Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive143

Philipp Hildebrand
I've raised and followed the issues on this page to a degree at Talk:Philipp Hildebrand. I also approached one of the involved editors but have had my approach ("== Hoping for cooling ==") on his/her talk page deleted without comment; there's now also a reinstatement of the contested material on the page. Semi-protection may be advised until the timeliness ebbs a bit. Swliv (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I had a look round and the addition the IP is desirous of in the lede is undue and opinionated as sources currently report. There is no way that the smear campaign assertion should remain in the lede if replaced. Youreallycan (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)Youreallycan (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I tried to make the article both more neutral in wording, and more consistent with English usage (that is, removing "deem" from several places, etc.). Collect (talk) 14:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Qian Zhijun
Well, since Qian Zhijun began starring in movies in Mainland China (not in minor roles), I decided that he needed to have an article on EN. I knew it was deleted before due to concerns about notability, but due to new developments in 2010 I decided that he was worthy of coverage now. User:Scott MacDonald speedily deleted it, arguing that I should have made a discussion before making the article, and that the 2007 decision (Articles for deletion/Qian Zhijun 3) still was relevant. I argue that, since there is now evidence of independent notability for Qian Zhijun, the 2007 decision is no longer relevant WhisperToMe (talk) 01:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Qian Zhijun
 * Since the 2007 deletion debate, Qian has starred in two movies in Mainland China. There are photos on the Wikimedia Commons of Qian engaged in publicity events with fellow actors and actresses. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a troll on BLP. Qian Zhijun (a victim of an internet meme) was deleted in 2007 under the BLP policy, after three afds, a wheel war, and an arbcom case, where a user was severely reprimanded for a cavalier attitude to BLP. Whispertome, well aware of that, and without discussion didn't just recreate the article, he recreated TWO versions of it, and uploaded several images. (See Little Fatty). The argument that he's subsequently become notable is simply a pretect for this game. (And doesn't seem to bear scrutiny either).--Scott Mac 01:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And it's not relevant now. He's starred in movies! The wheel wars, AFD, Arbcom, etc. do not take into account any of the new developments in 2010! It's been four to five years. He's been covered in Chinese newspapers/television/etc.
 * And because a. He's a public figure (starred in movies) and B. is therefore not a private figure, and is now a public figure, there are fewer issues with presenting "Little Fatty" - He is now on the same level as Russell Crowe, or Gwymeth Paltrow, or Julia Roberts
 * The "troll" accusation is very inappropriate.
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 01:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * http://www.sd.xinhuanet.com/news/2011-07/20/content_23274637.htm - Xinhua
 * News of him getting married: http://edu.gansudaily.com.cn/system/2011/07/19/012083665.shtml
 * Google translate says this is him talking about managing his entertainment career: http://news.liao1.com/newspage/2011/05/4508391.html - He's giving an interview = Sign that he is consenting to his fame, and is embracing it.
 * That's already three significant sources showing that he has had notability since 2007.
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 01:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In borderline cases there needs to be a really good reason to recreate a BLP article with such a contentious past. Please save us all the time and just drop it. Johnuniq (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a case.
 * Look at the billing for The University Days of a Dog - http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:%E7%94%B5%E5%BD%B1%E4%B8%80%E5%8F%AA%E7%8B%97%E7%9A%84%E5%A4%A7%E5%AD%A6%E6%97%B6%E5%85%89_2010.jpg
 * He's playing one of the principal characters. Not an extra. A main actor.
 * Consider the photos from Nanjing: File:One Dog 20100902.jpg - There he is with other Mainland Chinese actors/actresses.
 * I do not believe this is borderline any longer.
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 01:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A film, so unnotable that no one created an article on it, until you did to justify your recreation of this BLP???? Really notable indeed??--Scott Mac 01:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's notable in China: http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%B8%80%E5%8F%AA%E7%8B%97%E7%9A%84%E5%A4%A7%E5%AD%A6%E6%97%B6%E5%85%89 - This was created back in 2010. I just made the English article.
 * The film has been discussed by Chinese sources
 * http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/hqyl/2010-09/02/content_11246810.htm - All about the film
 * http://www.chinanews.com/yl/2011/07-19/3192155.shtml - Another article - the film is listed as one of his milestones
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 01:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

If he's played in a movie, list him on the movie page, and consider possibly a redirect. It doesn't justify a coatrack about a meme from his childhood.--Scott Mac 02:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * He reason he got into the entertainment business was because he was in the meme. He didn't set out to be famous, but once he did, he decided "I'm going to enjoy my fame and use it to the fullest" - So now he starred in this movie, and had deals to appear in advertising (one of the sources above touches upon this) and gets interviews in Chinese papers today. His marriage made the headlines of the Chinese newspapers.
 * One of the points I made in the edit notices is that this behavior is completely different from the subject of Star Wars Kid (not named), hence why BLP should treat them differently.
 * The long story short is that he became a celebrity through unconventional means, and is now a celebrity.
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 02:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI I notified two relevant projects (China, Internet culture) - The former is important since the recent sources are in Chinese. I'm using Google translate, but it would be very helpful to have fluent Chinese speakers take a look.
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 02:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Celebrity? Hardly. I assumed you were fluent in Chinese, given your Chinese Wikipedia page includes a photograph of Qian Zhijun, which you uploaded to commons and you say you. Do you know him?--Scott Mac 02:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Uhm, the author of those pictures on Commons is a Chinese user named zh:User:Berthe. I do have a Chinese Wikipedia page, and have a basic command of Chinese. but I thought I marked myself as "zh-1"...
 * http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Berthe - this is the person who uploaded those pictures
 * I marked myself as ZH-1 on my EN page. I didn't do so on my ZH page, but I did attempt to write some articles there: http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WhisperToMe
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 02:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, my mistake, sorry. I got that image mixed up with the fair use one you uploaded to en.wp.--Scott Mac 02:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I uploaded the fair use images, but the free use images of him at the Nanjing film event were uploaded by somebody else. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Do note that Scott MacDonald was instigated to this deletion because of this Wikipedia Review thread. While I could be, perhaps, convinced that the BLP isn't necessary (doubtful, considering the pretty large amount of coverage of him, as noted above by WhisperToMe), the deletion of the Little Fatty meme article was completely out of line.


