography/investigative journalism/expose by Tom Bower - here is a snippet of and a link to a review of the book,"having condemned one man,Bower excoriates(def:to denounce or berate severely - flay verbally) the other. Mr Al Fayed is depicted as an impostor and an inveterate liar, a lecher with a record of sexual harassment, and a man who habitually listens to other people's telephone conversations." - Off2riorob (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There may well be a case for not relying too much on a single source. But it's a fallacy to describe a book as "less than neutral" in wikipedia terms.  NPOV says we should reflect the sources -- and so if the sources are predominantly negative then so too will be the BLP.  If the sources tell us a person is a lecher with a record of sexual harassment, then that's what the BLP here should say, as against some faux notion of balance between positive and negative.  On the other hand, for negative stuff like that, we would need more than one source to support the claims in question.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I suspect that a book titled "Fayed: The Unauthorized Biography" is apt to be regarded by most outside observers as being "less than neutral." I suspect "Fayed's Forgotten Years: The Conman, The Dictator and the CIA Files" ,ight also be regarded by independent observers as "less than neutral."  I suspect that " "Tragedy, fantasy and the REAL reason the Phoney Pharaohs sold Harrods for £1.5bn"  (written by the same author as the "unauthorized biography") might possibly be viewed by outsiders as "less than neutral." I suspect "The Attack on Sleaze: Mystery origins of brothers' paper fortune: James Cusick looks at the revelations of the DTI. investigation into the Fayed family's business affairs" might conceivably be viewed as a less than dispassionate source for a BLP.  In fact, a fairly large proportion of all the refs listed are from cites which I suspect many might view as "less than neutral."  Where such "less than neutral" sourced claims make up the bulk of a BLP, it is possible that people who believe in NPOV might look askance.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Possibly outsiders would use that term. If so, they would be using it in ways that do not plug in with NPOV, and so those views would be irrelevant to how we edit articles here.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The "sexually obsessed bully" quote that Latika1976 refers to is the header of an another article that portrays him as exactly that. The biography may read like an attack, but it consists of reliably sourced information. Fayed dropped legal cases against Bower and Orth over these articles. The fact that the biography is unofficial has no bearing on its veracity. The pre-exapansion biography featured a dearth of information on the subject. Bower and Orth are renowned for their authoritativeness and that is why I have relied upon them as sources. The review of Bowers book that Off2riorob refers to is actually extremely complimentary, describing the book as "a brilliant account of one man's appalling life...Until this moment, the colossally important figure of Al Fayed had remained strangely obscure, shrouded by his mad rants against the establishment, and protected from forensic investigation because of writers' and publishers' fear of libel. Now Mr Bower has triumphantly told the terrible truth about an awful man." This BLP is the only resource on the internet that publicly brings together the disparate threads of Fayeds life into a cohesive whole. The page has previously been whitewashed by editors apparently acting for the subject  and I am concerned that Latika1976 is a SPA  Gareth E Kegg (talk) 18:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You have created an attack imo. If you create attacks against living people users will come to remove your attack and then you call it whitewash and SPI, when actually it is your additions that are the problem - and you defend your expansion with the opinionated post above, what rubbish - Over sourcing to attacking opinions. Awful - your expansion of this BLP is reflective of the worst that wikipedia can be. Off2riorob (talk) 18:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Quote from the Guardian: ... has come to dominate the publishing niche that might be called "anti-hagiography": the unremitting, fiercely moralistic, paragraph-by-paragraph destruction of a reputation until nothing, not even a trace of the charm on which most of his subjects built their empires, remains. "...not really a journalist," is how one fellow investigative reporter puts it. "He's an assault weapon." Is this how we are now going to write BLP articles? Dr.K. λogosπraxis 05:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Look at the caliber of the writers that wrote those sources. They are all highly regarded. It may appear to be "an attack page", but I have accurately reflected what those reliable sources have written. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 18:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know much of anything about this biographical subject so I can't comment on that. But I have known Gareth E Kegg here for a number of years, and he's always been a very solid and fair editor.  I do not believe he would set out to write an "attack page" in violation of WP rules.  The fact that the article was greatly expanded in a day is irrelevant; I and other editors often prepare new or expanded articles in sandboxes or offline before publishing them when they are ready.  On the other hand, SPA accounts that suddenly pop up out of nowhere such as Latika1976 are highly suspicious and should generally be disregarded.  As a general point, I think WP bends over backwards so much in BLPs and the like that it can be difficult when and if the subject really is a nasty person.    Wasted Time R (talk) 01:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What could help is if things said in one RS are confirmed in others. It might help to look at news articles to check if multiple sources confirm that particular allegations have been made. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with those who recommend double- or multiple-sourcing anything especially contentious. That's a practice I've followed in many biographical articles.  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Quote from the article: Ingratiating himself in London's Arab expatriate community, Al-Fayed met an Iraqi businessman... Ingratiating? How encyclopaedic is this? And this is just a small sample of the innuendo in the article. I think this article demonstrates the deficiencies of the BLP policy and other WP policies. And all of this negative commentary is not even attributed to the single-source most of this stuff comes from making it appear as if it were universally accepted. I find this misleading for the reader and ultimately damaging to Wikipedia. Dr.K. λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 05:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Ingratiating" was my attempt to lift my drab prose from "Al-Fayed did this in X, Al-Fayed met X in X". Bowers biography is still the only book written on the subject, it was written initially with the consent of Al-Fayed. Over one hundred people were interviewed for the book, and it was thoroughly checked by lawyers, Al-Fayed never sued Bower for libel. How can I report the cases of sexual harassment? Should they be sourced to a reliable biography? Or struck out all together? We are aware that the subject has tried to massage this page before, and now a SPA (Latika1976) who claims to be writing a thesis on Al-Fayed wishes to expunge the page of ANY content that could be considered negative. That includes the citations from Vanity Fair, The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Evening Standard and The Times. If I go to a reliable source, and that source details negative information, then shouldn't that be reported? What is the article lacking? There is a philanthropy section, as well as detailing his rebuilding of Harrods, the Paris Ritz, his Scottish castle and the success of Fulham Football Club. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 10:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As for how you should report sexual allegations - start with the police charges and follow up with the criminal convictions. Off2riorob (talk) 16:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * - I suggest we revert it back to the pre-expansion version and with more eyes look to expand it a bit slower with consensus discussions and look for some additional citations and attribute a bit clearly what is opinion and what is presented as if fact. "it might look like an attack page but I just used the citations I found" - just doesn't cut it in a BLP. - we are requested to write a balanced article and report in a conservative manner. - Off2riorob (talk) 16:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree and add that picking the only biography currently available which has been strongly criticised in the press, and use it as the source of the most negative information in the article using unencyclopaedic characterisations and present them without direct attribution to this bio, as if it were a universally accepted fact, is not the way to write BLPs here or anywhere. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 17:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The biography has NOT been strongly criticized in the press. It has been praised as "a brilliant account of one man's appalling life...Until this moment, the colossally important figure of Al Fayed had remained strangely obscure, shrouded by his mad rants against the establishment, and protected from forensic investigation because of writers' and publishers' fear of libel. Now Mr Bower has triumphantly told the terrible truth about an awful man." I do not agree with the opinion of the final sentence, but the "protected from forensic investigation because of writers' and publishers' fear of libel" is precisely what we have succumbed to. My expansion was impeccably sourced. The article also contains much positive information. Do we have to wait till someone again interviews hundreds of people and carries out a world wide investigation like Bower has done for a second source to be accepted? Bowers biography was also the fruit of many interviews with Al-Fayed. was I am upset that a well sourced BLP has been reverted to a version full of citation needed tags, red links and lacking detailed information on the subject. We have failed to be BOLD. The sources can be trusted, let us use them as we find them. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 19:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ. the unremitting, fiercely moralistic, paragraph-by-paragraph destruction of a reputation until nothing, not even a trace of the charm on which most of his subjects built their empires, remains doesn't sound like praise to me. And comparing the writer to an assault weapon doesn't sound too promising for NPOV and using it as a source for BLP. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 21:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Lets work through it section by section. As per WP:BRD - your large expansion has been reverted and this is now the discussion stage. Lets start with the sexual assault charges and following criminal convictions. I am wondering, as a uninvolved Brit who doesn't get such issues but is there some Jewish attack Arab conflict of interest point of view here? Off2riorob (talk) 19:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I really don't understand your last comment. Are you saying that the reason I rewrote the article is because I am Jewish? Are Jews not allowed to edit Wikipedia or articles about Arabs? I can't believe I have to say this, but if you really must know, I am, like you, a British citizen, and I am not of Jewish ancestry. I have no hostility towards Arabs. That really was ridiculous. Is the rest of this discussion going to proceed along such lines? Gareth E Kegg (talk) 20:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I had no idea you were Jewish. As I said, I don't get that issue - Why are you creating an attack article against him then? Off2riorob (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am NOT Jewish!!! I have not created an "attack article". I have edited Wikipedia for six years, and know better than to do that. My rewrite was impeccably sourced, and has been reverted, I still do not know why. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 21:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You said that but your not explaining why you created what reads as an attack against him ? - the reason for the revert of your expansion, is that through selective sourcing it appears as if an attack article. Your impeccably sourced 77 times to a book that if you read the reviews is far from NPOV and more of an expose and over 30 content supports to Maureen Orth's opinionated editorial from sixteen years ago, much of which is still unsupported by mainstream reliable reporting and clearly would need attributing and additional verification.  Off2riorob (talk) 21:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I rewrote the article out of natural curiosity. I knew nothing about the man, but read Bower and Orth and then constructed an article from them and many other reliable sources. What do you mean by selective sourcing? No negative review has been posted here, and I cannot find one. Why do you consider expose a negative term? Bower began the book with Al-Fayeds cooperation, and no legal action was ever commenced. Note that I have not reported Bower and Orths opinions, I have detailed facts they have reported. What is "mainstream reliable reporting"? What are Vanity Fair and the sources I have listed below but not mainstream? Gareth E Kegg (talk) 22:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "he didn't sue" so we can repeat it is not the position WP:BLP demands of us. I suggest you detail the issues for discussion here or on the talkpage, start with the sexual charges and conviction section. Off2riorob (talk) 23:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Why do you consider expose a negative term?" - I don't, but such is not encyclopedic and as a minimum should not be reported as if fact, required clear attribution and imo should not even be reported and published here unless it is supported in other reliable externals. Off2riorob (talk) 23:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A similar discussion on sexual harassment is taking place here. The sexual harassment accusations have been detailed by Vanity Fair, BBC News, the Independent and the Guardian. The very sensitive nature of the accusations, and Fayeds use of his wealth and power to harass detractors has ensured the continued comparative secrecy of these allegations, and of the alleged victims. Henry Porters article details this. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 23:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I almost never/never compare content in other articles, usually it would only spur me on to go there and remove similar disputable content from those as well. All rich people are accused of all sorts. No charges and no convictions is the encyclopedic BLP position - you can present something here for discussion regarding these claims and allegations and perhaps we can find a consensus. Off2riorob (talk) 23:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it... Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but The New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing The New York Times as the source." from BLP. This is what I wish to include in the article. "Al-Fayed has been accused by several women of sexual harassment and assault.PORTER REF

Attractive young women applying for employment at Harrods were often submitted to HIV tests and gynacological examinations. (Bower p. 271) These women were then selected to spend the weekend with Al-Fayed in Paris. (Bower p. 272) In her profile of Al-Fayed for Vanity Fair, Maureen Orth described how according to former employees "Fayed regularly walked the store on the lookout for young, attractive women to work in his office.

Those who rebuffed him would often be subjected to crude, humiliating comments about their appearance or dress...A dozen ex-employees I spoke with said that Fayed would chase secretaries around the office and sometimes try to stuff money down women's blouses"

In 1994, Hermina Da Silva quit her job as a nanny at Al-Fayed's home in Oxted. Da Silva had prepared accusations that she was sexually harassed by Al-Fayed, PORTER REF and she was subsequently arrested by detectives and held overnight in cells following a complaint of theft by an employee of Al-Fayeds. She was later released without charge after officers concluded she had not stolen anything. Al-Fayed eventually settled with her out of court, and she was awarded £12,000. PORTER REF

Al-Fayed was interviewed under caution by the Metropolitan Police after an allegation of sexual assault against a 15-year-old schoolgirl in October 2008. The case was dropped by the Crown Prosecution Service, after they found that there was no realistic chance of conviction due to conflicting statements. In December 1997 the ITV current affairs programme, The Big Story broadcast testimonies from a number of former Harrods employees who spoke of how women were routinely sexually harassed by Al-Fayed. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 23:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said, rich people are magnets for law suits, and civil claims and all sorts of allegations - I am ware that this living subject had a period of vilification in the press but we are requested not to continue such reporting. Perhaps a small comment, In 1995 Al Fayed was accused of sexual assault by an employee and was interviewed by the police who did not press charges.... oh, look, see how un-encyclopedic it is.  Off2riorob (talk) 23:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I feel we must be reading two separate articles, I really do. These accusations do not deserve to be treated as flippantly as you treat them. Henry Porters Da Silvas ref is acceptable as is the 2008 questioning detailed by the BBC, the 1997 ITV documentary and Maureen Orths article. To say that these accusations stem merely from his wealth is tragically insulting. These are reliable publications. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 00:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Reliable accusations lead to charges and convictions - that is the encyclopedic version and not the investigative expose version - we can seek consensus for some minor addition in this regard, but imo it would need to focus on the lack of police charges and the lack of any convictions, resulting in content that would more assert the subjects innocence than speculate on his possible guilt. Off2riorob (talk) 00:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Wording problems such as ingratiating can be fixed without mass deletion of well-sourced text. Let's put the Kegg text back but with (horrors!) dry prose in place of florid. Binksternet (talk) 21:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A truer word, etc...Why do we have to revert text sourced from Tom Bower, Maureen Orth, Henry Porter, The Guardian, The Times, The Telegraph, The Charity Commission website, Al-Fayeds own website, British governmental reports, Judicial reports, BBC News, The Evening Standard, Vanity Fair, The Daily Mail, the New Statesman, CNN and the New York Times? Gareth E Kegg (talk) 21:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As already mentioned, I did research Al Fayed for my thesis, which I wrote 11 years ago on a wider subject. I now work in Care and know that this man does an awful lot of good. There have been various claims and allegations, as there are with many high profile people, but I don't believe he has been convicted of anything; I have read a lot about this man, and believe him to have been subject to a lot of bad press, some by political motivation. I simply believe he should be fairly represented, and, as I said to Gareth Kegg before, will provide what references I can to make this BLP more balanced, section by section. Latika1976 (talk) 21:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What was the title of your thesis? Was it ever published, or logged at a University library? I detailed Al-Fayeds philanthropic activities, they are now sadly absent from the article. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, that content about princess di's old school was a bit vague, anyway, I repaired the external link to - philanthropy/alfayed-charitable-foundation - Off2riorob (talk) 23:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Al-Fayed established the Al-Fayed Charitable Foundation (Charity Commission in 1987. The foundation aims to help children with life-limiting conditions and children living in poverty.

In September 1997, West Heath School in Sevenoaks, Kent, United Kingdom, was placed into receivership. West Heath was the former school of Diana, Princess of Wales, and was an independent girls school. Al-Fayed purchased the school for £2.3 million and it became the new premises for the Beth Marie Centre for Traumatised Children, which had previously been based in Sevenoaks. The school reopened as The New School at West Heath in September 1998. Al-Fayed has since continued to donate to the school." How is this content vague? Put it back in! :) Gareth E Kegg (talk) 23:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well the citation doesn't seem to mention the subject of our article? - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/3102462.stm - Off2riorob (talk) 00:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * and the whole thing ""Al-Fayed established the Al-Fayed Charitable Foundation (Charity Commission[15] in 1987. The foundation aims to help children with life-limiting conditions and children living in poverty. [16]" - is cited to primary citations, where is the notability? I repaired and refreshed the charity link as an external which unless additional notability is asserted at the current time seems reasonable. Off2riorob (talk) 00:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Some of the non-neutral insertions that appeared in the old version Al-Fayed's BLP have been duplicated by the same editor on the Harrods page under a relatively new section called 'Harrods under Al-Fayed'. Given that they were removed from the BLP, should they also be removed from the Harrods entry? Latika1976 (talk) 22:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

talk:michael moore
I'm confused by Qwyrxian - he states that WP:BLP violations apply to the discussion page as well as the article.

How are we to discuss a contentious issue on the discussion page, if he is correct in his interpretation that WP:BLP violations are enforced on discussion board AS WELL as the article proper?