 * Since the subjects are intertwined, i'm just going to start listing sources:
 * Face of 'Little Fatty' finds fame among China's web users - Times Online (accessible copy is here)
 * The Last Laugh on the Fat Joke Heard 'Round the World - Fox News
 * Photoshop trend makes "Little Fatty" a famous face - Digital Journal
 * Little Fatty hits the big time online - Independent Online
 * The new cultural revolution: How Little Fatty made it big - The Independent (This is a really nice one)


 * That's good enough as an example, I suppose. Silver  seren C 02:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes - there are a lot of sources in English. From what I've looked at so far, all of the newspaper English sources go up to 2007.
 * In Chinese the sources (covering his latest developments) go up to 2010/2011 ish- so there's more recent stuff too (about the movie and the marriage)
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 02:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's true. I was just giving an example of international coverage, outside of just China. Silver  seren C 02:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Can someone explain why there were two separate articles if Qian Zhijun is the person known as "Little Fatty"? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * One is the meme, Little Fatty. That article has existed for a significant amount of time and the person who the meme represents would have just had his name redirected to it, per the norm. However, as WhisperToMe pointed out above, the person the meme represents has had other reliable source coverage since just a meme, having starred in two films, among other things. Thus, the meme was the original notable thing and he was only notable for the meme. However, he did more things since then, enough to, presumably, obtain his own notability separate from the meme. Silver  seren C 03:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The meme and the BLP were deemed not notable, and deleted, per consensus in 2007. The meme was recreated, by Whisper, only 6 BEFORE he recreated the BLP. IF the new info did make the individual notable (and I doubt it), it didn't change the facts of the existing consensus on the meme - which would be a matter for DRV.--Scott Mac 11:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I argue that the facts have changed. At Articles_for_deletion/Qian_Zhijun Katwalsh said "I worry about Wikipedia's role in prolonging the notoriety of people who become the butt of jokes, rather than simply documenting it. If we revisit this in 10 years and people still care about who this person is, I'll be happy to change my opinion." - In other words they wanted evidence of long term notability rather than short, flash in the pan coverage, yes? Based on the film, and news stories about his marriage, etc. I argue that there is long term notability for the person. The Chinese articles about him refer back to the meme as the starting point in his career (one of the Chinese articles shows the original image at the road safety event in Shanghai in 2003, and above that... is Qian married) WhisperToMe (talk) 14:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * http://edu.gansudaily.com.cn/system/2011/07/19/012083665.shtml - This one from the Gansu Daily
 * Page 2 of that article shows that the related internet meme is still getting coverage within China: http://edu.gansudaily.com.cn/system/2011/07/19/012083665_01.shtml
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 14:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Q.Z. meets our notability criteria for a biography. I see no reason that we must pollute Wikipedia with http://encyclopediadramatica.ch E.D. -level content like the Chinese internet community's unkind name for the chap. Nevard (talk) 06:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * How would you suggest addressing the related internet meme? I know that the Chinese and Western newspapers refer to the internet meme with the same name, but perhaps you may have a better naming option in mind? WhisperToMe (talk) 06:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I mean, we do cover memes, whether they be offensive to the subject or disgusting and sexual and Little Fatty is, by a significant amount, one of the more notable memes out there, it's just not a Western based one. Silver  seren C 07:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know what went on in the article history but the subject matter is pretty clearly notable and outside of BLP. A little birdy showed me the deleted article and I just don't see the concern.  We do have memes about accidental celebrities, even minors like Star Wars Kid who achieve worldwide fame for being endearingly fat and awkward.  However, this one is more like William Hung or Susan Boyle (who he is often compared to), two awkward individuals at opposite ends of the talent spectrum, in that he has intentionally sought to parlay his fame into an ongoing career.  The "avoid harm" aspect of BLP simply doesn't apply to someone who is widely famous outside of Wikipedia, and wants to be so.  There are hundreds of thousands of web mentions as it is, including many major news stories about different aspects of the guy and his career (Internet meme, actor, and singer signed to a major label) over a span of years.  At least several dozen of these mentions occurred after the article(s) were deleted before.  It doesn't appear to meet any specific criteria for speedy deletion, except perhaps an application of WP:IAR over the unusual circumstance of dealing with a troll article creator.  As seren points out above, we do cover Internet memes, and this is a fairly significant example of the pop culture phenomenon.  It would be a little ironic that we cover every sexual practice known to man, and beast, but we're too squeemish to cover a singer known for being overweight and merely plain looking.  Aren't there a lot of overweight singers in the world?  - Wikidemon (talk) 13:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a Taiwanese singer nicknamed "Little Fatty" (Lin Yu-chun) - he's a different person from Qian, who is from Mainland China. However I do agree with the points you raised, because Qian is a celebrity in other ways. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There are two little fatties? Wow, I stand corrected, or confused, or something.  It's possible that one of them is not notable.  - Wikidemon (talk) 14:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The "Little Fatty" from Mainland China is the one with the internet meme and the actor, while the Taiwan one is the singer (the Taiwan one also became famous over YouTube). WhisperToMe (talk) 14:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Attempted recap: A person who did not seek his initial notoriety (Hung and Boyle thus are not nearly analogous) then decides to seek notability. His initial "notability" was clearly (at best) BLP1E, AFAICT. Thus any article based substantially on the involuntary notability is "right out". Correct so far? Now he seems to seek to use his involuntary notability by becoming an actor. Unfortunately for him, he is a long way from reaching sufficient notability (I know Wikipedia has lots of horrid articles assuring us that "porn stars" are actually notable - but that is not the case here, and I rather think most of those are non-notable as far as most people would consider). At such time as he reaches actual notability for his movie work, and only then, should he possibly get an article. AFAICT, he ain't there yet. Collect (talk) 14:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll let the dig at pornography go, as that isn't the issue here. But I don't think BLP stands for the proposition that we avoid otherwise notable subjects if a person's involvement in the subject is inadvertent.  Nor do Internet memes fall under BLP1E, not when the subject of the article is the meme rather than the person.  Their notability as a person may be tied to a single fact that they're the subject of a viral video, but the video's own notability isn't diminished by the fact that there's only one original (and as usual, many parodies and spin-offs).  Whether the video is in fact notable, or its subject through his subsequent acting endeavors, are questions of sourcing that I obviously misunderstood, above.  - Wikidemon (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Technically it was a viral series of photoshops of an original picture, where Qian's face was digitally edited onto a series of movie posters. It became very viral throughout China. Qian, an interview, stated which ones he liked the best and which ones he liked the least. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The difference is that, unlike a porn movie, this movie was a mainstream movie that got a lot of attention in China, and he played one of the principal characters (not a cameo or an extra). Most porn movies and porn stars don't get a lot of attention period. From my understanding most porn productions are not notable, while most mainstream box office movies are notable.
 * I know the Mainland Chinese film industry is very "insular" - Many films get a lot of coverage within Mainland China, but little coverage outside of China, but if there is significant coverage of the film in Chinese sources then that should be proof of notability
 * BLP1E itself says "The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources" - Based on what I see of the Chinese sources, I think that either Qian Zhijun himself, or the meme, should at least get some sort of coverage.
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 14:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but is there any evidence this is a "mainstream box office movie" or that he's "stared", as you have suggested?--Scott Mac 15:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to find sources regarding sales figures/release dates/etc. But the way the film's posters look and the general attitude suggest that it was a film made for mainstream commercial appeal (this actually is somewhat of a new phenomenon in China!) Anyhow I found evidence of Qian playing an important character, through the posters and through one of his statements. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Role of Qian in the film: WhisperToMe (talk) 15:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "《一只狗的大学时光》：80后还能孩子多久." China Daily. September 2, 2010.
 * In the picture you can see Qian with the other principal characters
 * The article says "《一只狗》讲述的是六位好友为了寻找狗狗SUNNY展开的一场追梦之旅，"
 * Google Translate: ""Dog" is about six friends started to look for a Dream SUNNY Dogs tour,"
 * Based on the poster, Qian plays one of the six friends who is taking a road trip
 * 电影一只狗的大学时光 2010.jpg (film poster image uploaded on the Chinese Wikipedia)
 * Again, Qian is on the movie poster
 * "网络红人今何在：天仙妹妹中戏进修 小胖在减肥." Liao1. May 27, 2011.
 * Qian says in the interview:
 * "去年我演的电影《一只狗的大学时光》上了院线，我在里面演一个富二代，是主角之一. "
 * Google Translate: "Last year I played the movie "The University of times a dog" on the cinema, in which I play a wealthy, is one of the protagonists."
 * http://mdbg.net shows that one word, "主角" means "leading role / lead" and "之一" means "one of (sth) / one out of a multitude / one (third, quarter, percent etc)"