If I accept his interpretation, then there can be no discussion of any material that violates WP:BLP. This makes no sense to me. If you can't discuss it - what's the purpose of the whole discussion page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlassTwiceAsBig (talk • contribs) 20:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Checking this out - posts which were made on the talk page are subject to WP:BLP. In the case at hand, the material was archived and the top of the talk page has a link to the archive which has your posts .  When dealing with sensitive BLP issues, one does not need to spell out in detail the charges made about a person - the other editors are generally fully able to follow a link to the source proffered.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * So in that case, archives need to be flushed - several BLP pages contain BLP violation material on their discussion pages. You are aware, of course, that there are innumerable pages that are in flagrant violation of this - and yet it is not being enforced. Look at Julian Assange's discussion page - it's rife with WP:BLP violation material, with at least 10 administrator editor level editors on it - and NOTHING BEING DONE. What you state is completely inconsistent with the reality of what I'm seeing. If what you say is correct, then it is like jaywalking in New York - a toothless law that's never enforced. So it might as well not exist. --GlassTwiceAsBig (talk) 01:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, jaywalking in NYC is enforced and tickets are given out, but that is neither here nor there. Just because there are violations else where is no reason to allow them elsewhere in the project. --68.9.119.69 (talk) 02:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * First off, Mr. IP - you clearly haven't ever BEEN to the big apple - I've lived there, have you? Maybe you might consider checking wikipedia's own article on New York before commenting - "...restrictions on jaywalking at signalized crosswalks, but the practice is far more common in New York". And it is rather relevant, as his words ring hollow and meaningless if they aren't actually being enforced. Second, the question of how we're supposed to be discussing something if we aren't even allowed to mention it. Collect seems to think we're telepathic, or that everyone should use weasel-words, and that would somehow make a bit of difference. --GlassTwiceAsBig (talk) 14:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Never been? Yes sir, I LIVED in forest hills for 7 years and worked in WTC 4 so no need to go read some article thank you very much not. I guess you forgot when they cracked down on jaywalking in Times square as part of that areas zero tolerance and revitilization effort that worked wonders. TS went from a seedy red light district to the wonderful family freindly place it is today exactly becasue of that crackdown. --68.9.119.69 (talk) 22:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Many of the BLP violations here happen on talkpages. Your right, check some talkpages and there are many. The worst are deleted, but there are many on the line violations that it can be more disruptive to remove than to ignore - we have a degree of leeway on talkpages to allow for discussion and at least google does not crawl the talkpages. Once archived the on the edge violations simply disappear into the dusty archives and as such, archiving on on the edge talkpage content can and should be done imo sooner rather than later - stale and resolved and historic on the edge of BLP violating discussion is better archived than left sitting on a talkpage where it will be viewed by much higher traffic - Off2riorob (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Khaled bin Talal bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud
An obscure article, so I'd like to have somebody else look it over. Given his zero tolerance towards terrorism, I expect Obama to expel Fox News from the country of course. Hcobb (talk) 14:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Not an obscure person, at the moment, however: This living person is very much the subject of breaking news at present. The preceding commenter's droll political commentary to one side, I presume he posted here in response to my talk page BLP remarks, although neither he or any other editor has, as yet, commented there, or perhaps to my having reverted two IPs in the previous 24 hours, on BLP grounds, an action I've repeated a third time now with respect to his own nearly identical addition. I'm in the process of editing the article now - although delayed in that intention by a computer crash just now - and would invite interested editors to review the article's talk page if they wish to familiarize themselves with the matter at hand.  –  OhioStandard  (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've now completed the edits I intended to the article. I don't have as much time to devote to the encyclopedia as I've had in the past, but I'll try to check back periodically here and on the article's talk page for any added comments. Thanks, –  OhioStandard  (talk) 02:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Kris Humphries/Kim Kardashian
It might be good to get some extra eyes on these pages. TMZ is reporting that Kim Kardashian is divorcing Kris Humphries, but it doesn't appear that any representatives for the two have commented yet. Zagal e jo^^^ 16:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Ben Grubbs
Someone has written nonsense about Baltimore Ravens' guard Ben Grubbs, changing his name, his university and his team to a non-existent CFL team. I began to change the page, when I realized there is a ton of stuff that has been changed and the cached version of the page is accurate information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.40.1.132 (talk) 17:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * , thanks. See Help:Reverting for next time. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Christopher X. Brodeur
My name is Christopher X. Brodeur, and I'm an infamous, controversial artist / musician / writer / political hellraiser in NYC. SOmeone created a wiki page about me years ago, and it was mostly honest, with a few mistakes. NOTE: I know LESS about the internet / computers than most people, and, being thrown in jail falsely over 38-ish times for humiliating tyrants Giuliani and Bloomberg means I have no time. (They have SIX trials pending against me for speech. They've illegally held me in jail (for SPEECH that was clearly-protected) for 7 months (!), 100 days (!), 17 days, 13 days, 11 days, 7 days, and numerous other times for one day - 7! Their goal was to destroy every inch of my life and they succeeded. Wiki helped them immeasurably.) LONG STORY SHORT: the page was vandalized by some of the con artists I exposed in my daily work, but what was worse is that the wiki editors broke their own rules endlessly to help the vandals! (EX: when I, an eyewitness posted something linked that was flawless, [ex: link to my music website!] it would be removed. When a vandal would post smears ("the chronically-unemployed Brodeur") that was not sourced nor linked to anything, it would be returned each time I removed it! HELP!! THIS IS NOT A GAME! One time, I was released from jail SOLELY based on the wiki page! (A judge googled me on the bench to see if I was telling the truth about my history of political whistle-blowing.) TODAY, the page is still a bizarre abomination that defies logic and is misleading or false. EX: they removed that I'm a political activist gadfly, etc... and only kept in "artist, writer, musician"... with ZERO SOURCING OR LINKING (!!) and ALL their links / sources back up what they REMOVED! (Political gadfly!) (EX: to write that a guy who has done over a YEAR in jail for SPEECH did "several days in jail" is like your Holocaust entry saying "there were some reports of people dying in the camps"!!!!!) HELP!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.119.242 (talk) 19:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What changes to the article are you proposing? Are you objecting to anything that is in the article?Toddst1 (talk) 20:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Herman Cain Affair
Small edit war going on in the Herman Cain article. Regarding the sexual harrasment story going around. Debate on if it meets criteria for BLP or not, and specifically if WP:BLPGOSSIP applies as the story relies on unnamed sources, and has no specific allegations. Good debate going on talk page, so discussion should go there to avoid forum shopping. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BLP: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it... Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but The New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing The New York Times as the source." This is pretty much exactly the case described in the policy example, right down to coverage from the New York Times, and WP:BLP seems clearly and explicitly to indicate that coverage in appropriate in these circumstances. MastCell Talk 20:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It hinges on "well documented" imo. So far we have many places repeating the politico accusation. And I think GOSSIP __CLEARLY__ applies, as everything is extremely vague.  Who is making the accusation? Who is the alleged victim? What was the type of alleged harrassment? The terms of the settlement are completely unknown (including "dont talk about this again, and I wont sue you for libel") We have NONE of those answers.  that is clearly gossip. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The criteria you're demanding are not part of policy, which is quite clear on the bar here. "Gossip" refers to material circulated in tabloids and the like. When an incident has been reported by every reputable news organization in America, it's no longer "gossip". It's an allegation - one which may be true or false (and we take no stance on that question), but one which a serious encyclopedia is expected to describe. MastCell Talk 20:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Fully agree with MC. WP:WELLKNOWN couldn't be clearer. Toddst1 (talk) 21:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like the biography is in good shape now after WP:WELLKNOWN was applied with tact. Binksternet (talk) 22:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

James Chippendale
Article has been much rewritten by several accounts over the last week or more, with references removed and sourced content replaced by promotional and copyright violation text. I've reverted to an earlier version, and would appreciate more eyes on this, perhaps watchlisted. Thanks, 76.248.149.98 (talk) 00:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Robinson Secondary School
Article is rife with mention of non-notable faculty, but this one may be a violation of WP:BLP, referring to an arrest and alleged crime. Is this even necessary in a school article? 76.248.149.98 (talk) 02:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I've made a first attempt at removing some of the unsourced material, POV material, and BLP-problematic material, including the information about an individual who hasn't been convicted of anything (as far as I can tell.)


 * This article needs a lot more work and maybe adding to some watchlists as well - given the bizarrely immense size of the school, it's inevitable that faculty (and students!) will intermittently end up in the news for questionable things. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Lots of unsourced trivia and surmise. Wikipedia is not the vast repository of every factoid about every school.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Rob Rogers
This article has been vandalised with a number of incorrect entries.

This article should be marked for deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.191.225.106 (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Likely so. Collect (talk) 16:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have removed some unsourced dubious claims from Rob Rogers, but I think he may be notable enough to survive a deletion discussion. Are there any claims still in the article that you think are incorrect? Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  16:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Dr.vempalli Gangadhar
Dr vempalli Gangadhar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vempalligangadhar (talk • contribs) 16:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What about you? Also, please see WP:COI and WP:Notability. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm lost - does the OP have a point?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * From their contributions, they've mostly been spamming their website in various articles. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 23:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I see that now. I was looking for evidence of an article on Gangadhar. Should've looked more closely at the edits.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Richard Gaillardetz
This biographical article (I am Richard Gaillardetz) is now out of date. Please add the following sentence to the end of the article: "In 2011 Gaillardetz left the University of Toledo to accept the Joseph McCarthy Chair of Catholic Systematic Theology at Boston College." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaillardetz (talk • contribs) 18:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Valid change per http://www.bc.edu/schools/cas/theology/faculty/RichardGaillardetz.html -- I'll take care of it. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Chris Madsen
Possible conflict of interest, some paraphrasing or copying from the subject's website, and a non-neutral tone with a lack of inline citations. Could use more eyes on this. Thanks, 76.248.149.98 (talk) 01:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a problematic article created either by the subject or someone closely affiliated with him. At first glance, it looks like the subject may be notable, which means it can't be deleted but has to be cleaned up. Sigh.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and thanks for the help. I may go in and clean out a bit of the unsourced, and copyedit in general, but am glad to have someone else watching, should edit warring ensue..... as so often happens with COI bios, what's needed is for the creator to provide better sources and leave the prose for non-affiliated parties. 76.248.149.98 (talk) 01:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The first sentence regards his being a two time BCIMA winner, which is the main claim to notability. There is no Wikipedia article about the BCIMA, and a Google search doesn't turn up much . 76.248.149.98 (talk) 02:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Ralph Brown
I am Ralph Brown. Someone is editing my page with erroneous information. I corrected it (Personal life : I am married and I live in Brighton East Sussex) but your bot re-edited and deleted my true information, replacing it with "unmarried and living in Straford Upon Avon". my user name is Rbiko. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbiko (talk • contribs) 01:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks like you were editing as an IP, not as Rbiko - generally, not a good idea once you have an account (maybe your account was created after your edits? I didn't check). You shouldn't be editing your own article. See WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. If you have a problem, you should raise it on the article Talk page (or here if it's serious enough). In any event, Wikipedia is all about sourced information, so I have changed the marriage material to reflect that you have been married since 1992 per the source and included the name of your wife, also per the source. I left out where you live because that wasn't in the source.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ralph, the advice above is only partially accurate; you are by no means prohibited from editing your own article. Please see
 * Biographies_of_living_persons/Help
 * Contact_us/Article_problem/Factual_error_(from_subject) for further guidance.
 * You may also find the following useful: Notable person survival kit. Best, -- J N  466  03:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Donald Freed
The long section on Jim Jones looks a bit like a WP:COATRACK to me. -- J N  466  03:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've cut down some information in that section, retaining supporting cites. I think the rest looks appropriate, but if you think otherwise, have a hand at it. JFHJr (㊟) 03:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If it's proportionality that has you concerned, the best thing might be to expand on the subject's other work. If it's notable, it'll stick. JFHJr (㊟) 03:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

David_Keith_(scientist)
Folks

I would like to see my biography either deleted or substantially revised. There are two basic problems.

First it's inaccurate. For example I have not had the job described in the opening paragraph for several years. (I quite the U-Calgary job in September, but quit as ISEEE EES lead years back.)

Second, it's somewhat biased in that it talks only about my work in one field (air capture) thus presenting a distorted view of my work. This is relevant because I am now subject to strong critiques in print media that assert (falsely) that my work is driven by my desire to profiting from these technologies. (e.g., http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/24/geoengineering-survey-public-support?newsfeed=true)

I corresponded with Andrew Lockley the page author. He is open to fixing it, but this is an official nag and a request for balance.

As a start the CV linked off my academic page http://www.keith.seas.harvard.edu/ provides a reasonably compact summary of my academic work.

Yours, David — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwkeith (talk • contribs) 04:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I fixed the lead to reflect that the employment information from Canadian Geographic is no longer current (i.e., I added "former"). I also removed all unreferenced award/academia claims since they essentially claimed notability and should have been cited. I also moved the university homepage from references to external links because better independent sources exist. See WP:BLPSPS for why any factual claim that might be self-serving or form a large basis of the article should be published by a third party to show reliability. For that reason, your CV will be of extremely limited use as a reliable source in your own biography here. JFHJr (㊟) 06:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Adrian Lamo
I am concerned that the intro to this article is being used to level an attack on the person in question. I hope that a third party can help me and my colleague determine what best honors BLP policy. We have several disagreements: (1) I believe that the assertion of 'torture' needs to be attributed, and because the assertion is controversial it does not belong to the intro; (2) the phrase regarding 'US government claims' is gratuitous and strays from the facts relevant to the introduction; (3) the choice of the verb 'caused' is not cited or neutral, because the cause is located elsewhere in many accounts of the incident. DBaba (talk) 02:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This article has serious problems and fails to present a balanced overview of the person's life and notability. Stating in the lead that he "caused" the Wikileaks scandal and implying he is responsible for a prisoner being tortured is inflammatory and unsupported by reliable sources.  That's just the beginning and there are many more digs and shots taken throughout the article.  It needs a complete rewrite to the neutral point of view.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328   Let's discuss it  03:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There are TWO people we need to be concerned with here, not just one. Statements that Bradley Manning committed a crime, that documents he may or may not have released are "sensitive" (a claim which has not been established in a court of law), and the subtext that Adrian Lamo was justified in his actions through the use of tilted language are a far more serious violation of Bradley Manning's BLP protection.  Lamo stands to lose his reputation; Manning stands to lose his life.  It is therefore prudent that if we cannot find perfectly neutral ways of expressing the facts as disseminated by the government and their corporate media, then we must err on the side of Bradley Manning. -- SmashTheState (talk) 08:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You are of course correct, SmashTheState, that the article also presents BLP issues with regards to Bradley Manning. Thank you for pointing that out.  Any rewrite ought to take that into account as well.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328   Let's discuss it  19:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In context, the prosecution has said it will not seek the death penalty, so he stands to loose his freedom (or not regain it more accurately). I am curious how both our BLP policy and the American justice system views the comments by Obama that "Manning had broken the law", when he has not been tried. Rich Farmbrough, 12:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC).


 * Okay, this is STILL going on. I am being reverted within minutes every time I try to remove the BLP violations of Bradley Manning.  If we can't resolve this here, I'm going to take this to dispute resolution, because it is NOT okay to convict Bradley Manning of criminal activity simply because the State has accused him. -- SmashTheState (talk) 08:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Still no interest in removing statements from the Adrian Lamo article that Bradley Manning committed treason. Apparently it's perfectly okay on Wikipedia to state that people who have not been convicted of a crime have engaged in treasonous activity.  Good to know.  Maybe I'll pay the George W. Bush article a visit. -- SmashTheState (talk) 12:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Reby Sky
An IP address is very insistent on adding some "Legal troubles" information about Reby Sky, some of which appears to be a WP:COPYPASTE from WrestlingInc.com. I've re-written the material to avoid copyvio, tweaked it for weight and neutrality and referencing and other such things, and added it back as part of the "Personal life" section of the article (instead of having a separate section). I'd like opinions on whether the material should be in the article or not, or whether it should be phrased differently. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * She is disputing it on twitter and I couldn't find her on the court website - http://www1.aoc.state.nc.us/www/calendars/CitationQueryByName.html - she claims she was only given a ticket for speeding. If it is a serious charge and conviction report it when the outcome is reported, the alleged court date was today 2 november, if it ends up only as a speeding violation - your addition would seem a bit undue. Off2riorob (talk) 15:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

John Charles Gilkey
I'd like some other eyes to take a look at John Charles Gilkey, it's an article about a book thief that's attracted some attention from, who may or not be claiming to be the subject (I honestly can't tell from that diff, which seems also to be close to the chilling effects of a legal threat). JBURNER666 has repeatedly removed items from the article which appear to be sourced claiming they're libelous, but hasn't stopped to actually explain why. I've left messages on JBURNER666's talk page, but other than the legal threat, he doesn't communicate. Any ideas? Thanks in advance for your help. Dayewalker (talk) 16:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If he continues to remove sourced material, even after appropriate warnings, he should be blocked. I made a few edits to the article (tidies). I left in the external link to the Sanders site, but I think it violates WP:SELFPUB. As for the editor's statement, in my view, it does say he is the subject, and it is a legal threat.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * He's made at least two legal threats, and has been duly blocked for it. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  20:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

William Adams (judge)
This article was recently deleted but it was recreated. It is a negative BLP1E with lots of SYNTH and original research, including uncited statements. Your attention would be appreciated. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 18:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yep, I was just going to give you all a heads-up about the same thing. I'm the one who deleted the (not-reliably-sourced) version last night.  The current one has better sources.  However, ... I'd like a few more eyes on it, preferably from you folks, who are experienced with this kind thing.  Caution:  this may happen to anyone who steps in this.  There is a lot of outrage on the internet right now. Antandrus  (talk) 18:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. Your efforts and courage are appreciated. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 18:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've nominated it for deletion as a case of BLP1E. The subject really concerns internet vigilantism, not Adams, and most sources reflect this, with much of the discussion of Adams being effectively conjectural. I understand that there's an interview with Adams, which may give more support to his identification, but it still doesn't pass the BLP1E bar.   Acroterion   (talk)   18:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 18:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree the article is an attack piece, but, unfortunately, per WP:POLITICIAN, elected state judges are automatically notable. Based on that, I will have to !vote against deletion.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I have cut it back to a one line stub. – ukexpat (talk) 18:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Great job. Thank you. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 19:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

He appears to be a "county judge", and not a "state judge" meaning he is not auto-notable at all, by the way. Collect (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * For a fuller discussion of Collect's point of view, see the AfD discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Andrew V. Edwards
I don't believe this biography is of a person worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. It's obviously self-writen and just an advertizement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Challenger3 (talk • contribs)
 * Articles for deletion/Andrew V. Edwards -- perhaps someone could find a suitable delsort for it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The articles Keith Raniere and NXIVM
Needed: An objective person to write the articles Keith Raniere and NXIVM properly. Please see the collection of WP:RSes collected on TALK:Keith Raniere on which the articles may be based, in addition to any others which you may find. This may be important. It would be best if the article could be written by an editor/editors who at the moment has no knowledge of the topic(s). Chrisrus (talk) 20:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I went through Raniere's article and fixed some glaring issues. I'll look at NXIVM a bit later today; if anyone else wants a have at it, I'd appreciate any help. JFHJr (㊟) 14:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Raniere and his group NXIVM are some cult-type thing in upstate-New York, according to numerous sources. There are continual edits trying to sanitize the article, and occasional postings here from the cast of those involved in editing it.  More watchlisters welcome to keep an eye on them.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  14:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I gave the org article a once over. I agree it'll need watching. It's just one of those articles. JFHJr (㊟) 23:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Dawn Gibbons
I have concerns about the objectivity of the article.Nevadaresident (talk) 22:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I can see why. I've done a little clean-up.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * --Thanks!Nevadaresident (talk) 03:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

An IP is repeatedly adding unsourced, peacocky information to the article, and removing sourced material that is perhaps unflattering to Gibbons. I and another editor have reverted a few times. I belatedly posted a warning on the IP's Talk page, but I'm pretty much out of reverts and don't see want to war about content if what I'm removing is not a BLP violation, even if it's obvious to me that the edits are inappropriate. More eyes would be helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I reverted the IP and gave them a 3RR warning. Next step will be WP:3RRN if they continue. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 01:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, thanks, Dr. K., I was so focused on counting my own reversions I forgot to count the IP's.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You are very welcome Bbb23. Thank you for reporting this problem. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 01:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The article has been semi-protected.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Akira Corassani
Hi

There is a article about Akira Corassani that has given him the wrong name. For example his real name is http://www.ratsit.se/BC/SearchSimple.aspx?Who=hamidreza+khorassani Hamidreza Khorassani, and instead it says he was born as "Hamid Akira Corassani" Akira is a japanese nickname for him he was by no means born as Akira.

If you look at the date of birth here you can see this is the same person http://www.ratsit.se/BC/ReportSmall.aspx?ID=50iHFhQMPO9q3ADm9BayXIqdpTYI8AE_j-PnpEKtovY I would like someone to just write "Born as Hamidreza Khorassani" and that it says that clearly in his bio. Thats all. Here is another page with his adress: http://www.hitta.se/ViewDetailsWhite.aspx?vkiid=dmPs4YRcbpygfVGtZ03ACg==&vad=Hamidreza+Khorassani

The same date of birth, his hometown: http://www.sherdog.com/fighter/Hamid-Corassani-22641

Also you can look at google: http://www.google.se/#q=hamidreza+khorassani&hl=sv&prmd=imvnso&ei=ynCyTrPnD6rl4QSv5PnLAw&start=20&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=ffdb58ac88ae2d0f&biw=1366&bih=582 You can see that the Hamidreza Khorassani is changes to Hamid Akira Corassani that is fine but a biography should always have the born name and its missing in two places in his article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Papashangos (talk • contribs) 10:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Adams family abuse controversy
I've removed this thread to the article's talk page, so it can be preserved. I probably should have taken it there first. I hope this is OK.--Scott Mac 18:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

There are serious BLP issues here, fresh and neutral eyes appreciated. See talk for details.--Scott Mac 19:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have reworked the text. Hope this helps. --BwB (talk) 21:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Stephanie Young Biography / Incorrect Year of Birth.
Though I appreciate the profile created for me, I was NOT born in 1973. I was born after that date, so hopefully this correction will be made. Thank you.Cybersteph (talk) 04:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks! It's been removed. JFHJr (㊟) 04:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC) ✅

Tony Mansfield
Tony Mansfield was born in 1945, not 1955 as stated on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gooduklady (talk • contribs) 04:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, seems it's neither. I gave cites. Thanks for catching it! JFHJr (㊟) 05:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC) ✅

Paul Frederick White
Hi! Dr. White appeared as an expert witness in the trial of Dr. Murray, Michael Jackson's physician.

Information I enter on the biography page "Paul Frederick White" about his testimony including that Dr White faces a contempt hearing for his behavior in court, is repeatedly removed by either of two contributors. The information is referenced to good news sources reporting the trial.

The deleting editor/s has not responded to requests to discuss the content on the article talk page. The deleting editor is anonymous, but one IP address is from Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, where Dr. White works. The editor may be the subject of the article or an associate. Similar deletions are made from another IP address, also in Los Angeles, possibly the same person's home computer.

I do not believe my contribution is a complete description of his testimony, but I do believe it contains material of significant interest and is correctly referenced. It is noted that the deletions/reversions are all show Dr. White in good light.

Here are two sample diff pages:  

Thanks for your help and suggestions.

Papaloquelites (talk) 23:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know how faithfully your material hews to the two sources you cite, but it is not well worded. There are probably also other sources that could be used to describe White's testimony. Unfortunately, I don't have time to rewrite the section right now.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've rewritten the section with sources. I was going to crib from the Trial of Conrad Murray article, but I was surprised to see how poorly that article is written, so I wrote it from scratch.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Raymond Red
Raymond Red is one of the pioneers of modern Filipino independent and alternative cinema. (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.33.231 (talk) 03:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you're trying to communicate by copying and pasting from Red's self-publication. If you'd like to create an article about this person, please be sure to use reliable third-party sources – perhaps news and books – for all information. I recommend registering a Wikipedia account if you decide to make an article. You might find these links helpful for research: . If this is your first article, the Article Wizard is a decent guide. JFHJr (㊟) 21:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Daniel_Tammet
User 188.29.13.109 (also 188.28.118.84, 188.28.37.123, 188.29.61.121, 188.28.16.60, 188.28.221.9) persistently edits the above article with contentious and poorly-sourced claims, distorting balance and disregarding other editors' comments.

Most recently, user claims Tammet used mnemonic strategies to improve his high school exam performance. Sole primary source given is a decade-old defunct webpage whose authorship is unconfirmed. Tammet's official website Optimnem only began in 2002 (as stated in the article).

User's claim is exceptional - it appears nowhere in scores (perhaps hundreds) of published mainstream secondary sources about Tammet. Previous attempts to add the link have already been rejected each time by consensus among editors. Rules on Living Persons Bio articles state that 'exceptional claims require exceptional sources' and particular caution is required concerning:

"claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living people. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

Please do the necessary to prevent further disruption by user.

Oughtprice99 (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The article has been fully protected for a week due to breaches of WP:3RR. Hopefully this will provide sufficient time for other interested editors to help reach a consensus on the sources suggested. --Fæ (talk) 16:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Matthew Pritzker
Just to set thing sstraingt..Matt Pritzker's mother is Irene, second wife of Bob Pritzker. Karen is his aunt..not his mother! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.224.183.201 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 31 October 2011‎ (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up! I've removed unsourced info and cleaned up the article a bit. I checked the existing cites for references to Irene, but I didn't find any. I didn't do any outside research, but if you have a reliable source, feel free to add the mother's name and give a cite. JFHJr (㊟) 16:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC) ✅

James Haskell
Under the section "Personal Life" a story regarding an incident a Wellington College is mentioned with citations. I have repeatedly removed this story only for it to be restored. This story is inaccurate and libellous. Injunctions have been issued to a number of UK newspapers and James Haskell is seeking damages from these publications as well. Seeing as the sources of this story are banned from reporting on this story and will be issuing retractions this story now also needs to be removed. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.185.177.226 (talk) 15:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The story is reliably sourced. I don't see any basis for removal except possibly that it happened when he was 18 and shouldn't have been that big a deal for a college kid. However, that it happened in 2003 and is still dogging him years later probably makes it noteworthy. If the stories are later "retracted", we can deal with that then.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * .... Haskell was suspended from Wellington College, after he and Paul Doran-Jones filmed Doran-Jones and a female student having sex in a boys' dormitory....

I note, there is no mention of this on the Paul Doran-Jones article. - Personally I have my doubts that we should be carrying this content - no legal charges, childhood issues, disputed claims of accuracy. Anyway, if you want to publish it it should be on both articles. 18:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have mixed feelings. First, I wouldn't call 18 "childhood". Second, I don't really think it's disputed. To me, the only question is how relevant it is. If he were a different kind of figure, and an older figure (he's only 26), I would say it has no place in the article, but it keeps coming up in the press, and he even talks about it, so it seems relevant to me, although I suppose it's borderline. I certainly wouldn't argue forcefully one way or the other, so if there were a consensus to remove it, it wouldn't bother me a bit. I agree that if it's going to remain in the Haskell article, it should also be in the Doran-Jones article - they were both suspended.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I though they were 17 ? no matter really. It is clearly disputed by the IP above. "and he even talks about it, " - here he comments -  ‘From our point of view, that all happened a long time ago,’ said Haskell. ‘We’ve moved on. We knew that would come up but Paul is embarking on his international career and I don’t think that’s got anything to do with it. We smile about it but it was something in the past and we’ve got to get past it.’ - It is just so undue in the situation that is the only thing we report about his life in childhood and actually the only thing we report about apart from his rugby career. - if it was his life and not just his rugby career that was notable and we covered his childhood in depth it wouldn't be so undue. - Off2riorob (talk) 19:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I see you found the source (I was putting it in for you but you beat me to it). The IP has not provided any source for the claim that the story is inaccurate.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No they haven't. As per the subject something along these lines appears to be correct. Off2riorob (talk) 19:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you like to be the person responsible for adding the details to the Paul Doran-Jones biography? Off2riorob (talk) 19:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't mind sticking it in the Doran-Jones article if you're now saying it belongs in both articles. If you don't think it belongs, I think there should be some additional discussion so we have a consensus. What's your view now?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am as you know, very careful what I add to wikipedia articles and take personal legal responsibility for. I wouldn't add it to either article.Off2riorob (talk) 20:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand the distinction (it's so nice to have you back). I'll wait for further discussion on whether it belongs at all.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Bbb23. I am around but still a bit feeling in limbo as to my direction of contributions to the project, basically I am still on a break but can't keep my mouth shut. You guys are doing a real fine job of responding to reports here, allowing me the grateful position of not feeling or being needed to action reports here, thank you. Off2riorob (talk) 20:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this one, and I've been rather in two minds. First of all, there is something of a natural reaction against the IP who started this thread, who appears to be using something very close to WP:LEGALTHREAT, and indeed threats that appear to be groundless, in an attempt to force removal of well-sourced material from the article. I don't want to encourage or condone that in any way at all.

However, having thought about it for a while, a couple of things came to mind. First, it occurred to me that where a notable person has done something unwise (or worse than unwise) as a minor, in the spirit of WP:BLP we should be less willing to include details of that in a biographical article where their notability is for their career as an adult. This made me think that the incident in fact should not be mentioned in the article on Doran-Jones. Then I thought that's ridiculous - if Haskell was 18 years old at the time of the incident, then Doran-Jones was 17 years and 11 months old, so the difference is meaningless. So the question goes back, as Bbb23 suggested, to whether we mention something that they did as teenagers, when their notability is as adults.

I think the way we look at it is that we wouldn't mention this incident throughout their lives, but we're still mentioning it for now because he's "only 26". So, hmm, eight years after the incident is recent enough to mention it. But, let's say, fifteen years after the incident (he'd be in his early 30s) would be long enough to not mention it? What about twelve years? What about ten? There has to be a cut-off point somewhere that it's now been "long enough". And we can't use "when the press stop mentioning it all the time" as the cut-off point, because, like that physics experiment that's killed lots of cats, by leaving it in the article we are almost certainly causing the press to mention it more. So, why not bite the bullet, and unless someone can come up with a whole mass of additional information about Haskell's personal life to balance out the biography, make the cut-off point today. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thoughtful comments. Just a few points. First, I wouldn't call Haskell a minor. Second, even calling him a teenager, which he clearly was, is slightly misleading as the teen years start at 13. Third, I know I can't be sure of this, but I don't think that Wikipedia is causing the press to keep mentioning what happened to Haskell in college. I think it more likely that it is being mentioned partly because he is a sports figure (the whole macho thing and being a role model) AND partly because he's still fairly close to the age he was when he pulled this stunt. That said, I don't feel strongly about any of this, so I'll accept whatever is decided (leave it or remove it).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Heh, terminology. No, Haskell wasn't a minor at the time the incident was first reported, but Doran-Jones was. (My point above being that the distinction between the two of them doesn't mean a lot, though, because the difference in age between them is only one month.) Both of them were teenagers at the time, in the sense that anyone who has reached their 13th birthday and not yet reached their 20th birthday is a teenager. (Yes, potentially slightly misleading, because some people might think teenager implies minor just because roughly five-sevenths of teenagers are minors. But factually correct.) Scratching round for other terminology, they were both "schoolboys" at the time (some people might think that word can only apply to minors, but that's not the case.) Incidentally, the name of the educational establishment may be somewhat misleading for readers in the USA; Wellington College educates pupils from ages 13 to 18, the equivalent of a High School.