Evidence of film as a mainstream/commercial film: Mainstream films have wide commercial appeal, and attract the attention of marketers and advertisers. If it wasn't geared towards a large audience, would a commercial advertiser have an interest in the film, or use it as an example of marketing? WhisperToMe (talk) 15:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "惠普全球副总裁张永利：创新走在本土化的路上(2)." China News. December 24, 2010.
 * "在新的笔记本产品线里面我们会探讨全方位360度的推广方案，包括在电视、平面广告、网上做了一些“病毒营销”. 今年也有一些软的、新的营销方案出来，我们还在研究2011年有没有可能推出新的方案. 我们刚刚和土豆网合作的电影《一只狗的大学时光》，这种形式我们2011年还会延续下去. "
 * Google Translate: "In the new notebook product line which we will explore the full 360-degree promotion of programs, including television, print ads, online to do some "viral marketing." This year there are some soft, new marketing programs out there in 2011 we are still not possible to study the introduction of new programs. We have just co-operation and potatoes of the film "a dog's college years", this form we will continue in 2011." (obviously this isn't a perfect Google translate) - This seems to be about Hewlett Packard and Tudou's sponsorship of the movie
 * "80后诠释<一只狗的大学时光> 9月3日上映." News360. September 4, 2010.
 * News site announcement that the film's being released on that day. Would a non-notable movie get news articles like this?
 * More evidence is the first poster, which shows sponsorship from Hewlett Packard and Tudou (Chinese video site) - Would a major corporation give support to a non-notable movie?


 * Yes it would. In fact, some corporations even help with student films.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, they may help with student films. But would they help in such a publicized manner, with the logos appearing on film posters distributed throughout China, with discussion of this sponsorship appearing in Chinese newspapers, and with the student films, despite all this, still not being notable? WhisperToMe (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And another source that talks about the film (then-upcoming)...
 * "一只狗的大学时光将上映 剧中跑酷味十足." Xout.cn. July 30, 2010.
 * "这次是他首次主演电影，谈及在大银幕上的表现，网络小胖谦虚的说自己还有很多需要和前辈学习的地方，为了拍摄这部电影，他也事先做了很多准备工作，希望大家能够满意他在片中的表现. "
 * Google Translate says that this said that this was the first film that he had a starring role in. So he had a smaller role in his first film appearance, but in "University Days of the Dog" he had "他首次主演电影" - ("First time to act in the leading role" according to MDBG)
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Your "evidence" so far amounts to supposition and original research. What we need is something like box-office numbers, takings, or significant commentary in multiple non-trivial reliable sources - for both the notability of the film, and for the individual's role in it. "Look at the poster and decide for yourself" isn't verification. (PS, can you please thread posts properly, and not indent every line)--Scott Mac 16:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It isn't just "look at the poster" - It's "look at the poster" and "notice how all the Chinese newspapers are saying he has a leading role." For the individual's role in it, was noted in the Xout.cn source on July 30, 2010. The full text in Chinese is: "片中饰演富二代的网络小胖，在戏里戏外都是大家的开心果，薛之谦笑称他才是这部电影最大的明星，因为他的恶搞照片伴随着中国互联网的发展，几乎无人不知，无人不晓. 这次是他首次主演电影，谈及在大银幕上的表现，网络小胖谦虚的说自己还有很多需要和前辈学习的地方，为了拍摄这部电影，他也事先做了很多准备工作，希望大家能够满意他在片中的表现. " - G translate: "He played second-generation rich Internet chubby, play outside the movies are all in the pistachios, Xue Qian said with a smile that he is the biggest movie star, because his spoof of photos along with China's Internet development, almost no one I do not know, known to everybody. This is his first starring film, talked about on the big screen performance, network chubby modest and say that they have a lot to learn from their predecessors, in order to shoot the film, he also did a lot of preparatory work in advance, hope that we can satisfied with his performance in the film." - I'm still looking for box office numbers. Also the HP+Tudou cooperation is sourced from a secondary source too.
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

"《一只狗的大学时光》票房飘红 惠普加投资做续集." MTime. August 31, 2010. "从首日票房与口碑来看，影片极为成功，影迷纷纷表示：影片符合当下80后的真实生活面貌，同样又有着让人深思的东西，值得一看. " - Google translate "From the first day of ticket sales and reputation point of view, the film is extremely successful, fans have said: the film meet the current face of real life after 80, as they have the people to ponder the things worth seeing." "惠普将投五千万做续集" - Google translate: "HP will invest fifty million to do a sequel" "据悉，发行方中影数字已给《一只狗的大学时光》制作了690个数字拷贝，" - Google translate: "It is reported that China Film Digital issuer has to "a dog's college years," produced 690 digital copies," WhisperToMe (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "it is reported" is always a flag to unreliability. And less than 700 DVDs is a tiny production (is that what it means?)--Scott Mac 17:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if that's what it means. The Chinese word for a DVD is "影碟"
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * According to "《一只狗的大学时光》全国火热公映票房大卖." Sohu. September 4, 2010. - They are copies for theatrical distribution - "据悉，中影数字为影片制作的690个拷贝已经全部售罄，各地院线正在主动申请放映，票房全线飘红，业内人士表示《一只狗的大学时光》公映后定能2010票房的黑马. " - Google translate: "It is reported that the number of films produced by Film 690 copies have been sold, local theaters are showing active applications, the box office whole line, the industry said that "a dog's college years" after the release can be the dark horse of 2010 box office" WhisperToMe (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

What it more likely means is that it had a theatrical release in 690 theaters. And why are we even still discussing this here? This would be something for AfD, it's quite clear that Scott's speedy delete was highly incorrect and the article should be reinstated, pending an AfD, if someone wants. Silver seren C 18:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would personally prefer an AFD. Everyone would know what the articles look like, and can judge notability from that. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There ought to have been a discussion BEFORE these articles, which were deleted by due process (and BLPs to boot) were created. When consensus has agreed to delete something, there needs to be a consensus that something has changed - and BLP deletion need proper care. The proper venue for that discussion (although, truth be told) any venue will do, is DRV. I will take the articles there myself now.--Scott Mac 21:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Deletion review at: Deletion review/Log/2012 January 12 WhisperToMe (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, WhisperToMe, do you agree that we can close this thread here? We are not going to agree about what should happen to these articles, but I hope we can agree that we will abide by what the consensus at DRV is.--Scott Mac 23:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's fine if it's closed here. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Now at Deletion review--Scott Mac 23:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Silvana Gallardo
Silvana Gallardo  is listed as deceased as of January 2, 2012. No source is given for this information. The New York Times lists no obituary, & IMDb lists her as still living ... If the poster has no source, the date of death should be removed... Dukdukgoose (talk) 07:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Write back in case of any further assistance. Wifione  Message 11:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Moshe Feinstein
was a traitor to the Jewish people and a nazi responsible for the deaths of countless Jews. I am unable to make any corrections to his page as it has been vandalized to only mention nonsence about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.172.128.226 (talk) 20:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Given an attitude like that, I'm not surprised that the article is protected. Wikipedia is based on published reliable sources, not on the opinions of anonymous name-callers. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In addition to AndyTheGrump's sensible remarks (as opposed to those made by the IP editor) I feel obligated to point out that Moshe Feinstein died decades ago. So, how is this a matter for the Biographies of living persons noticeboard?  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  04:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP touches on this. Even when an article's subject is deceased, they may still have living relatives – or colleagues, or students – who can be affected by our articles; it's preferable to err on the side of caution, and I'd rather see this noticeboard over-used than under-.  (That is not to say that I disagree with Andy's remarks.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

David Bowie
appears to be vandalized - first sentence mentions he is a taco eater? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.59.153.17 (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It's already been fixed. – ukexpat (talk) 20:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

James Thackara
This is the BLP of a writer who seems well and truly to have polarised critical opinion. Here are some positive reviews:. Here is probably the most negative review of a book I have ever seen:. Yes, they're all talking about the same guy.

Now it seems that there are editors at work on the article who are aligned with views at either extreme of the spectrum. We go from peacock language to this.

So the biography needs some tender love and care from people supremely indifferent to the literary debate. It mustn't become a hatchet job, but the peacock language has no business being there either. Can we get it right? -- J N  466  20:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Please note that I have twice reverted User:Tjic on BLP grounds. -- J  N  466  21:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Kim Richards
The first paragraph is borderline libelous and I can't believe wikipedia allowed this!