 * As for agreement (consensus?), we have a slight problem in that the only people who really have any interest are me, you, Rob, and the IP. Maybe we should add a reminder on the article's talk page to comment on the discussion here. If that produces no input, then I'm tempted to remove it from the Haskell article (and not add it to the Doran-Jones article). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification about Wellington (me being American). I don't count the IP because they didn't include a valid reason for removal. I don't think we've established a consensus, but I also wouldn't object to your removing the material.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Diederik Stapel
I have removed now several times a 'selected' list of published articles from a professor recently fired because of extensive fraud. All his articles are currently suspect of being fraudulent, and I think having a 'selected' group of articles of 'undetermined' status is NOT a good idea. I would like some more input on this, especially in context of BLP. Thanks. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Now user:KimvdLinde added a factual accuracy warning to a selected list of publications. I do not understand user:KimvdLinde at all. Andries (talk) 22:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * When you do not know the status of an article (fake, genuine, to be determined), you cannot just like that list them under undetermined. Because the undetermined label is based on the judgment of Andries, not a reliable source. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have just removed the comment "Undetermined Status", although I preferred not and I understand that this is not enough for you. Andries (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The article is really nothing more than a report of Stapel's fraud, which apparently he admitted. Therefore, to include a list of his publications that are supposedly tainted by the fraud is absurd. I will remove the section completely. If there is a particular publication that was not affected by the fraud and for which there are independent secondary sources saying so, that pub + sources can be put in the body of the article, not as a separate section.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this a BLP concern or an editorial concern? I think that a bio of scientist without a (selected) list of publications is absurd. Andries (talk) 14:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Also to leap from "this scientist has been involved in fraud" to "papers X,Y and Z are now invalid" seems to be straight forward Original research and novel synthesis - unless a RS makes this claim, for an an editor to go beyond the sources to *make* that claim is an unsourced attack on a BLP. The publication section should remain and individual papers should be noted as being problematical when RS makes such qualifications. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I don't see any need for the pub list absent some indication that they are not fraudulent. Based on the sources provided in the article, to do otherwise is disingenuous (it was published, therefore it must remain). I'm not going to battle on this issue absent some consensus that my view is shared by other editors because I don't see the list doing much harm except making the subject look better than he deserves.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 wrote "the list [..] making the subject look better than he deserves." How does the list of publications make Stapel look better than he deserves? Two seconds of reading makes it clear that this list of real publications is likely based on fake science. Andries (talk) 09:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Griffin O'Neal
I'm trying to find out why my (referenced) contributions to the Griffin O'Neal article were so thoroughly expunged; I spent considerable time researching and obtaining links to news accounts supporting the account I contributed, and the changes made by subsequent editing I feel were overdone and unwarranted. Dellant (talk) 15:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note previous discussion archived here.--<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 15:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I did so. That's it? NO compromise, just "we did it, the article will leave out referenced facts and events, and that's that?" Dellant (talk) 15:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't object to the notion that there was a bit too much detail. But I can't agree with the complete omission of the 1992 incidents.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I would argue that including the May 23, 1986 incident is important; the media attention given to it at the time spurred media and public demands for, and eventual passage of, important state and federal regulation that restricted the civil rights of every U.S. citizen.Dellant (talk) 16:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "media attention given to it at the time spurred media and public demands for, and eventual passage of, important state and federal regulation that restricted the civil rights of every U.S. citizen." - can you please direct me to this in a reliable source, what state and federal legislation are you commenting on? Are you asserting that a case involving the subject of this article was the reason for or a major weight for alterations in state law? Is that legal case notable for its own article then? It seems that you have over the last couple of days added this to the Ballistic knife article - the association to Griffin O'Neal being a bit undue imo - resulting in the section - Ballistic knife - but at least its not in the BLP.  Off2riorob (talk) 17:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Last couple of days? You're a bit off. The LP arrest of 23 May 1986 and its effects on ballistic knife legislation has been there since June 2011, with no objections. Dellant (talk) 20:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * for example of the undue - you have this content - The story received widespread attention due to O'Neal's involvement in a subsequent boating accident just three days later that killed the son of director Francis Ford Coppola.  Calls for a federal ban on ballistic knives ensued throughout 1986 by public interest and lobbying groups.  After hearing uncorroborated testimony from a congressional witnesss that ballistic knives could be used to defeat body armor typically worn by police officers, and witnessing a staged demonstration against a wood-backed target... - supported by this citation that does not mention O'Neal at all - http://www.corbisimages.com/stock-photo/rights-managed/U86150094/police-officer-firing-ballistic-knife-across-room/?ext=1 - Off2riorob (talk) 18:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So now you're removing content from the Ballistic knife article as well? Why not at least restore the arrest of 23 May 1986 to the O'Neal article? Dellant (talk) 19:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I see you replaced it- I have removed it again with the edit summary of, "still imo undue and about a living person - please use discussion to resolve this dispute prior to adding content" - can we please resolve this using discussion? There clearly is no hurry at all - its all thirty years old already. Off2riorob (talk) 19:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You neglect to mention that I did not "replace" the content with an identical version; I edited it and supplied an additional reference to show that the LP arrest for a ballistic knife in Rosslyn, VA as a concealed weapon resulted in a news release by Rosslyn, VA police on the details of the knife and its capabilities. Rossyln just happens to be the backyard of Washington, D.C., where many congressmen and senators reside or have offices, and the incident caused renewed interest in legislation banning the weapon, which passed the same year. Dellant (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

(Undent) First of all, thank you Dellant for moving your comment here from the archives. As far as I can remember, the only bit I removed about O'Neal inspiring legislation was this: "A law was subsequently passed requiring boats to use shorter towlines and that they be clearly flagged." This was unsourced. I looked very hard for a source and couldn't find one. I don't remember removing anything about O'Neal inspiring legislation about ballistic knives. See for yourself; Here's a diff of my edits. Nomo is concerned about deletion of the 1992 stuff: "In 1992, O'Neal was charged with one felony count of shooting at an unoccupied vehicle with a .44 Magnum-caliber handgun and one felony count of making terrorist threats against his former girlfriend, along with one count of misdemeanor battery.  He later entered a plea of no contest to the charges and was sentenced to five years on probation." Notice that there was no jail time in connection with this event 19 years ago. Surely the part about attacking an empty car would have been more noteworthy if the car had not been empty. By 2007, the media had this to say about the 1992 incident: "In 1992, he pleaded no contest to charges he shot at his estranged girlfriend's unoccupied car. At the time, he agreed to spend a year in a live-in drug rehabilitation programme and serve five years on probation." Nothing there about threats or terrorism. So I stand by me edits. No one likes to see their editing slashed and shrunk, but in this instance the subject was not (and is not) well-known for every item on his rap sheet. If the material about his acting career were lengthier, then maybe more about his rap sheet could be justified in this BLP. I lengthened the material about his acting career as much as I could, but there's just not much there.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Gerry Gable
I've reverted stuff like this before from this talk page, but I'd like a 2nd opinion on this newest addtion which alleges some pretty serious stuff. Dougweller (talk) 18:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's hard on a Talk page to distinguish between BLP violations and a real discussion about the subject's activities that may not be BLP violations. In this instance, there were too many unreliable, self-published, and primary sources cited to allow the BLP violations to remain on the Talk page. Plus, in terms of constructive discussion, it wasn't clear what the IP wants to include as text in the article. So, I reverted it on those bases. As an aside, the IP has an unusual and very limited edit history.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Ken Calvert
Please look this over and correct any possible problems or note them on the Discussion page. Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe you could give us a clue as to what your concerns are. I mean, I can see you've been editing the article, and the article has a long "controversy" section, but what in particular do you want (it's a long article)?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

David L. Williams
I'm pretty sure calling this guy a douchebag isn't accurate or sourced information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.63.218.146 (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Removed - the usual vandalism. Off2riorob (talk) 16:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Propaganda Due
I would like someone to review the article on Propaganda Due for BLP vios. P2 was a real thing, and a real scandal... but there are all sorts of conspiracy theories that grown up around it as well. I am concerned that some of the prominent people listed as being on the list of members (see: Propaganda Due) reflect unsupported conspiracy theory accusation and not actual (reliably sourced) fact. Blueboar (talk) 13:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Franz Beckenbauer
Shouldn't there be a reference to the 1975 European Cup Final in this article.

The actions of Franz Beckenbauer should have resulted in a ban for not only himself but for Bayern Munich. Had a club from England committed this offence, UEFA would have had no hesitation but to have stripped them of the title and banned them for life. Similar corrupt practices have recently resulted in prison sentences for three cricketers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.222.35.218 (talk) 13:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Seth Meyers
Under the "Filmography" subheading of the article for Seth Meyers, there is a defamatory remark listed under the "Other Notes" for the Film "New Year's Eve." See Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seth_Meyers#Filmography — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.107.138 (talk) 18:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks for the report. In future, please don't be afraid to fix such things yourself. CIreland (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

John-Edward Kelly (saxophonist/conductor)
The claim is made that J-E. K. released the first commercial saxophone CD in 1985 (classical, at least). The CD in question has within it a work by Miklos Maros (Undulations), which was completed on November 11, 1986 in Stockholm, Sweden (according to the composer's own handwritten manuscript). J-E. K. did not record or release the cited CD until sometime in 1987. Whether someone else had released a CD in the meantime, this editor does not know, but the assertion of 1985 is false. J-E. K. has elswehere made the specific claim that the CD containing works of Maros, Glaser, Karkoff, and Macha was indeed the first ever by a saxophonist, so the new claim of 1985 seems designed to keep this dubious title intact. Antonin1841 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonin1841 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

George Papandreou
I guess I just can't take some time off from this noticeboard. I have to apologise for adding to your workload, especially so soon after my previous report, but we have an edit-war about the insertion of this material: "According to Eva Zissimides in her 1988 book 'Eva Georgiou Papandreou reveals' George Papandreou, as well as the rest of the family, are described as indifferent to others, with no feelings at all but for personal interest."

First this book of Papandreous' ex is of uncertain notability to be mentioned in his bio. Second what do we expect from his ex wife? To praise him? I don't think so. I think this comment has to be taken out from the article. Any comments would be appreciated. Thank you. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 23:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You have to promise that this topic will not become another Bieber topic; otherwise (redacted impermissible threat :-) ). Why wouldn't this be prohibited by WP:BLPSPS, among other policies?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the friendly and humourous reminder Bbb23 but you don't have to worry. If it becomes another Bieber-like thread, I will abandon BLPN for ever. On the subject now, I was thinking about SPS but I am not sure the ex published this on her own or got an independent publisher. Actually, checking this further, the author is one by the name Botsaris, so this book is not self-published technically speaking. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis  23:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no idea how to research the publisher of a Greek book (I swam in translations when I tried), but, after reflection, I doubt it was published by her. Is Botsaris a ghostwriter? Just curious. The whole thing doesn't pass the smell test, but I'm not sure about policies. I would search for secondary coverage about the book and the comments in the book and then whether Papandreou has any response to the accusations. Meanwhile, I would try to keep it out during discussion based on WP:BLPREMOVE, although it's stretching the policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you again. I'm not sure about Botsaris' status as a ghostwriter or not. I'll check about the book's notability. It is a paperback, so I don't think it was something of great scholarly value. If the book is not notable is this a valid reason to keep it out? Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 23:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Reporting back: You were right. She is a co-author of the book: The linked reference says in Greek: [written] "Together", i.e. co-author. You were right. Botsaris is the ghost-writer. I guess this is not going to turn into another long thread. Thank you very much. Take care. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis  00:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * - The first external is to a sales site for the book (google translated to English and the second one is a blogspot - unless her opinions about her ex husband are reliably sourced to an independent publication her partisan comments should not be included. Papandreou appears to be under attack, an easier position than fixing the actual problem. You did the right thing removing it, its nothing worthwhile at all, just a weakly cited personal attack from his ex wife. Off2riorob (talk) 00:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your advice Rob, and for taking the time. I agree completely, but what's new? :) Take care. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 00:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, even if it was independently notable, the book isn't new, it was published a quarter of a century ago. Best regards. Off2riorob (talk) 00:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point. All the best to you too. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 00:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Hakim Bey
I have created a move request, asking that Hakim Bey be moved back to Peter Lamborn Wilson, the author's real name. This is relevant to this board because of poorly sourced and controversial claims repeatedly made against Wilson based on writings published under the pseudonym Hakim Bey. This matter has been discussed on this board previously, here and here. The accusations made against Wilson were bad enough, but moving the article to Hakim Bey exacerbates a bad situation by associating a living person with a pseudonym he may or may not have used, and which is itself a source of controversy. ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive 02:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Gilad Atzmon
Regulars here may be familiar with Gilad Atzmon, an Israeli-born musician who may be best known for his provocative, and often antisemitic, public statements.

Alan Dershowitz recently published a column in The New Republic concerning Atzmon, and it is being used as the source for roughly 7K of new material in Atzmon's article. Dershowitz's column is cited a mind-boggling ten times.

As The New Republic is a partisan political journal, Dershowitz's column should not be cited as a source for anything but Dershowitz's opinion. But more importantly, could we have some fresh eyes on this article? I'm afraid it's becoming imbalanced again. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Dershowitz's views are cited as his own - and his criticisms are very specific (e.g. he cites page numbers). When I added this material, I also included a number of specific sources which defend Atzmon from charges of Anti-semitism, such as John Mearsheimer, James Petras, and Richard Falk. Regarding David Duke, Dershowitz simply cites a quote Duke regarding Atzmon's latest book - Dershowitz doesn't claim that Atzmon is a fan of Duke, but rather that Duke is a fan of Atzmon (although granted, this in-and-of-itself is extremely perjorative). You are correct that the New Republic is a partisan source (just as Counterpunch and The Nation are (both of which are cited throughout Wikipedia)) but Dershowitz's is considered a reliable source by Wikipedia standards when it comes Anti-semitism. (As a side note, Dershowitz's article has been another news outlet Jewish Press International (JewPI). (Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC))


 * Borderline WP:COATRACK in the criticism section. It starts off with commentary from Dershowitz about two other people for reviewing the book.  Only in the second paragraph does it get to Atzmon.  Pull the entire first paragraph, at a minimum, put the mention of other people at the end of it.  Also, the entire criticism section is sourced to Dershowitz.  That's pushing some WP:UNDUE concerns for me about using a single source for so much, especially given the partisan nature. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 04:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have greatly reduced the size of the paragraph in question. Please keep in mind that Dershowitz's statements are in responsible to comments made by Mearsheimer and Falk in the previous "Praise" subsection.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC))


 * x2 Dershowitz's opinions are not always identified as his. They are cited as facts (look for all the uses of his column as a source and you'll see what I mean). Duke and Atzmon is an example. I don't see any reference to Dershowitz in the sentence, yet he is the source. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly - Duke's support for Atzmon is cited by Dershowitz (who acts as a secondary source) - but I'll include a reference to Dershowitz in the sentence if you prefer.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC))


 * Dershowitz a secondary source? Are you serious? The whole piece by Dershowitz is an opinion column that can only be used as a source concerning Dershowitz's opinion. Considering its history, The New Republic can hardly be considered to have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Secondary source? In what possible sense? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "Dershowitz noted"? That's supposed to be an improvement? How about, "According to Dershowitz". That better reflects the source and its (lack of) reliability. And it satisfies WP:WTW. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In this case, David Duke's praise for Atzmon is being cited in a secondary source (i.e. the source is not Duke or Atzmon, but a third party who is reviewing the issue). Dershowitz's opinions about Duke's praise for Atzmon are certainly just that - opinions - but Dershowitz's citing of Duke's specific praise for Atzmon qualifies as a third-party citation. (For the record, in response to your concerns about "fact-checking and accuracy," feel free to take a look at the original letter by David Duke's to Atzmon that is posted on Duke's website Letter to the Courageous Former Israeli Gilad Atzmon.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC))
 * In response to Ravenfire's comments, I have removed about half of the Dershowitz material in the criticism section and added another relevant criticism from another source more directly related to the book - that of ten different anti-Zionist authors published by the same publishing house criticizing it for having published Atzmon. Goodwinsands (talk) 13:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed is a blogpost primary citation. This BLP is one of the worst and most violated on wikipedia and edited by POV contributors and SPA users all wanting to hang labels on him. I, like the subject, would like to see it deleted. En Wiki policy compliance on such an article fall to a far lower standard than policy should protect them. - As per always - a user has replaced it - User:RolandR. - There are so many SPA and COI users in that Jew Arab sector that there is close to no chance of a NPOV article - we should add a disclaimer template to the whole sector. - Wikipedia's policies have failed readers in this sector and neutrality of reporting is weak in this whole sector -  Off2riorob (talk) 17:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The anti-Zionist open letter against Atzmon - ten anti-Zionist writers, all published by the same house that published Atzmon's book, calling that publication a 'a terrible error of judgment' - was published on the web site of one of the signatories. Note that the open letter is from people with long-established anti-Zionist left credentials, not the 'usual suspects', and it has been referred to by other WP:RS. As such, it should remain.
 * I also think that any editor who, out of frustration, wants to carpet-bomb any large category of entries with that sort of deeply derogatory disclaimer should consider spending more time away from the keyboard, or consider leaving the topic altogether for topics less likely to raise his blood pressure. Goodwinsands (talk) 20:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not deeply derogatory at all its the well known en wikipedia reality. As for blood pressure, mine - I stay away from Jew Arab articles, take them off my watchlist and I don't have to see it, but I know that sector is one of the most biased on this wikipedia and nothing has changed. Biased and opinionated sectors such as the Jew Arab sector demean and devalue the whole projects educational value. Off2riorob (talk) 20:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The "Jew Arab articles" in the "Jew Arab sector" that you refer to will probably remain in Wikipedia despite your concerns. If you don't want to edit them, I'm sure your insightful commentary (such as that above) will be greatly missed. On the other hand, in case you want to continue editing these articles, I suggest that you look at Wikipedia's entry for Treatment of High Blood pressure before you continue editing.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC))
 * The blood pressure comment wasn't funny the first time. The sooner the Jew Arab issue is resolved once and for all in real life the better. All of these nationalist disputes and single purpose contributors are detrimental to the NPOV educational objectives of the project. - Off2riorob (talk) 01:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

erasmus james
Its has his name with ASS as the Nick name — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayjones09 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, I fixed it. --FormerIP (talk) 16:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Gurumayi Chidvilasananda
A fellow editor wishes to consider adding all or part of the following sentence to this biography:

Roger Friedman wrote that "The whole “Eat Love Pray” movement-now the inspiration for a Julia Roberts movie–comes from a cult-like ashram that gained popularity in the early 1990s, guided by a woman named Gurumayi."

The source for the quote is an article on ShowBiz411.

It's our belief that the quote is potentially libelous, so we would like to seek guidance.

The full quote implies that Friedman believed the subject of the article is the leader of a cult (it says cult-like in the sentence but I think in this context cult and cult-like mean the same thing). Would it be all right if we left out the "cult-like" using "..."?

The quote also implies that Friedman believed the guru and religion mentioned in the book (and movie) Eat, Pray, Love to be Gurumayi, but (as would also be stated in the article) the author of the book never said who she was writing about, and still hasn't. Are we allowed to quote statements which embody beliefs by third parties about article subjects, where the beliefs cannot be determined to be true or false, provided we make clear that we are not endorsing the beliefs?
 * Nothing wrong with "cult-like." It is not libelous to be either a "cult" or "cult-like." Don't monkey with the quote. Frankly, I don't see the problem. ?? Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The word cult, by the strictest definition might have neither positive nor negative connotations. But in this context, I think that the intent of the author was negative, the article he wrote was not unbiased.  So my contention is that a negative statement by a non expert is potentially libelous.  whether the word cult, all by itself, is potentially libelous does not seem to be the issue here.TheRingess (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The operative word above is believed. A belief is not a fact. Anybody is entitled to a belief. I can believe that Joe Blow is an idiot, and he may very well not be, but I am still protected. Let the guy insert his fact, with a source. There is no problem there, and omitting it would cause WP to be viewed as less than thorough. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In short, I'm still not convinced that this isn't Defamation. The authors statement is clear, SY is a cult or cult like (he does not use the word believe). If SY is a cult, then this is an accurate, and not defaming statement. If SY isn't a cult, then given the negative connotations and my understanding of the word defamation, then this is libel.  Since there does not seem to be any definitive answer by a reliable source as to whether or not SY is a cult, then this still seems to me to be a potentially libelous statement, no matter who said it. If the person were an expert on cults, then I would expect the rest of his article to contain some research that shows how it fits a definition of cult.  Unfortunately the article offers no such research.  I'm not saying this to keep the argument going, but to further my own understanding of Wikipedia's policies regarding defamation and libel and how it applies to this article and others.  Perhaps it could be included but summarized something like:  "Roger Friedman, in an article for ShowBiz411.com stated his belief that Gurumayi is the leader of a cult-like ashram."  That makes it clearer that it is simply the opinion of Friedman, and not a statement of fact.  Of course, it brings up the question of why Friedman's opinion in an entertainment article is so valuable as to include here.  Thank you for your willingness to discuss this with me.TheRingess (talk) 23:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Anthony James Hall
I'm involved in a dispute with an anonymous editor about the lead sentence and sourcing of Anthony James Hall. I think a third party perspective on the dispute would be helpful. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I can see that there are a number of suggestions on the talk page about deleting the article. Maybe these have a point. Judging solely from the contents of the article, the subject does not appear to meet WP:PROF. I know this doesn't answer the question, so sorry about that. --FormerIP (talk) 18:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It was prodded once but doesn't seem to have had a full AfD. I agree that the case for WP:PROF is weak but there may be a better case for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Jerry Sandusky
About the sex abuse scandal says should be shot, hanged, and electrocuted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.199.12.2 (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Now removed - article has also been semi-protected for two weeks by User:HJ Mitchell. - Off2riorob (talk) 22:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Dominic Barton
Hello, I am a colleague of Dominic Barton's at McKinsey. It has come to my attention his Wikipedia biographical entry contains a wide estimate range for his "Salary" and "Net worth" -- information that is not publicly available nor credibly verified. The posting of unverifiable estimates without attribution is not reflective of Wikipedia's own policies on the matter. We kindly ask for the estimated references to be removed. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbrown762 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Removed as uncited, diff. - Off2riorob (talk) 22:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * DBrown: You may also wish to check over the contents of the article about your firm, which contains similar information. Some of it is cited, so may not be straightforward to remove/deal with as appropriate. Given the obvious wealth of your associate, I politely request a modest fee in respect of this tip-off ;). --FormerIP (talk) 01:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Jill Singer
g'day,

while i personally despise Jill Singer, and think that she is a very poor journalist, and is also listed on http://www.australiasworstjournalist.com.au/

i think that the personal attacks and innaccurate remarks on her page probably need addressing, and i am not confident with my ability to correct them properly

regards andrew — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pez098 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I've removed a lot of crap and unsupported assertions from the article.--Scott Mac 23:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

James Tate
The bibliography lists A Sip For Gabrielle as a publication. I am familiar with James Tate's poetry, and have never heard of this book. Nor do any of the Biblio, Alibris, or ABAA websites list any copies. I therefore believe it to be wrongly included in the bibliography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.164.232 (talk) 00:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * After a search with no returns - removed as uncited - templated the section as unreferenced and the whole article could use a bit of improvement from an interested editor. Off2riorob (talk) 01:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Rick Perry
This is political silly season - and the use of articles to provide political editorializing in this BLP has increased apace. Including a large share of "howevers" and "buts" to show how wrong Perry is, etc. and, I regret to say, misuse of references choosing only the "juicy bits" about counties (with as few as 65 inhabitants) not having their own obstretician, etc. while the article actually does state that the number of doctors rose 24% when the population grew 20%. IIRC, choosing factoids without using the other factoids in the same article is misleading to readers and likely contrary to WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:BLP for the trifecta. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Which specific edits or sources are you concerned about? MastCell Talk 06:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Look - I thinj you can note what I find to be improper in the edit history - especially gross misuse of the WaPo column about many counties not having an OB/GYN in the county - anecdotes are less utile than the stated facts in the column. Eliding the facts just to cite anecdotes is worse.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah. Well, the source says that Perry has touted tort reform as a success story, but in reality it has not produced any measurable improvement in access to health care. Is your concern that this material doesn't belong in a biography of Perry? MastCell Talk 21:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Michael Cherney
An editor has described this living person, in a talk page comment of an article totally unrelated to him, as someone "drowning in criminal connections". As our article makes clear, though he has been involved in a number of legal procedures, in 2010 he was awarded 20,000 Swiss francs by a court that found he had been improperly accused of links to the "Russian Mafia". So, not only do we have a gross BLP violations, but the individual in question has already sued, and won, for a claim very similar to the comment made in Wikipedia. Can we have some admin remove this BLP violation? Shanghai Sally (talk) 02:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Shanghai Sally misrepresents this. On the said talk-page Shanghai Sally  first quoted www.palwatch.org to back up the argument about including  a controversial fact in the lead; . Either Shanghai Sally did not know, or did not care, that the source she quoted is funded by the said Michael Cherney. (Note that Shanghai Sally  conveniently does not link to the article about him.) For a start: Michael Cherney is a man who is presently wanted by interpol, as to the other issues: you can get an idea by looking at the article. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 04:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm curious. What is your support for saying that Cherney funds PMW? As for your comment about "drowning in criminal connections", such statements are generally problematic and unnecessary. I didn't read the entire Talk page thread, but your main point is the source isn't reliable. Your opinion about Cherney and his "criminal connections" is best kept to yourself and wasn't necessary to make the point.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Three more articles related to Jerry Sandusky child sexual abuse scandal at Penn State University
The Jerry Sandusky child sexual abuse scandal at Penn State University is a major news story in the United States. The articles for the university itself and head football coach Joe Paterno have been semi-protected. (Naturally, the articles for former assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky and the Jerry Sandusky child sexual abuse scandal have been semi-protected.) However, the following three articles related to the scandal need semi-protection as well, due to the numerous edits by new accounts and IPs, many of which violate BLP: I've only provided sample diffs for each article due to the high number of edits each page is receiving. I will note Sandusky is the only person even accused of child sexual abuse; the others are only accused of either perjury or failing to report Sandusky to the police. These edits accusing others of child molestation is patent vandalism. OCNative (talk) 13:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Assistant football coach Mike McQueary
 * McQueary Diff 1
 * McQueary Diff 2
 * McQueary Diff 3
 * University President Graham Spanier
 * Spanier Diff 1
 * Spanier Diff 2
 * Penn State Nittany Lions football
 * Football Diff 1
 * Football Diff 2
 * Football Diff 3
 * McQueary and Spanier have been semi-protected, but Penn State Nittany Lions football is still unprotected. OCNative (talk) 03:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Ray Bradbury - Prometheus Award for 451, not cited
Ray Bradbury is attributed with winning the Prometheus Award but the link to the award does not list him as a recipient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.197.231.234 (talk) 16:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * - A search seems to assert/verify that - Ray Bradbury won the Prometheus Award in  1984 for Fahrenheit 451 - http://sfbook.com/prometheus-award.htm - Off2riorob (talk) 16:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Paul Greenfield
No proof exists that the situation prevented 50 students from enrolling in Medicine. To the contrary, more were admitted than would have been under original entry rules. Also, no misconduct has been found by an official investigation - a section on lack of ethics is slanderous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.109.152 (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I did a bit of tweaking / tidy up. Off2riorob (talk) 02:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Kim Novak
This article about a living person has many opinion/POV/fancruft statements with entire sections having little to no references. An IP editor has also been persistently removing the 'Refimprove' template without addressing any of the sourcing issues. Shearonink (talk) 16:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed some of the unsourced material (depending on its nature) but left in other parts (with the tag in place, of course). I've also done a fair number of copy edits to the article. I will watch the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Darrell Issa
Military Career, Education, and Alleged Criminal Activity

In the article, this section lists several alleged criminal activities Mr. Issa may or may not have participated in. The section does not only contain his military background and education. The heading needs to accurately reflect what is contained in the paragraph below the heading. Alternatively, we could move the alleged criminal activity into a separate paragraph and then have a new heading entitled, "Alleged Criminal Activity".

There is someone repeatedly undoing my change. Either there is "alleged criminal activity" of there isn't.  in any case the paragraph needs to be accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avatar2k (talk • contribs) 23:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've changed the header to be "Military career, education, and legal problems". The section is kind of messy, but I agree with you that the header was misleading.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Tamara Oudenaarden
✅ In this subjects profile, they list her as a Short Track Speed Skater when in fact she is a Long Track Speed Skater. If you want proof here is the source : http://www.speedskating.ca/athlete-bios-long-track.cfm?memberID=561&teamID=231. If you take a look on the left hand side it says she is part of the long track team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jafar 403 (talk • contribs) 05:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Fixed. --GRuban (talk) 13:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Amanda Marcotte
This is a biography of a borderline-notable blogger. (The last AFD, in 2009, ended in 'no consensus'.) Unfortunately, it doesn't read much like a biography and more like List of Amanda Marcotte controversies: 80% of the article is made up of controversies and criticisms. Frankly, if it weren't for the fact that it has been kept at AFD three times, I'd be tempted to nominate it for CSD as an attack page. This can't be acceptable as a Wikipedia biography, surely? Robofish (talk) 18:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You will not be able to defeat the conservative activists if you attempt to have that attack article deleted. It is a scar - but there are so many of them. Hipocrite (talk) 18:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That is not a helpful comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Robofish, what is it that you think should be done?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally? If it were up to me, my first choice would be deletion, as I indicated. My second would be to stub the article and cut it back to the lead and background sections: when it comes to BLPs, a positively-biased article is much better than a negatively-biased one. But I'm open to more constructive suggestions. Robofish (talk) 17:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

To me, the large section relating to a blog post she made on the Duke lacrosse case seems very far out of proportion. Since it is part of the timeline from when she was blogging for Edwards, I think it deserves at most a sentence within the Edwards section, without the dogpiling of attack references that it currently has. And the many blogs used as sources throughout the article have to go, along with whatever is sourced to them. But the remaining sections on her background, blogging gig for Edwards, and book all seem appropriate in general. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not simply "a blog post" though. Cathy Young argues that Marcotte was the "leader of the cyber-lynch mob in the Duke University rape hoax" and more than one post is mentioned. Marcott's blogging is one reason for her notability and she's described as a "blogger" therefore making such material rather notable in the context of her article/career. Her comments on the Lacrosse case are easily as serious and notable as say the Catholic related controversies if not more so.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Tess Daly
As Tess Daly's authorised representative, I can confirm that Tess herself would like to keep her real name 'Helen Elizabeth' unknown to the public. If you would kindly cooperate with this request, it would be much appreciated.

Kind regards, Polly Hill John Noel Management [email redacted] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.7.89.2 (talk) 11:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure we can agree to this. It's hardly a secret: here it is mentioned in one of the UK's widest-read newspaper. Incidentally, please don't edit your clients' articles - see WP:COI. --Dweller (talk) 12:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Adrian Adepitan
As Ade's authorised representative, I can confirm that his full firstname is NOT Adrian. Please can this be adjusted so that it reads 'Ade Adepitan'.

Many thanks

Polly Hill John Noel Management [email redacted] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.7.89.2 (talk) 11:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've made the change, but please do not edit the article again - see WP:COI --Dweller (talk) 12:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Occidental Petroleum, Ray Irani
Another editor posted to this page earlier discussing this issue and I wanted to follow up on some additional disputed material concerning Ray Irani in the Occidental Petroleum article. After discussing the material with two other editors on that article’s talk page, I drafted a revised version of the material and posted it in a drop box.