 * It was vandalism, and has been reverted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Dipak K. Das
A newly-created article on a researcher from the University of Connecticut who has been accused of falsifying data. Though the article seems well enough sourced (and see also ), there seems little to indicate that this is a major scientific scandal. On that basis, I'm inclined to think that the notability of these events is possibly questionable, and that WP:BLP1E (as well as WP:NOTNEWS) would probably justify deleting the article. I'd like to see comments from others though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is probably a WP:COATRACK, but why wouldn't he be independently notable per WP:PROF?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * He clearly does meet PROF, and he hasn't merely been "accused" of falsifying data, his employer's investigation has established that he falsified data. It would have been cleaner if the article had existed prior to this episode, but there's no question there could have been an article prior to this episode.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Takis Fotopoulos
In the last 24 hours or so, the user Elp gr has repeatedly been changing the contents of this entry through the use of unsubstantiated material with the obvious aim of libeling Takis Fotopoulos. Also, Elp gr criticizes Fotopoulos for articles that he has not written, without using any third-party sources to substantiate these arguments. Please protect this page from further changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libertarianboy (talk • contribs) 00:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You'd have to lock the article as Elp is an auto-confirmed editor. Also, this is not the right place to make such a request, although, occasionally, admins strolling through here will protect articles. I think you need to contribute to the discussion on the article's Talk page and, if necessary and appropriate, raise this as an issue of editor conduct. When I glanced at the changes Elp made, they did not seem supportable as the sources were not secondary, but I haven't examined the underlying issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems a bit of a dispute as to portrayal of the person. I only had a look at the lede where one version says he is noted for his synthesis of the classical democracy with Stalinism, conspiracy theories and the radical currents in the new social movements. and the other says, he is noted for his synthesis of classical democracy with libertarian socialism and the radical currents in the new social movements. - I notice that the only appearance of the word Stalinism was in the lede, which clearly is an issue.   You really can  02:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Praise for your work
This is likely interesting reading for regulars of BLPN. One thing that I'd like this group to examine is whether there is any sense in which we have become biased against Bell Pottinger clients due to community annoyance with them for misbehavior.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Caroline Flack
IP editors repeatedly added POV bio stuff about her alleged relationships with various c-list slebs. Can it be edit-protected? Fmph (talk) 14:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * note - I requested semi prot at the WP:rfpp -  You really can  14:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ - semi protected for one month by User:Tnxman307 -  You really can  14:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You can generally get semi-protection for BLPs by asking here. There are enough admins watching.--Scott Mac 00:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Johann_Lamont
Could someone have a look at this BLP I flagged up some info which is uncited and a contributing editor seems to have issue with being asked for citations for what they say is minor info and the blp sources tag being applied to the articles which they have removed at least three times today according to the history.RafikiSykes (talk) 22:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As I can see, the detail is not very controversial or controversial at all really. Users can get a bit upset by over templating, I suggest, for the sake of good will, you forget the templates and just ask on the talkpage for someone to please cite the detail you see as required and give them a few days to sort it.  You really can  00:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok will see if anyone sources it though tbh there does seem to be a wide problem on her of endless lists of people being linked with schools and no citations being given. Whilst not immediately controversial in some cases i have seen on here it is used to boost the profiles of the institutions in question. Also I note on the talk page the other user says she thought one bit in the article was OR but did not remove it, an uncited mention of a campaign failure in an article of a new leader doesn't seem very neutral to me.RafikiSykes (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Grover Furr
I am, in fact, Grover Furr, and am writing concerning the page

I did not create this page. The person who did create it, Mrdie, did contact me to ask me for biographical information, which I gave him.

Someone added the categories "American Communist" and "Anti-Revisionists" to my page. Mrdie told me about this. I asked him to remove those categories. They were then immediately put back up.

These categories were added to my page to slander me and my research, by someone who does not like my research. There is no other explanation.

The category "American communist" specifies people who are or were members of a communist party. I have never been a member of any communist party.

The category "Anti-Revisionists" lists famous communist leader such as Molotov, Enver Hoxha, Che Guevara, and Joseph Stalin. What am I doing in a category with these people?

I can remove the categories or ask Mrdie to do so. But they were put right back in again before, and no doubt this will happen again.

Please take whatever action you can to prevent this kind of insult or slander from being added to my page!

Thank you!

Grover Furr — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sq178pv (talk • contribs) 21:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: identity confirmed via OTRS (2012011110000285) --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Despite some "overlinking", there seem to be sources for the material presented. --BwB (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

George Noory
I dislike Noory about as much as (or more than) any disaffected Coast to Coast AM/Art Bell fan, but I still think that it's wrong to be this dishonest on Wikipedia. The biography is filled with blatant fabrication. I mean, really? Norcom Restaurants? Cafe Marrakesh? I'm fine with the on-air style section, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Airlinefood890 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The information is sourced. Do you have any reliable sources showing that those sources are mistaken or fabricated? Ian.thomson (talk) 02:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, these seem like reliable sources for the material in the article. --BwB (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Just google "Norcom Restaurants" or "Cafe Marrakesh in Brentwood" or "Col. William Berry". You won't find any sources other than the fabricated one provided from findarticles.com. The fabrication is painfully obvious here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Airlinefood890 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Anchor baby
An IP editor has been trying to insert, at Anchor baby, a [ comment] saying that, "ironically", a publicly known conservative commentator (and opponent of illegal immigration) is an "anchor baby". In my view, this material not only violates WP:BLP, but also numerous other content policies. I [ removed] the material in question on this basis, but the IP reverted my reversion. I reverted again, and I see now that the IP has reverted me a second time. Rather than revert further, I'm reporting it here. — Rich wales 08:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

For the benefit of those who might not be familiar with this article, please note that the term "anchor baby" is identified as pejorative / derogatory in the lead section. Thus, saying that a specific living person is an "anchor baby" is, IMO, contentious and not permitted per WP:BLP unless backed up by high-quality reliable sources — and even then, it's probably acceptable only to report that this derogatory label has been applied to the person in question by some other specific individual identified in the source. The IP editor, in this case, is not even trying to supply any source for his/her editorializing. — Rich wales 08:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It's possible that Malkin is a so-called anchor baby, but the comment inserted by the IP cannot remain. The word "ironically" is, of course editorializing, and the assertion itself, as you say, is unsourced. I've removed the comment and added a warning to the IP's Talk page (in addition to yours). I'll watch the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The IP has added the material again, and I have removed it again.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Jack Harte
Previous BLP discussion