As the other two editors have not been very active lately, the conversation seems to have come to a halt and I was hoping to get some more feedback from the community before moving forward with any revisions. Thanks! CBuiltother (talk) 14:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Lance Brown
The Lance Brown that the Wikipedia article is about is NOT married to Gloria Campose who works for WFAA in Dallas, Texas. She is married to a Lance Brown, but not the one in the article. Gloria and Lance have been married over 20 years per her bio on WFAA. Enough to verify by checking her personal Facebook page which has a pic of her with her husband, and finally find her husband's Facebook page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PamTh (talk • contribs) 00:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You're correct, thanks. I fixed it in the Brown and the Campos articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Justin Bieber
I reverted twice now allegations of a paternity suit per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENT, WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. Your help would be appreciated. Sample diff. Thank you. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 00:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I made those contributions. I feel this does not classify as routine celebrity news because of how much coverage this has gotten in highly notable publications. I understand this is a BLP of someone who is still very young, but I felt that the coverage is still very neutral. There was also a suggestion for this section on the article's talk page and a previous editor had added information about this suit. Rogerthat94 (talk) 00:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Apart from the policies I quoted above, I find it telling that one of the citations used links to the "Celebrity gossip section of Fox News. We should not deal in gossip. It would be better IMO to wait and see how this suit progresses before we feed into it more. In any case I will wait for some more opinions from this noticeboard. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 00:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the information about the recently filed suit does not belong in the article. Accusations of this sort, even if reported in the media, are inappropriate in a BLP. Anyone can file a lawsuit against a celebrity, and the media is only too happy to report it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well said. Thank you Bbb23. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 00:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Bbb23 - that said if in the future the accusations are verifiable (because a baby is born and DNA tested) then we have information to fill in. We are here to present the facts - not accusations of this sort - especially those that have been denied by the party involed. Moxy (talk) 00:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. Thank you Moxy. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 01:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Why do we mention alleged sexual charges for Michael Jackson? These were somewhat similar accusations that he was acquitted of. Nothing in my edit biasly accuses the subject of anything. It simply states the facts of the suit and remains neutral. Not every article was in a gossip section, either. It was in the national section of the Washington Post. Rogerthat94 (talk) 03:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Or the rumors of Herman Cain harrasment... Either reported gossip is notable, or it isnt. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 05:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This is not other stuf exists. The decision to include Cain's rumors happened this week, on this very page. The  criteria need to be consistent. If the beiber lawsuit can be verified, it is about a person who is clearly notable, and the fact that it is being reported makesthe suit/accusation notable. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd have to agree that this falls under the category of a fair other stuff exists argument. If you still don't feel this information would be appropriate to add, at what point would you consider it appropriate? It meets all of the notability criteria. Rogerthat94 (talk) 03:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We do have coverage of Jackson, see People v. Jackson and 1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson. hbdragon88 (talk) 18:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If at some point there is a court case of some sort of judgment/settlement made - then we have something to add to this article (as with the MJ and Herman Cain articles). We are not a news organization. Thus "I believe" we should not if possible and to the best of our abilities  write about speculations or hearsay especially when its current news that is unsubstantiated by a baby that is tested and/or "any" charges laid with respect to any party involed and/or settlements/judgment ....WP:BLPGOSSIP.Moxy (talk) 21:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * All the section says is that an allegation has been made. This is verifiable fact and I don't see why it shouldn't be in the article. --FergusM1970 (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Jackson's allegations were much more publicised and prominent with multiple court appearances and wide media coverage. This case is much more obscure. In any case, this involves also BLP issues because Bieber is a living person. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 23:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's hardly obscure; it's on the front page of the Daily Telegraph. --FergusM1970 (talk) 23:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it has not become some widely-distributed news item yet. Per WP:NOTNEWS this should not be included in the article. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 23:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Really? Every major UK newspaper has it, MSNBC has it, Associated Press has it, Fox has it... how does this not count as "widely distributed"? As for NOTNEWS, it isn't routine and it concerns a notable person. I think it should stay in and unless I see a valid argument that's what I'm going to do. --FergusM1970 (talk) 23:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't bothered to search the news for this tripe, so don't get too excited about the coverage. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a rumour-reporting agency. There is no rush to include this tripe. Before you start edit-warring this stuff into the article you should wait for some other people here to voice their opinions. There is WP:NODEADLINE and we need time to form WP:CONSENSUS. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 23:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What makes it "tripe"? Why are you so hostile to the idea of this notable allegation being included in the article? I'll also point out a slight inconsistency in your argument: you claim it's not widely reported but admit that you haven't checked. Trust me, it's widely reported. --FergusM1970 (talk) 23:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no inconsistency in my argument. I was responding to your mention of the Daily Telegraph and I just assumed if there were any other news outlets you would have mentioned them to make your argument stronger. I guess I was wrong in that assumption. As far as calling it "tripe" it is because the tabloids are full with reports of scandals of this type. There is a whole industry feeding on this stuff. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 23:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If it was just tabloids reporting it I would agree. However the BBC and CNN now have it as well. I haven't checked Reuters yet. --FergusM1970 (talk) 23:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, Reuters have it too. --FergusM1970 (talk) 23:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I just reverted your edits that reinserted the information through a sly back door and without edit summaries. I see you've reverted my reversion. I have posted a 3RR warning on your Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have put Mariah Yeater back in the list of women who have been threatened by Bieber fans WITHOUT repeating her allegations. I hope this won't make anyone cry. And did Lakeshade get a 3RR warning too? --FergusM1970 (talk) 00:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The reference you provide is all about the paternity suit, so it's just another way of getting it in without actually saying so in the article. Also, your edit is not exempt from 3RR, so you've now violated it. IF you self-revert relatively quickly, I won't report it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The reference I provided is all about the death threats issued through Twitter by deranged Bieber fans; the paternity allegations are mentioned only to provide context. --FergusM1970 (talk) 00:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

OK. There is no doubt whatsoever that this allegation has been made and no doubt that it has led to further examples of verbal abuse by Bieber fans, a trend that is already in the article. It isn't OR, it isn't controversial and it isn't NOTNEWS, so why shouldn't it be in the article? Someone just give a valid reason please. --FergusM1970 (talk) 01:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * As you can see others disagree with your assessment of the situation and is why we are here. I would say its very controversial to write about allegations that have not been substantiated and in fact have been denied by Bieber. We would have a 7 page article if we wrote about every allegation that has come up over the past few years (just image Jaggers page if we wrote about his 100s of sex allegations). All that said all you need to do is convince others here your right because unfortunately consensus is the primary way in which editorial decisions are made on Wikipedia. Also would like to make you aware of WP:3RR - don't want to see you blocked over this issue. Moxy (talk) 01:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No, it would be controversial to write that Bieber had nailed some scutter in his dressing room. It isn't controversial at all to say that the allegation was made, because you'd have to be mad to deny that it has. A lawsuit has been submitted and a court date has apparently been set. All of this is well referenced, it's notable and it has already had knock-on effects, namely that Mariah Yeater has been added to the list of women who've received death threats from Bieber fans. --FergusM1970 (talk) 01:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose addition. The above arguments (RECENTISM, NOTNEWS ect) are all valid here. Unless this goes to court I oppose this addition. - (CK)Lakeshade  -  talk2me  - 00:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 00:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * include The allegation is a fact, the allegation is notable. Either verifiably reported allegations are notable, or they are not. The rule needs to be consistent. BLP has a specific (politician related) example that exactly covers this situation, which says it should be included. If you want to RFC to change BLP then so be it, but until that time, the policy is the policy. The notablity has gone past blogs and tabloids at this point. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Support addition. This is a widely-reported allegation about a notable person. I see no reason why it shouldn't be in the article, especially as it has led to further instances of something already discussed in the article, namely death threats issued by Bieber fans. --FergusM1970 (talk) 00:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose addition. We dont write about "allegation" - give it time see what happens as per WP:BLPGOSSIP.Moxy (talk) 00:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually we DO write about allegations, as Herman Cain will tell you. Nor is this gossip - a lawsuit has been filed. This fact is worthy of including, and when we've seen how it goes we'll have additional information to add. I really don't see what the issue is with reporting this. --FergusM1970 (talk) 00:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I can understand your a little upset but have you actually read over WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENT, WP:BLP (WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:UNDUE?
 * Yes I've read them, and in my opinion they don't apply. It IS news, it's not subject to rapid change and it's not libellous to report that the allegation has been made. --FergusM1970 (talk) 01:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. I wasn't aware we were !voting. My comments above remain the same. If everyone thinks we need a !vote for clarification, I'll post an oppose.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As I have explained above we cannot keep adding rumours every time the press has a new product to sell. Until and if these allegations gain more traction and substance through court decisions etc. they are unfit to be included in a serious encyclopaedia and more importantly in a BLP article. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 01:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * directly from the policy "Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but The New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing The New York Times as the source.". You cannot just make up a new policy because you say so. Either change the existing policy with consensus, or follow the current policy. This item is clearly meeting WP:WELLKNOWN which is directly part of WP:BLP according to current consensus. I just fought your battle on several articles and lost, and ill be damned if im not going to make it consistent. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTBATTLE. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 02:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As Gaijin has pointed out, the WP policy says allegations can be reported. Given that I see no reason why this prominent and widely reported allegation shouldn't go in the article. --FergusM1970 (talk) 02:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately (my view), I think you make a good point. The only issue then would be whether, as of now, the allegations have risen to the level of a "public scandal."--Bbb23 (talk) 02:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The allegation is certainly public - every major English language news organisation is carrying it - and it has potentially major implications. I think in the interests of balance we should include the allegation AND the denial by Bieber's publicity people (and Bieber himself if he's actually denied it, which I don't know.) --FergusM1970 (talk) 02:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously, it's "public", but that doesn't mean it's a "public scandal". Allegations of impropriety by a politician sometimes cause a public scandal. However, allegations of impropriety by a celebrity, not so much.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * For someone whose reputation is so heavily based on being squeaky clean and disgustingly well behaved, a 30-second Tuppenny Upright backstage seems to fall into the "scandalous" category, wouldn't you agree? --FergusM1970 (talk) 02:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think making it a "scandal" is by definition POV, we are not placing a judgement about the things that are notable, merely repeating what is clearly notable. If we start making "scandal" judgements, that is OR/sythesis on our part. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually I'm not suggesting making judgements at all; I think the article should simply report the allegations, Bieber's response to them and any other events that can be traced to them. You brought up the subject of scandal, not me. --FergusM1970 (talk) 02:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry, no you didn't! --FergusM1970 (talk) 02:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * SupportI have tried to add information on the claims, however the information I added was deleted a matter of seconds after I had posted it, and I did include a reliable reference (New York Daily News). In my opinion, the allegations should be included in the article, until the allegations are proved false, then they can be removed as they will become irrelevant and will just be another claim from a fan. You can sit there and claim that they're false (as they likely are), but we won't know for sure until the court hearing on December 15, so until then it should be included. It is an encyclopedic topic, it is an ongoing, important scandal and should be included. Bieber is involved in accusations all the time, yes, but this has received massive, international media attention, and just because the allegations haven't been proved true, doesn't mean that the allegations are false. And if they do prove to be true, then we'll look like fools because we didn't include information on the allegations, prior. If it's being reported by CNN, NBC, FOX, Reuter, and all of these places, then it is reliable and should be included. If you Googled Justin Bieber, this article would be one of the first to show up, and if someone is looking for information on the claims or is just looking for information on him in general, I would think that the article should include SOMETHING about the accusations, it doesn't necessarily need it's whole paragraph but it should be included somewhere if it's received this much attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3193th (talk • contribs) 02:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

dr.k : Im not sure what you are looking for regarding consensus. 3 of the active editors in the discussion say it should be included according to WP:WELLKNOWN and WP:BLP you say it shouldn't. The policy is very clear, this is now EXTREMELY notable. gnews now has 1400 hits on "bieber baby". it far surpases any possibly definition of notability and verifiablity possible. yes, the allegations may eventually turn out to be false. This possibility is specifically contemplated by the policy, which says to include the info. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. We're not looking at saying he did father this woman's spawn; we're looking at saying she SAYS she did, and that's factual and notable. I see no reason whatsoever for us not to follow policy on this one. --FergusM1970 (talk) 03:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * 3 of the active editors in the discussion say it should be included according to WP:WELLKNOWN and WP:BLP you say it shouldn't... What is this statement supposed to mean? What is exactly an "active" editor? I and the other opposing editors are not active enough for you? Why are you singling me out? What are the other opposing editors? Chop liver? As far as the threshold Bbb23 explained it to you. There is no consensus that this is a scandal. Until it is reported as such it cannot be included. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 03:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * How about Fox News? — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 18:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * So what if there's no concensus that it's a scandal? That's irrelevant. An allegation has been made and has been widely reported. People have acted on this allegation. It DOESN'T MATTER if it's a scandal or not; it's a fact and should be in the article. And no, you're NOT active enough; your sole activity consists of reverting well referenced edits. You are actively preventing us from adding to this article, in blatant violation of WP policy. --FergusM1970 (talk) 03:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please cease the personal attacks and the aggressive tone. Your edit-warring is on record for everyone to see. You have already broken 4RR. Is this active enough for you? Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 03:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And your statement your sole activity consists of reverting well referenced edits is a lie. I have been discussing this subject and I was the one who opened this section. So please do not lie. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 03:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * But what you haven't done is give a valid reason why we should breach WP policy and leave this allegation out of the article. It's widely reported, well referenced and indisputably factual. People have acted on it in a way which has already been mentioned in the article. Bieber's PR people have responded to it. Is tehre any reason AT ALL why it shouldn't be included? --FergusM1970 (talk) 03:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That is your personal opinion. I quote Gaikjin42 from above: directly from the policy "Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but The New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing The New York Times as the source.". I said it before and Bbb23 told you as well. Get a reliable souce referencing that this is a scandal and I will agree with you. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 03:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * drk : From what I can see, you are the one edit warring. How many reverts do you have on the page? The "active" comment is because currently, you are the only one saying we do not have consensus. consensus != unanimity. There is no policy that says "only scandals". There are many policies that say "verifiable" "notable". it is possible that "recentism" can apply, especially if the allegations turn out to be false. However something that thousands of articles have now been written about cannot be ignored.  The plicy specifically addresses unproved allegations. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * How many reverts I have? I think you can count. So no rhetorical questions please. There also many other editors actively reverting you so don't try to portray me as the sole opponent. The other editors are not active at present because they are out for some time. Let's wait for their input. I will stop for now because I will be busy for some time. So let's wait for some other people to chime in. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 03:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "So let's wait for some other people to chime in." No. Let's follow WP policy. --FergusM1970 (talk) 03:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Now, what do you have to put against that? Let's stop quibbling about reverts and look at WP policy, which I just quoted. If you don't have anything I'm putting the allegation back in the article and you're free to report me for doing so. I'm happy to let the big boys it out. --FergusM1970 (talk) 03:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2011/11/04/justin-bieber-hires-crisis-management-team-to-deal-with-paternity-scandal/
 * http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20542753,00.html
 * http://arts.nationalpost.com/2011/11/04/selena-gomez-dumps-justin-bieber-in-the-wake-of-baby-scandal/