Could someone please take a look at the material that is being added to this article by User:Viticulturist99? He's citing to Russian sources. He's using English quotes (don't know how he came up with the translations). It's pretty nasty stuff. I keep reverting, but I haven't had the energy to deal with it beyond that.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's definitely a bit odd, and coatrackish. The editor has added very similar content to Anatoly Kudryavitsky.  I'm going to ask them to comment here.  The Interior  (Talk) 03:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything nasty in criticism which is accurately sourced and therefore should be perfectly all right according to WP:BLP. Bbb23 keeps removing any part of the article on Jack Harte (Irish writer) that doesn't contain praise. This can only make the article one-dimensional, whereas the aim is to make it neutral. The so-called Harte Controversy, which resulted in public protests, is referred to in both afore-mentioned articles; it is a well-known episode of Irish literary life, and shouldn't be made a taboo topic, which Bbb23 presses for. --Viticulturist99 (talk) 04:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A website that publishes user-submitted content (Indymedia) is being use as a reference to portray writer Harte as being guilty by association with Russian "Stalinist" writers.  The editor defends this by saying the website has been cited elsewhere on Wikipedia. I am not impressed by that argument and  I see that as a major BLP issue.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  05:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This association is confirmed on Jack Harte's own website, as well as on the website of his publisher, Scotus Press. I removed the word "Stalinist", as I was unable to find other sources than Indymedia for that. --Viticulturist99 (talk) 12:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You've added back the material again using IndyMedia. You're going to have to find better sources, particularly, if this controversy is as well-known as you say it is.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * He keeps trying to put something - anything - in the article to push his point. The last try was this sentence: "Jack Harte, in his turn, brokered the publication of a book by Georgy Pryakhin, director of Voskresenye Publishing and the leader of the nationalist Party of Russia's Rebirth, in Ireland by Scotus Press." (citing to Scotus). I've reverted it. First, it doesn't say that Harte had anything to do with the publication, just Scotus Press. There's no basis in the article for equating Scotus to Harte. Second, even if Harte has some control over Scotus, it's irrelevant. It provides no context. It appears to be just a way of obliquely connecting Pryakhin to Harte in a negative (or at least political) fashion.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Viti, I support efforts to balance articles, but the sourcing must be really strong for negative info. So far, the refs you have used don't pass muster, or haven't supported the text you have inserted.  Please do not continue to add this without finding a reliable source which explicitly states the points you wish to make.  The Interior  (Talk) 20:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Margaret Court views on homosexuality
There are some recent problems on the Margaret Court article, with regards to the section on her views on homosexuality. See also discussion on the Talk page. This is something we better get right. I think this section is already getting overly long, since it is an article about a tennis player in the first place. With more recent coverage and controversy this section now stands to get further expanded. Can an uninvolved editor weigh in, before this becomes an edit war? MakeSense64 (talk) 10:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Section was a tad overlong, adding material of minimal importance compared with proper WEIGHT thereon. Collect (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Mario Yamasaki
Mario Yamasaki refereed a fight in the recently completed UFC 142 in Brazil. He made a contentious decision in the fight. Someone angry at his decision has vandalised the Mario Yamasaki Wikipedia entry, specifically the introduction, writing personal and negative slander. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.55.100 (talk) 13:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Reverted - thanks for the report. In the future, you can simply do this yourself if you wish - instructions are at Help:Reverting. CIreland (talk) 13:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Ian Redmond
The Ian Redmond detailed in his listed Bio on the Wikipedia site is not in fact the person competing in the pistol shooting events at 1980 Olympics. I am in fact the actual Ian Kevan Redmond and am oft confused with the listed gentleman on many publications. Not sure if at this late date anyone cares. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.221.240.53 (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I see nothing in the article about the pistol shooting. Do you have any reliable sources demonstrating your notability?  There are such sources about the first Ian Redmond, which is why there is an article about him.  Ian.thomson (talk) 15:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I have added a disambiguation in Shooting at the 1980 Summer Olympics so that it no longer links to Ian Redmond. January  ( talk ) 15:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Angela Knight
This article appears to be autobiographical and is highly sanitised and self serving, suffering repeated removal of responsibly sourced and referenced material which is perceived to not 'glory' the subject.

A section titled 'Controversy' in this article has been deleted on 2 occasions, hence this referral for arbitration.

Ms Knight, as CEO for the British Bankers Association, is the paid advocate of the British banks. In recent years she has courted much criticism and 'controversy' for grossly partisan advocacy and support of the banks over the mis-selling scandal relating to loan insurance. The High Court eventuality ruled against the banks on this issue, leading to calls for MS Knight to step down. Ms Knight has also been criticised for her partisan supporting stance on the payment of banker bonuses, again proving to be highly polemic. The removed 'Controversy' section of the article was clearly referenced to a feature article (one of a great many) published in the Independent.

Furthermore, the Wiki article claims that Ms Knight, whilst working at the Treasury, was 'responsible for introducing' the £2 coin. Despite a request for a factual citation, none has been provided. I believe that in order to achieve balance, the 'Controversy' section should be reinserted, and reference to 'responsibility for introduction' of the £2 coin removed pending citation. Vigilantbabyboomer (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm also concerned that, who self-identifies as "This is the British Bankers' Association, based in London, England. Brian Mairs, the social media editor, to be precise." has been editing this article. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In addition to the COI warning you posted, I've posted a username and WP:NOSHARE warning. However, I note that there have been no edits by this account since December 21, 2011, and no edits of the Knight article since November 8, 2011.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I've edited the article to reinsert the material critical of Knight and commented on the Talk page. I've condensed the material and put it in a career section rather than in a separate Controversy section (not warranted). I've also removed the coin phrase as it's unsourced and has been tagged since 2010.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Vladimir Kush
Article was prodded after its creation for lack of references--those added appear to be mostly from primary sources. I don't think notability is established, and believe this is little more than a promotional vehicle. 76.248.147.199 (talk) 15:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is poorly sourced, one self-published source, one bio from a gallery, and one other. It was written in a promotional manner, often perilously close to copyright infringement. I've reworded the article to remove the puffery and the irrelevant material. It still remains poorly sourced. As to his notability, it's borderline. He has some notability as a painter and some as a gallery owner. Whether he has enough is unclear.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've nominated for deletion having found nothing in searches to support notability: . JFHJr (㊟) 23:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Jackie Duffin
Is Jackie Duffin better off merged into Marie-Marguerite d'Youville? Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks that way to me, unless she holds a notable chair or is a notable academic - the BLP needs help though and the sources currently in the BLP don't assert notability (three not found nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/holy-post/archive dead links and a front page link to the Canadian Society for the history of medicine) - A paragraph in your merge target seems preferable to the current situation..  You really can  01:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * oh well, see who else drops by to make a comment - will post on WT:MED too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Queen's University looks sufficiently notable to me ... Collect (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * She appears notable for the recognition of her work as a scholar, historian and author. Search for Jacalyn Duffin in Google News to see numerous book reviews. A merge for a single part of her career over 20 years ago would be thoroughly the wrong thing to do. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've placed a notability tag on that article. If the subject meets WP:ACADEMIC, reliable sources are needed that indicate as much (academic chair, widely cited, made a significant impact, etc.). I looked into the Hannah Chair, and found it is indeed an honor and endowment, but not exactly the departmental chair. Within the Chair pages, this subject is titled "professor." And, as far as I could tell, medical history courses were under several departments. I'm not disputing this subject's contributions, but I don't think she passes the professor test at this time. The most notable information about her right now should probably be folded into Marie-Marguerite d'Youville. JFHJr (㊟) 23:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Dexter Holland
The Wikipedia page for Dexter Holland (lead singer of The Offspring) states the following under "Personal Life":

"Holland married hairstylist Kristine Luna, who co-wrote the Offspring song "Session", on August 12, 1995."

This is incorrect as "Session" was track number 1 off The Offspring's second studio album entitled Ignition and that was released in 1992. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.204.180 (talk) 01:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe the sentence is supposed to mean they were married in 1995, not that she co-wrote the song then. That's how I read it.  Though I see how it might be confusing if you miss that second comma. Quinn &#10163;WINDY  19:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the article is trying to say they were married on August 12, 1995, not that the song was written on that date. 64.15.81.27 (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I reworded the sentence for clarity. I also removed the cite to IMDb (not a reliable source) but kept the sentence in with a fact tag.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Melinda Tankard Reist
There's something of an edit/redaction war going on at the moment on this page. I've been trying to referee the disagreement outside Wikipedia, but two sets of opposing views makes for heated argument.

Melinda Tankard Reist (anti-porn campaigner, feminist, social conservative, etc.) has a fairly recent (10/12/2011) entry - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melinda_Tankard_Reist - that's been the subject of a range of recent and relatively frequent edits. The edits would appear to be in response to recent media (ABC - Australian national broadcaster) Reist has received and some threats she's made. The sort of things she's doing include making threats of legal action (US-style) against those arguing against her positions. Those threats are in the public domain (and the subject of media coverage). Those edits have subsequently been removed. I'd suggest they're pretty verifiable.

It's turned into a bit of a war as people with (apparent) interests on each side try to post edits about things she's doing. There's some rewriting of history and subjective authoring happening from both sides.

It looks like the main recent editor has some standing in the editor community, but I'm too infrequent an editor to really understand.

I've put an entry in the Talk to the effect that more stringent edit controls ought to be placed on the page, but again, I'm too infrequent a contributor to really know the best process for this.

The folk I've been talking to are good people, but they have interests that oppose those of the subject of the page. I want to give them good, objective advice.

My view is that verifiable, first order information in the public domain ought to exist on the page, but that given the heat of the matter at present, some kind of lockdown should probably be in place.

Given it's the bio of a living person, and someone subject to current controversy with strong opposed views, full lockdown is probably a good idea.

Thanks!

Trib22 (talk) 11:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The latest issue - about the blogger and Tankard Reist's reaction - seems to have been resolved. Is there something else you think needs to be done to the article (or undone)?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Kathleen Falk
The Kathleen Falk page is written as a self-promotional piece for a person who is about to run for governor. It is very biased and over-the-top in praise that is not validly paraphrased from the sources cited. This is not an encyclopedia entry so much as a campaign ad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.33.177 (talk) 02:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The article is currently sourced with 37 cites. While I'm not vouching for the accuracy of the cites, it would be helpful if you could be more specific about which are problematic. Otherwise, I've found no evidence the subject or anyone with a glaring conflict of interest or other non-neutral point of view has made inappropriate edits recently. What strikes you as overly promotional? JFHJr (㊟) 04:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Lil Cory
Apparently an autobiography of an American rapper (found it at WP:COIN. If anyone is interested in musicians and wants to clean this one up.... Dougweller (talk) 09:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This recent complaint to Google is interesting (and funny). Dougweller (talk) 10:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There does seem to be a serious notability issue, and sourcing is awful. I haven't been able to find much better in the realm of reliable sources. Several editors including myself are trying to work with the user at hand (his latest claim is that it's not an autobiography). There's a deletion proposal pending currently. If it's contested, an AfD may be appropriate if notability is still not apparent. JFHJr (㊟) 06:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

John Coleman (news weathercaster)
Hi everyone, I'd like to draw your attention to a new thread at the dispute resolution noticeboard: Dispute resolution noticeboard. The report is made by a user claiming to be John Coleman, and they are upset that their rewrite of the article has been reverted. If anyone would like to hop over to the DRN and comment, I would be very grateful. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 10:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hugh "Skip" McGee III
In 2009, McGee was in the news due to a letter he wrote to his son's school that was leaked. You can read the article to see about this furore. The article was written due to his then visibility, and I rewrote it and it was not deleted. The scandal was readded recently in what I think is excessive detail and using poor sourcing. I reduced the content without removing all mention, but was reverted. Please compare the versions and judge which best complies with WP:NOTSCANDAL, WP:BLP and other policies. With focus on the scandal vs Minimal coverage of scandal. Fences &amp;  Windows  21:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * For info on WP:UNDUE, a search of the Google News archive shows 7 stories mentioning ("hugh mcgee" OR "skip mcgee") AND kinkaid. ("hugh mcgee" OR "skip mcgee") (lehman OR barclays) -kinkaid gives around 70 results. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed the disputed addition, if consensus arises we can soon replace it. IMO, it was totally undue for a BLP in my first assessment, overly detailed and titillating and also vocalizing similar in the reference section via quotes. - I left the user that is desirous of the expansion a note and a link to this discussion.   You really can  21:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The "minimal" version better complies with BLP policy and provides plenty of information about the controversy.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  06:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the sanitized version misstates and misrepresents the incident. It is a whitewash of a very peculiar and enlightening episode in this man's career. It explains exactly nothing; in fact it introduces the question, "Why is this in the article at all?" (Which indeed is what aroused my curiosity when I stumbled across this article.) McGee didn't merely "criticise the school's administration" and "complain" about a teacher. Were that an accurate representation there would have been no coverage at all.


 * The story caught fire because McGee, nominally a staid and proactive financier ("investment banking is a team sport"), was provoked by a minor disappointment to launch a public and disproportionate histrionic attack against the faculty of his son's school. His bizarre arguments - that homosexual faculty had promoted a culture that led to the distressing ban on cross-dressing by varsity football players, that the student body president had persuaded the principal to cancel the skit yet had disagreed with the principal that the skit should be canceled, that the principal bullied "good kids" yet a presumably good kid like the student body president somehow "got to" the principal who "caved" in to his demands, that a "leftist" instructor had driven the varsity quarterback to tears with her unkind opinion of investment bankers - and grandiose beliefs - that he represented a "silent majority" of powerful parents who communicated secretly through a "whisper circuit", that he was the champion of "core values" in a cultural war with the "politically correct" - were completely unexpected and inconsistent with expectation given his training as a lawyer and experience as a successful investor. This episode is McGee's Checkers speech, except that instead of an outpouring of support McGee's screed was greeted with derision and netted him a single supporter (some pro football player; he's named in one of the references).