would you like more? Gaijin42 (talk) 03:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that's enough. It's notable enough to be carried by every major English-speaking news organisation, it's relevant because Bieber is directly involved and it's as well documented as you can get. It belongs in the article and nobody has given a valid reason why it doesn't. --FergusM1970 (talk) 03:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If this is a challenge that you will edit war, this will be your 5th revert. I think you know what that would entail for you. As far as the rest of your points my final answers to you: 1. Wait for more input from other editors. 2. You have not proved this is a "scandal". 3. I stop discussing this with you until other people chime in. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 03:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. I welcome input from all editors who are willing to follow WP policy on BLP. 2. It DOESN'T MATTER if it's a scandal or not; it only has to be notable, relevant and well-documented, which it is. 3. Consensus is great. So are the rules. The rules say the allegation belongs in the article. --FergusM1970 (talk) 03:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You made the standard "Get a reliable souce referencing that this is a scandal and I will agree with you." I have provided 3 and can provide many more. gnews = "bieber scandal". . Are we done here? Gaijin42 (talk) 03:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we're done. WP:BLP says that if an allegation is notable, relevant and well-documented it belongs in the article. This allegation is all three. Do you want to put it back in or shall I? I probably have more reverts, but I'm willing to take my chances because I've been reverting edits that are in violation of WP policy, and this discussion is going nowhere because the other camp have no argument. --FergusM1970 (talk) 03:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, the allegation is back in the article. Please DO NOT remove it unless you can show that it is not notable, relevant or well-documented. --FergusM1970 (talk) 04:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, this is a blatant attempt to use 3RR against anyone trying to add the allegation to the article. It is NOT WP:UNDUE, because the ENTIRE ENGLISH-SPEAKING MEDIA is reporting that the allegation has been made. It is NOT against WP:BLP, because that says that if the allegation is notable, relevant and well-documented it belongs in the article. Either prove that the allegation is not all of these things or stop removing it. I will be reporting this in the morning. I am not happy. --FergusM1970 (talk) 04:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not true. Both sides of the issue are subject to 3RR in this situation. —C.Fred (talk) 04:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, them's the rules. However I still haven't seen any valid reason why the information shouldn't be in the article. Nobody has edited it to claim that Bieber DID impregnate the woman, merely that she has ALLEGED that he did - and there's not really any doubt about that, is there? According to WP:BLP it belongs in the article. --FergusM1970 (talk) 04:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Support - As it has been stated above, the mass of coverage in reputable and notable publications makes it appropriate to include. Yes, there have probably been many allegations against Justin Bieber, but, to my knowledge, this is the only one in which legal action is being taken and every major news outlet has reported. I understand this allegation is being denied, but as an encyclopedia, we shouldn't turn our backs to the fact that a suit has been filed. That's all I'm asking we include. Rogerthat94 (talk) 03:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Are we still going to keep this tripe when it is revealed in the press that: The 20-year-old, who claims in court filings that Bieber fathered her son Tristyn during a 30-second sex session in a bathroom backstage after one of his shows, originally accused her ex of being the father of the same child This is exactly what the discussion at BLPN was trying to sort out. But despite the obvious existence of troubling signs about the accusations the edit-war managed to add this unreliable stuff into the Bieber BLP. I would revert this tripe but I ran out of reverts. Can anyone please take this out of the article? Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 05:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's been widely covered, and if it's absent from the article, you might be facing a perpetual edit war (until the allegations are resolved, anyway). Including the counterargument you listed, which would seem to undermine the accusations, helps to put some perspective on the situation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you Bugs for your comment and for finding this fact to add to the article. While you make a good point, I think that BLP was set up to avoid uncritically adding controversial information about living people especially if it is also damaging to the subject of the article. All indications point to the fact that this information is unreliable to say the least. Yet it was added to the article anyway and in a big section to boot. This is not a good moment for the BLP policy. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 06:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was Inside Edition or Entertainment Tonight (I forget which) that brought this new fact out into the open, and I just went looking for something that didn't look a blog. The allegations are a significant news story, at least for the moment. Hard to tell if the story has "legs". The woman's lawyers claim to have corroborating evidence. The final answer on this story has yet to be played out. But in the interim, if you're going to have the one story, the counterstory needs to be there too, in order to fully inform the readers as to different facets of the story. And if you exclude all references to the story, it makes wikipedia look out of touch with current events. So, you're right, it's a dilemma. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that waiting to see how this all pans out hurts the encyclopaedia. That's what WP:RECENT is for. To avoid uncritically jumping into the latest news or scandal and editing them into an article, especially a BLP. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 06:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree that our BLP policy and "RECENT" policy is set up so we dont do tit for tat in articles when the story is ongoing. We wait for the outcomes we dont report every update that occurs "during the development of a story". All we do is regurgitate the facts "after" the outcomes - we dont quote every  link that updates the news story with hearsays and guess work. Star is an American celebrity tabloid magazine and should have set off alarms for everyone in the media. That said - Baseball Bugs is right there would (is) going to be endless amount of people adding this - we can  always remove the  "news section later" along with old news with statement like those that end with phrases like  "none of which were true".Moxy (talk) 06:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this is slightly backwards, because it does not avoid the damage to Bieber's reputation, something the BLP policy was designed to prevent, but failed to do. In any case the article should be protected from editing and the offending section removed while this discussion continues. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 06:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Even though the accusations lack credibility, that's not a reason not to include information about this lawsuit. It doesn't change the fact that the suit was filed and the story was widely reported. Even if these allegations turn out to be false, this is still a story that received significant wide coverage in every single reputable major English news outlet. I have no problem including raised concerns about the suit's credibility in the article.Rogerthat94 (talk) 22:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Verifiability, not truth. It does not matter if the allegations turn out to be true or not. Policy specifically covers unproven allegations. You are not negotiationg in good faith drk. You clearly said that showing reliable sources referencing a scandal and you would agree. I found 3, and can provide many more. There is no policy that says "wait until the outcome is firmly determined". Yes, recentism does apply - recentism does not say "do not include any information about breaking news. I am going to be making an RFC to clarify the BLP policy. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a whole discussion about this Verifiability, not truth expression. It obviously has problems. As far as accusing me of bad faith remember it is incivil of you doing so and a personal attack. Remember: Assume the assumption of good faith. You want to smear the reputation of a BLP subject. I don't. Demanding high standards for BLP subjects and for an encyclopedia should not be attacked and so readily ridiculed as you are trying to do with your personal attacks. I could equally well accuse you of bad faith in that you don't care for the quality of information you are trying to add to the Bieber article despite the evidence that the whole episode is really unreliable given the background and current details of the information. In short: Stop your personal attacks, per WP:NPA and concentrate on replying to my valid policy points. Except if by personally attacking me you want me to give up discussing the subject so that you can have a free pass adding this unreliable tripe into the article. I never said not to include any information. The only thing I said is per WP:RECENTISM and WP:BLP we should wait and see what transpires and let things solidify a little before we add these serious but improbable allegations to Justin Bieber's article. Just like a quality check. But you obviously don't care for the quality of the information you want to add. This is not how encyclopedias are built. I don't disagree with the idea of an RFC. More eyes and more opinions on this can only be a good thing. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 15:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * the bad faith accusation was very specific. You set a criteria for inclusion "reliable sources referring to "scandal"". I provided said sources. You have now changed your argument. I am not trying to smear bieber. I dont really care a wit about bieber. I do care that policies are consistently enforced. It is your opinion that this is tripe. It is extremely notable, the allegations are extremely verifiable. The truth of the matter might not be known for YEARS. your refusal to include information is clearly POV. It is not our job to judge the judgement of the reliable sources. Yes there is a debate about verifiablity not truth. 1) The current policy is verifiablity, not truth. Until it changes, that is what we should follow. 2) even under the proposed changes, THAT IS STILL THE POLICY, its just changing how it is presented. Nowhere in the RFC does it say "only include things that are proven to be true" Gaijin42 (talk) 15:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course. The second weapon in the arsenal of any low-quality discussion after WP:ABF is accusing the opponent of POV. This discussion has gone to the dumps. Nevertheless, no, it is not my intention to delay adding this information in some form to the article for years. Heaven forbid; in Wikipedia's time scale that could be never. Please don't misrepresent my point. I simply want a few days to see how this develops and then add something into the article always mindful of WP:BLP, WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE. I don't think we should make it appear as if Bieber's life revolves around this by adding a huge section which dominates his biography. Anyway, in the final analysis this is a noticeboard where in theory many eyes are on this and while many opinions were offered in the past few days about this problem in Bieber's BLP the recent discussion is between me and you. It should not happen this way. Where is Moxy? Where is Bbb23 and the rest of the editors who supported caution in adding this info into the article? Where are the other BLP regulars? Everyone is either really busy or they don't care. Tell you what. Principles may be principles. But this is a community project. If no more editors comment, other than you or me, then I will take this as a sign of indifference to my arguments. In which case and if noone turns up here soon, go ahead and add something to the article, hopefully tasteful and brief, because if in a community-built encyclopedia people abandon a discussion this way my clue metre goes off the scale that discussing this further may be useless. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 16:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I am still here. I see why people think its notable - perhaps a mention is warranted it is verifiable - But then I read more things like WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:NOTSOAPBOX (Scandal mongering) - that mention not all that is verifiable should be included especially in bios. This is a tuff one to be honest.Moxy (talk) 16:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Moxy. Glad to see you here. Sometimes when editors don't appear with support arguments it seems that I am the only one going on and other editors attempt to marginalise my opinion. It is hard to carry on alone, especially in a community-driven project. I don't want to name names, it is not my style, but check the pressure which was applied to me earlier today by two editors in rapid succession. They almost out-typed me in applying their rapid-fire replies. Then one gave me an edit-warring ultimatum. It was not pleasant. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis  17:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am still here, too, but I have stopped contributing because at some point these discussions start to go in circles. Lest it is unclear, I am opposed to inclusion of the material in the article. There are many guidelines and policies against it, and it does not satisfy the test in WP:WELLKNOWN, which is the only possible policy in favor of inclusion.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * could you be specific as to the test you think is not satisfied? Gaijin42 (talk) 18:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * See my earlier "public scandal" comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate on what, specifically, in those policies you mentioned you feel disqualifies this information? I have read through them, and I feel they all support mention of this information. We are not gossip mongering or out to smear Justin Bieber. The fact is this is something that has been reputably and widely reported, and there is no policy that advocates censorship in favor of anybody's reputation. Look at Jimmy Wales. All I am asking is that we include something that mentions the suit was filed. You can then add sources that question it's credibility. Rogerthat94 (talk) 04:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you Bbb23. I am really glad to see you here. Everything I said to Moxy applies equally well to you. Please drop by, at your convenience of course, to chime in as needed. Same goes for Moxy. Thank you both. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 17:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

&Strongly support addition - but as allegations, since nothing is certain before a paternity test is done. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 15:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Or IF a paternity test is done. I should point out that my addition of the counterstory is also only an allegation at this point. If the suit moves forward, presumably these questions will be answered in some way. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Baseball, I was thinking precisely the same thing. We don't know if the court will order a DNA test. Indeed, there is a lot we don't know.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree there is a lot that is not known. I do not understand why Bieber is receiving some special protection. Go up a few sections and read the section about Cain. I started out in your position (in frankly a much stronger position, since those allegations are "someone (secondary) said, someone (primary) else said, something (undefined) happened". where as in this case, we have very specific allegations by identified (primary) sources. If the rule is allegations are not included until they are settled, let me be clear, I am fine with that rule. I am not fine with the rule being "whoever puts their stake in the ground hardest wins" this risks me running afoul of WP:POINT I realize. But the situation is almost identical, with exactly opposite results. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * comment - unless paternity is verified this has no place in an encyclopedic biography. It's unusual, although not unknown, to vote on the inclusion of BLP disputed content. the user that is the push to include this content is blocked for repeatedly inserting it, and its just more policy compliant not to report on such personal issues unless there is some kind of verification. - Reporting conservatively and erring on the side of caution as WP:BLP requests, lets wait for verification, or not as the case may be. - such is a position that the now blocked for 72hours user that is desirous of this additions position that is revealed in his latest comment, in which happily, he is totally mistaken - "If I get blocked I get blocked. Soon enough I'll be unblocked again, but the Justin Bieber article will still say a scutter alleged he got her pregnant. Heads I win, tails they lose." - Off2riorob (talk) 18:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment It may have come a bit late, I know how busy you are Rob, but your opinion is the standard that I go by in BLP-related matters. Thank you for your excellent analysis. Your tireless work in BLP matters is appreciated. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis  21:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * One thing that crosses my mind is that Bieber is still underage. If he weren't a public figure already, his name would be (properly) censored by the media. The dilemma is that this is a widely covered story, with no resolution yet, and if it's not even mentioned in the article, then it makes wikipedia look oblivious. However, since the only real known facts are that something was alleged and supposedly there's a suit being filed, spending an entire section on it might be undue weight. I wonder if the references within that section should be relegated to a single line or two in the external references section? At least until (or if) new facts emerge. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree Bugs. Respectfully, of course. Wikipedia doesn't look oblivious. It looks discriminating, encyclopaedic and high standard. Sometimes not adding this stuff in makes you look good. Especially for an underage kid, as you mentioned. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 21:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is the sticking point for me. What distinguishes this from WP:WELLKNOWN or Herman Cain. The situations are identical, and I have yet to hear an answer of why they are treated differently. Additionally, I have not heard what your reason is for having a moving target, when you said you would accept reliable sources of "scandal" above. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * What distinguishes this from Cain is that Bieber is an underage kid. We should have more discretion when we apply sexually-related information to his biography, especially if unclear, recent and very controversial. On retrospect I did not think it over as much as I should have when I said I would accept sources calling it a scandal to include it in the bio. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 21:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think the Bieber incident qualifies as a "scandal", at least not yet, since nothing has been demonstrated yet. With Cain, there are multiple women alleging harassment, and at least one of them was paid in exchange for silence. That is a scandal in the works. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent points. Thank you Bugs. I wanted to say something along your lines but I am not too interested in the Cain article to go digging for information. So I let it go. You actually enunciated ideas I was thinking about but I couldn't bring myself to check them out due to lack of interest in the Cain affair. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 21:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What Wikipedia policy Supports your discression of minors? I understand where you're coming from, but we are not accusing him of anything. We are simply adding information that has already been reported by many reputable major news outlets. We don't need to refer to this as a scandal or give it its own section, but leaving out the fact that this suit has been filed is just plain censorship. The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a sum of reputable information on notable subjects. This information is clearly reputable and none of the policies you have posted apply. Remember Dr. K, your personal discression is not Wikipedia policy. Rogerthat94 (talk) 22:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Re. you comment: Remember Dr. K, your personal discression is not Wikipedia policy. Please do not make this so personal. This is your personal interpretation of my comments and has nothing to do with reality. I do not apply my personal discretion as policy. What I am trying to explain is that we should tread with caution when highly controversial sexual content is entered into any BLP article. That Bieber also happens to be an underage kid demands all the more care. This is just common sense. No policy can legislate common sense or logic. If you don't understand that there is no reason why we should be continuing this conversation. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis  22:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I love how you start off your comment with "Please do not make this so personal" and then personally criticize me throughout your response. What I was trying (and obviously failed) to explain is that there is no policy that deals with inclusion of information about minors. This may be something to consider making a policy about in the future, but there is none now. The bottom line is that this has been significantly reported by every major news outlet out there, and it could have a huge impact on his career. It's something that anybody coming to Wikipedia to learn about him would probably want to know. We are not accusing him of anything, simply making note of the information that has already been reported by highly reputable sources. Information should be judged based on how reputable and notable it is, not on how it affects somebody's reputation or that the subject is a minor. Re. your comment: No policy can legislate common sense or logic. Are you serious? Wikipedia's policy was created by editors and administrators with much more experience than you or me to do just this. As editors, we follow the logic dictated by the policy, not our own personal discretion. That's why policies are updated. Policies are somewhat open to interpretation, but none of your "common sense" has anything to do with Wikipedia's current policies. Rogerthat94 (talk) 03:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Two comments. First, and foremost, I think this topic has been beaten to death. Unless an editor who hasn't already voiced a position wants to contribute, I think we (including me) should all stop. Second, although appealing on a commonsense level, I don't believe the "underage" part is a significant issue. As a legal matter, a person's age is relevant in different contexts and varies by jurisdiction. I don't think Bieber's age is relevant in this context. Thus, although I agree with most of Dr. K.'s comments, the "underage" issue is a bit of a distraction. I will now try to heed my own advice and shut up.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

If this is so incredibly encyclopedic and notable then why isn't there a Mariah Yeater article? That article could also explain that she's charged with battering her ex-boyfriend, and other crucial info like that. And the paternity stuff could be drained from the Bieber article except for maybe something like "Bieber is single, and has no known children".Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your great sense of humour. :) Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 23:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it's a serious question, though I confess to some lightheartedness about it. I OPPOSE including this stuff in the Bieber article, beyond maybe a wikilink as I just described.  That's not to say I'm part of his fanbase (personally I don't know what his music sounds like, but I don't know what Justin Timberlake's music sounds like either, so that makes me an old fart I guess).Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I also have no clue what Bieber's music sounds like. Normally I avoid BLPN and in fact I trust that BLPN regulars do a great job taking care of these matters. I just happened to fall upon this controversy through checking on Bieber's article and the issue caught my attention. I can tell you though judging from this experience, BLPN work is not an easy matter. I don't know how the regulars do this day in day out. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 23:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup, that's why non-regulars like me stop by now and then to help out. The regulars here don't get the acclaim they deserve (which is okay because then they might get hit with paternity suits and whatnot).Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * True. :) Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 00:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * See Notability_(people) Rogerthat94 (talk) 03:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, merely being a spouse or child is not enough notability (by itself) for a standalone article. And yet girlfriends, spouses, and the like sometimes do have standalone articles.  See Paula Jones, Michelle Obama, Jennifer Flowers, Ann Romney, et cetera.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read through Notability_(people). There is no policy advocating censorship of notable information from highly reputable sources, to preserve anybody's reputation, even if they are a minor. There is, however, a strict BLP notability policy that disqualifies Mariah Yeater from having her own article. We should include a mention that this suit was filed in Bieber's article, but Yeater is not notable enough to have a separate article. Rogerthat94 (talk) 04:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, there are lots of Wikipedia policies that operate to exclude information, but I wouldn't call all of that "censorship". Policies and guidelines like WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:Recentism, for example, don't really involve censorship.  Anyway, I've suggested that if all this info is included in Wikipedia, it would be better to do that by starting a Yeater article.  Would you want us to take all the crud from the Paula Jones and Gennifer Flowers articles and put it into the Bill Clinton article?  A Yeater article could also address whether she's a rapist, since she was over 18 and he wasn't (if you believe her story).Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTNEWS and WP:Recentism don't apply to this. None of Wikipedia's policies are even close to being censorship. They aim to exclude information that is not notable and not reputable, but it's clear this information is notable and reputable. Both of the subjects you mentioned are much more notable than Mariah Yeater. It's very clear that Yeater fails the notability criteria. I'm not advocating we go into details about what is alleged. All I advocate is mentioning something along the lines of "A paternity suit has been filed, alleging Bieber fathered a child with 20-year old Mariah Yeater... Statutory rape is being investigated... suit lacks credibility... etc." My original contribution is linked to at the beginning of the discussion. When we include this information, and a reader of the Justin Bieber article is curious about the suit's lacking of credibility, they can do so in one of the refrences. Rogerthat94 (talk) 04:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You're ignoring or not seeing the word enduring in the term "enduring notability". Waiting a while increases the odds that it's enduring.  You'd be meeting less resistance here if you were proposing only one short sentence with one footnoteAnythingyouwant (talk) 05:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that this has been reported - not only online, but also on TV and in physical papers - by every major American, Canadian, and British news organization is a pretty good sentiment to the fact that this will be enduring. So is the nature of this claim. As it has been stated above, Herman Cain's allegations are very similar. Obviously, we can't predict the future as to whether or not this really will be enduring information, but we can always remove it in the future if it turns out to be a big nothing. At the current time, however, it seems like it will be a big deal. Obviously, there would be less opposition if we decided to wait or water down the information, but I believe in following Wikipedia's policies and standards set by other articles. Rogerthat94 (talk) 05:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You may be trying to follow policy, but so are others who disagree with your conclusions. Since this is not the nineteenth century, there will be a definitive DNA test, if the accusation isn't withdrawn before then.  At that point, we'll see how enduring the story is.  Until then, one sentence in the BLP ought to be plenty.  And that's about all I have to say about it.  Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There may not be a DNA test. Bieber's legal team is actively trying to prevent a test from happening. Either way, the accusation was reputably reported by the media, and a mention of this fact does not violate any Wikipedia policies. Rogerthat94 (talk) 05:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. I came to the article on JB specifically to find out the facts regarding the parternity suit against him that I heard on the the news, but of course there is no information here. 98.20.191.7 (talk) 03:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose addition The "paternity claim" material would make a good test to determine whether a prospective editor has a clue about encyclopedic content and WP:BLP, and I do not know why this needs such a long discussion and full protection (instead of escalating blocks on those re-adding the material). Yes, many people would like gossip recorded in loving detail at every opportunity, but that is not the purpose of Wikipedia. The point of WP:NOTNEWS is that it is not our role to deal with breaking information where the underlying situation is unclear and impossible to ascertain, except for cases of worldwide significance (like a major earthquake where, even if details are not currently available, it is obvious that details will be available, and that whatever the underlying situation, material covering the event will be needed. By contrast, the Justin Bieber story is 100% nonsense and pure gossip. In a couple of months, reliable secondary sources will have decided whether there is some underlying issue with a long term signficance. That will be the time to decide whether any mention is needed in an encyclopedic article. Meanwhile, these made-up claims (no evidence other than one person's claim) should not be amplified by recording in an article here. Johnuniq (talk) 10:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. In addition to Johnuniq's excellent analysis, I'd point out that it's too early for there to be any meaningful secondary analysis at this time, which makes it impossible to judge whether the issue is sufficiently notable.  This may well be a suitable matter for inclusion, but we mustn't rush to cover it.  Jakew (talk) 11:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose A great example of wht Wikipedia should avoid adding material which is the news but has not been shown to be true to any extent at all. Let the newspapers and tabloids do this sort of stuff - we need to look at how the article will read in ten years.  Example - the Duke lacrosse case  (whose names are eternally etched into that ill-initiated article) - we ought first of all "do no harm" rather than post the latest "hot dirt" on anyone at all (or any group at all).  Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Your logic would apply to the Herman Cain accusations. Should we remove them as well? Rogerthat94 (talk) 15:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless something is common practice, which consensus editorial exclusion of content and conservative editing in respect to contentious content about living people is, then the fact that something similar is included on another articles isnt really of any weight in this discussion. - This discussion has gone on long enough - unless anything else changes there is clearly not going to be consensus to include this content. I read a report today that this woman also claimed her boyfriend was the father. Unless there are significant changes/updates there is no point in continuing this discussion . I suggest at the same time as this is closed, we also request lowering theprotection of the article to semi-protection. Off2riorob (talk) 15:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you Rob. I agree. Just indicate when this discussion has ended so that I can request the downgrading of the protection level to semi. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 15:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Should hold off on unlocking the page - as many young and/or new editors will get right back to edit Waring over this.Moxy (talk) 16:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And even not-so-young, not-so-new editors. I also don't know how you declare that "this is closed". I tried it, but to no avail.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

(Undent) Just a very brief comment about the Cain comparison. How a presidential campaign handles a crisis almost always has enduring notability, regardless of what the crisis is. Voters and secondary sources are often more interested in how the candidate deals with it than what the particular crisis is.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Bieber has been summoned to a paternity hearing. I would think it fair to include mention of the suit now and then remove it if the media has stopped talking about it after the hearing. The baby has been mentioned to look a lot like Bieber and the woman has Sworn to this under penalty of perjury. Many reputable secondary sources have reported on this as well. Rogerthat94 (talk) 15:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:SECONDARY <--
 * - thats great a paternity test - if it returns that he is the father we will report it then - if he's not the father we won't report that some girl claimed he was the father of her baby but a paternity test proved negative. Off2riorob (talk) 16:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Bieber's counsel supposedly has to appear at a hearing on December 15 (unless that has subsequently changed or it is later continued). Obviously, no paternity test has yet been ordered by the judge. The Mail's irresponsible reporting that Bieber has been "summoned to attend a paternity test at Los Angeles Superior Court" is ridiculous. And unless it's been transferred, as far as I know, the case is in San Diego, not in Los Angeles.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You got it - all still up in the air different news reports all over saying different things. How are we to determain whats right and good to write about. WP:VALIDMoxy (talk) 16:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Support The controversy is obviously notable and something our readers would expect to be covered in our article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In 2011 a woman claimed Bieber was the father of her baby and her lawyer requested a paternity test. Bieber said he had never met her.[1]
 * - as you can see, it's encyclopedic-ally and will be also historically worthless unless there is confirmation or something major changes. Off2riorob (talk) 16:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I'm not that familiar with this person beyond an SNL episode he appeared in and that I hear his name every where. The point of Wikipedia is to educate our readers.  If someone hears about this story on the radio or at last night's Tracy Morgan stand-up (yes, I was there and it came up), and they decide to read our article to find out what's going on, we should explain it to them.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is in the business of providing encyclopedic information about subjects to our readers. Our purpose is not to "educate" our readers in the sense of providing every piece of information about the subject or even the information that some readers may want to find here. At this point, as Rob says, this is titillating gossip. Many readers are interested in such gossip. Many readers don't understand why we don't provide more information on every person every celebrity has ever dated, slept with, looked at, had pictures taken with, etc. As it stands, we have far too much of that crap. All it does is make us into a gossip mirror.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Who is arguing that every piece of information about the subject should be in an article? This controversy is obviously notable and nothing in your post disputes this fact.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It is odd when a "conspiracy" or "speculations" are left out of an article - but this is why we have talks. Not all go the right way sometimes - things that are widely covered get left out of article all the time because  peoples interpretation  of our polocies get messed up. Dont see any urgency here to add because its all guess work up-till now. WP:BLPSOURCES - Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalismMoxy (talk) 16:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Does anyone seriously think that the Washington Post is a tabloid? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec)Yes "Sarah Anne Hughes" is the gossip writer for there blog (no editorial over site from what I can see). We must also look at the original source of the story  Star (magazine) that I dont think anyone believes is reliable. All that said I am  now leaning towards some sort of mention  as "A Quest For Knowledge" point out - our readers do have expectation  of coverage.Moxy (talk) 17:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally without verification that its his baby imo it wouldn't change my position what source it was in, apart from if the BBC report it ... but unless I am mistaken (does happen)that is a blog post Sarah from Anne Hughes - Blogger and looks ot be without editorial oversight. Off2riorob (talk) 17:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Although I know you think the BBC is sacrosanct, in this instance, if any source, BBC or otherwise, simply repeated what it says in the other sources, it wouldn't change my opinion.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The BBC has reported it, in what appears to be an actual news story, and not a blog. Rogerthat94 (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup, and that's exactly why I said what I did. Quoting from the BBC report: "A 20-year-old woman has reportedly told a US magazine that the teenage singer is the father of her three-month-old boy. Star magazine has pictured Mariah Yeater on its front cover holding her son." Obviously, just repeating what the other rags say.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That doesn't undermine that the fact that a paternity suit has been filed is definitely true. The Washington post also posted An Associated Press article in their National section. This does not appear to be a blog to me. Rogerthat94 (talk) 17:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We are in a gossip echo chamber. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 17:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that the suit has been filed is not gossip. It is notable and has been reputably reported. Verifiability, not truth Rogerthat94 (talk) 17:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Gossip doesn't have to be false to be gossip. "conversation about unimportant subjects, especially people’s private lives" ; "report of an intimate nature" ; "talk of a personal, sensational, or intimate nature" .--Bbb23 (talk) 18:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Dictionaries are not Wikipedia policy. All of the Wikipedia policies that outline what qualifies as gossip that should not be included don't apply to this. Anybody coming to Wikipedia to learn about Justin Bieber would probably want to be given some sort of acknowledgment of this suit, even if it never goes to court, or he doesn't turn out to be the father. Rogerthat94 (talk) 18:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Obviously this information could be modified or removed in the future as more details become clear. We don't have to be so blunt about it. Look at my sample contributions above. If we report with an objective point of view and cite everything, there is encyclopedic value in it. Something that has received this much reputable coverage is something we can't ignore. Obviously, the details will become clear as this story is reported more and we can correct them as such. Preserving reputations is not a Wikipedia policy, reporting notable facts as accurately and objectively as possibly is. Rogerthat94 (talk) 16:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you trust the source? WP:BLPGOSSIP - Is the source reliable, this woman reportably told her boyfriend it was his baby. We can and do editorial editing - come back when its proved and worthy of adding and not just well known titillating gossip. Off2riorob (talk) 16:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We must mention, simply, that the suit was filed. Nobody is advocating we mention that Bieber truly did father this child unless it is proved true. Until then, we mention, again, that a suit was filed. There is no question that this is the truth. All of the news sources that I trust have reported this. We can also mention questions that the media has raised about the woman's credibility. Rogerthat94 (talk) 17:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "Do you trust the source?" I have no reason not to.  Here's another one from the same author that says that Bieber denied allegation on the "Today" show.  There's even a video to prove it.  I have no reason to believe the video is a fake.  It looks legit to me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I wasn't clear - the source of this story is a woman that reportedly first told another man that he was the father. Off2riorob (talk) 20:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

A Quest for Knowledge, the Washington Post blog that you link to says, "enabling celebrity news and pop culture junkies". So, yes, it's a tabloid. I personally want to know what Tracy Morgan said about it, but that doesn't mean Morgan belongs in the Bieber article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:NEWSBLOG. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think WaPo is the first reliable newspaper to include a tabloid/gossip column. They also offer cartoons and paid advertisements.  Anyway, Wikipedia policy says: "Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete".  The best way to do that here would be to wait a couple weeks to see what happens.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * A very reasonable point and one I have been making one way or the other since the beginning of this controversy. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 18:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Or to just mention that a suit was filed. There is no reason to doubt this is true, and thus it will probably never need to be removed. This is clearly notable, and it is reputable information we should be informing people about. Rogerthat94 (talk) 18:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure, one brief sentence that won't become obsolete would be fine, IMO.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry Anythingyouwant. There was an edit conflict. I was agreeing with you, not Roger. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 18:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * What gossip? It's a fact that a lawsuit has been filed.  It's a fact that he's denied allegations.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

So say it: "In late 2011, Bieber faced a paternity allegation, which he denied." That's it, no more until we know more. WP:BLPGOSSIP covers both true gossip and false gossip.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

In 2011, Bieber faced a paternity allegation, which he denied.


 * I think eleven words is fine. 45 words are not needed at this point, plus it would be one-sided to only quote the lawyer for one side.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, agreed. I could bring myself to not object to such an addition, with a nod to WP:WELLKNOWN and a good faith effort to find a consensus resolution to this discussion, on the understanding that there is to be no expansion unless there would be a major alteration in details and or the paternity is resolved one way or the other. Off2riorob (talk) 18:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * On the plus side, it might put an end to this interminable discussion. On the other hand, I'm not sure some editors would agree to your "no expansion" condition (I would agree FWIW).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I had suggested a legal issues section, because many celebrities have similar sections. What justification (that is supported by Wikipedia policy) do you have for limiting the amount of coverage? Where in the current article would this mention fit, if a separate section is not created? I'm mot opposed to limiting the ammount of coverage, if someone were to provide proper justification. Rogerthat94 (talk) 19:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd put it in the "Criticisms and parodies" section. After all, Mariah whatshername is criticizing him.  As for keeping out other stuff for the time being, pretty much all of the same arguments apply as applied to keeping it all out, such as recentism, gossip, enduring notability, et cetera.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:WEIGHT, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENT, WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE wiki policies and guidelines all seem to limit the reporting of this in his life story. The proposed comment could also be simply added to the end of the Justin Bieber section. Off2riorob (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Out of respect for consensus, I would agree with the proposals by Rob and Anythingyouwant. I still think that we should have waited for this to clear before inclusion but I can see consensus forming and I don't want to impede it. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 19:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That 11-word sentence sounds fine. It reports all the known facts but doesn't make too big a thing out of it. If someone wants to know the gossip, they can follow the link or check in Google or whatever. It's not like there's a shortage of gossip on the internet. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Off2riorob that 2011–present is a better place to put this than Criticisms and parodies. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, not in criticisms and parodies, which would be just begging for trouble. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * One way to add this would be to add an edit request to the talkpage of Beiber. If anyone objects you can do it there, if there are no objections the addition will be assumed to have consensus support and will be added by an admin after a decent length of time to allow for objections. Off2riorob (talk) 19:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I feel that, since this is still an allegation, putting it in a career and personal life section is inappropriate and would tarnish the section. I still advocate for creating a legal issues section, but adding it to the career and personal life section is an ok compromise. Again, I don't feel those policies apply to this but I am ok with your compromise. Because there has been a consensus here, waiting more for an edit request seems unncessary. Rogerthat94 (talk) 19:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * - ✅ - I have posted an edit request to the protected page - Talk:Justin Bieber - if anyone doesn't support or objects to the addition please post your objection there to stop the edit protected request being actioned. Off2riorob (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it's clear that Wikipedia policy says that the allegation should be included. It's been widely reported and by WP:WELLKNOWN, widely publicized allegations about public figures should be mentioned. I think it's also clear that Wikipedia policy is broken. Since the policy requires reporting allegations regardless of truth, and since we have "verifiability, not truth" as another policy, the fact that there's a good chance the allegation is baseless is not something we're allowed to take into consideration. Also, the fact that reporting the allegation gives it credibility is something we're not allowed to take into consideration either. I am tempted to say "delete it by IAR" but IAR really isn't appropriate as a means of handling systemic problems. So I'd say that it must be kept in, but should be limited to one line to avoid undue weight, and put in a legal issues section. Ken Arromdee (talk) 18:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Support addition. This is easily notable and it's ludicrous that we're even discussing it. Everyking (talk) 21:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Support: Why is it I can read almost up-to-the-minute developements regarding Jerry Sandusky but see nothing regarding a story of equal proportion? I get the impression that many arguing against inclusion are mistaking "verifiable" to mean "he is the father", when in reality all that needs to be verified is if the lawsuit is real. Since that much is established as fact, and the story is big enough that now both the accuser and accused are addressing it in the national media then obviously it also passes the "notability" test. Heck, Bieber himself feels that apparently it's notable enough to submit to a paternity test as well. I understand having to tread lightly since it's an ongoing story and both parties are still very much alive, however we cannot turn a blind eye to what is a significant story in the career/life of a major celebrity. The newsworthy elements (lawsuit, agreement to paternity test, countersuit) are all elements that must be mentioned in his page immediately. -- TRTX T / C 21:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Additional Note: In reading a large number of responses saying it's "not newsworthy" simply because Ms. Yeater's claim comes off as entirely baseless. That is irrelevant. And in some instances smacks of editors applying personal biases (ie: their Belieber status) to what is generally an open and shut discussion. If such a discussion is needed at all. -- TRTX T / C 21:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please retract your baseless remark about ... Belieber status which aside from being baseless it is silly and demeans other editors. Thank you. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 22:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Dr. K., good luck with that. Unfortunately, many Wikipedia editors are not as courteous as you.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much Bbb23 for your kind comments. It is because of editors like you, that my experience here is still a net positive. You have my respect for this. Take care. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 01:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

←I would kindly ask that both Dr. K and Bbb23 review my history on Wikipedia before they make claims as to my goals and nature in this discussion. I too am interested in making sure WP is as balanced and accurate as possible, hence my confusion regarding the conscious decision to ignore the growing amount of information available regarding this story. In the interest of moving forward with a consensus, I propose the following edit:. The ultimate goal is to state only the facts (as I proposed above). This includes the identity of the person making the claim, the response from Bieber's representatives (Who would be considered noteworthy sources given their express duty is to speak on his behalf) and the response by his camp including an agreement to take a paternity test and potentially file countersuits if they are determined neccesary. While I agree that Wikipedia is not the place to report everything that comes across the dirtshirts, given that this has grown to the point that Bieber himself is willing to take a paternity test to defend himself and could sue in response turns this more than just "a 2011 paternity claim which Bieber denied". Note the source (ABC News), the direct quote from Bieber's publicist, and the lack of any "tabloid" style speculation regarding his relationship with Selena Gomez or other sensationalist material. I would ask that this be seriously considered as a viable compromise, given the growing scope of this story. This is not us taking nothing and turning it into something, but rather documenting on how a typically baseless claim has grown to the point where the target is actually acknowledging and actively pursuing legal response. 02:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I support the compromise previously reached, and hope that maybe we can at least take a break of a week or two before re-opening the whole discussion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Anything. I also support anything (no pun intended) that does not force me to scroll through pages and pages of discussion just to make this edit.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * done. Gaijin42 (talk) 05:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)