 * "That letter" doesn't by any means define the man, but it's invaluable in trying to understand who he is. It's pure gold to a historian or biographer, coming as it does from the subject himself. Yappy2bhere (talk) 04:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Google returns 4480 results for ("hugh skip mcgee" OR "hugh mcgee" OR "skip mcgee") AND (barclays OR lehman), and 1800 results for ("hugh skip mcgee" OR "hugh mcgee" OR "skip mcgee") AND (kincaid OR kinkaid) . A search for ("hugh skip mcgee" OR "hugh mcgee" OR "skip mcgee") returns 76,100 results (?); the Kinkaid school letter is the topic of 15 of the first 100 (oops!) 50 results, Lehman or Barclays figures prominently in 7 of them . Yappy2bhere (talk) 04:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * To be clear, I didn't add this section to the article but rather restored it, documenting the deleted text and moderating its tone, and removing what wasn't supported by WP:RS. The topic has repeatedly come and gone and come and gone and come and gone and come and gone and come and gone. (Dizzying, ain't it?) Yappy2bhere (talk) 04:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Right now on this noticeboard there are three good faith policy driven objections to your recent enlargement of this issue in the BLP. I have removed it again after your replacement. Please don't replace in without consensus support, thanks -  You really can  12:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me remind you that WP:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Cautioning me to refrain from editing the article while you yourself continue to excise text from it is disingenuous. Your first edit could have been made in WP:GOODFAITH, but by championing consensus while continuing to chip away at the article  you demonstrate that it was not. Since you earlier bowdlerized this article (as User:Off2riorob ) and then sent it off to AfD, you should leave adjudication to other, more even-handed editors. For now, I'll restore the disputed section to the state it was in when User:Fences and windows began this discussion. Yappy2bhere (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have reverted your large expansion of a single minor controversy. You are expanding it unduly, to be greater than his whole career. The article has been stable at that version for over a year - your enlargement is disputed and not the stable version to revert to, please stop replacing it unless you can show a consensus for its inclusion.    You  really  can  01:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

1976 Zagreb mid-air collision
Under the heading Air traffic control there is a list of six persons on duty in the air traffic control center at the time of the collision. Their precise identity is not necessary to understand the article. I believe naming these six people on Wikipedia is unnecessary. Dolphin ( t ) 03:29, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I see your point, though a couple of the people are referred to elsewhere in the article, and it would probably be necessary to clarify who they were. Certainly, there seems little justification for naming those not directly involved in the incident. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Good point. I have done a little expanding of the information in the body of the article and erased the listing of the names of individuals. See the diff.  Dolphin  ( t ) 03:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Randy Altschuler
The section "Plagiarism Controvercy" violates Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines in that it was generated by a political opponent. A press release intending to manufacture controvercy does not meet the bar of a legitimate source. The cited article in the NY Daily News merely reports on the existence of a press release and does not investigate the substance of the allegation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Randy_Altschuler&action=historysubmit&diff=470005188&oldid=452283782 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhoge123 (talk • contribs) 11:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't mention a press release. I don't really see the problem here (apart from the fact that the section didn't include Altschuler's response, which I have now remedied).  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Kim Schmitz
According to the recent news article now cited the article, this person was indicted today for copyright infringement-related crimes. However, I am worried about the overall shape of the article. Is Schmitz really notable as a biographical subject, or just as the leader of his controversial company? There seems to be an excessive amount of detail when it comes to negative material. The history shows a lot of infighting among new and anonymous editors which led to its semi-protection, and it was even more negative before the lead sentence was cleaned up a little a couple of weeks ago. More eyes would be useful, since the subject may be part of more news reports soon. Dominic·t 20:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

P. Shankar Rao
This Indian politician's article is the subject of a great deal of BLP-violating assertions right now. I'm an American who has enough trouble keeping articles on his local politicians clean. Could somebody take a look and a mop to this? -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  00:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I've removed everything from the 'controversies' section that lacked a source. Nothing there now but an incident involving him slapping an aide... No doubt someone will try to reinsert material, but they'll need sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Ellie Goulding
I believe Ellie Goulding does not hail from HEREFORD as stated in the article, but from a small town in Herefordshire - as stated on her web page. It is widely believed locally that she was brought up here in the Market Town of KINGTON where she went to Lady Hawkins School and is recorded as such on teh WIki Kington page.

89.168.135.112 (talk) 00:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've correct the info in Ellie Goulding. In the future, the best place to put this info is on the article's talk page (i.e., Talk:Ellie Goulding). However, I also removed her as a former resident from the Kington, Herefordshire article, because we don't have a valid reference showing the exact town. Unless such a ref can be found, she can't be listed there per WP:NLIST. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Samuel Sloan (chess player)
Could someone kindly take a look at Samuel Sloan (chess player)? The section includes significant details about a custody battle as well as Sloan's arrest and conviction for attempted abduction of the child. The problem is, it's all sourced to his personal website and primary legal documents. I'm concerned about WP:PRIMARY here, and whether this really belongs in the article if it hasn't been the coverage of reliable secondary sources. I know that court documents can be used for some info, but I'm always unclear on where exactly we should draw the line. Perhaps WP:UNDUE comes into play as well...but I'm really not sure. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Geez, have you looked at Samuel_Sloan_(chess_player) - we cannot say things such as this (who defines a "litigious citizen"?). I would bin that section and also everything that relies on primary and SPS stuff with regard to relationships etc as we have no idea what the agenda may be. - Sitush (talk) 01:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Khalid Amayreh
Recently a block quote by this subject regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict was removed, replaced, and back and forth. I believe it has nothing to do with this subject's journalism or conflict with his own government, but rather a personal commentary on the much wider international conflict during an interview, pure and simple. Another user has raised doubts as to the reliability of the cited source/translation. I believe inclusion of the quote adds nothing to the biography, lacks noteworthiness altogether, and in fact presents WP:UNDUE weight. Any opinions and eyes there would be great. JFHJr (㊟) 02:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The above editor then submitted this BLP for deletion - AfD here a few minutes after posting this. I commented on talk page on the issue above (quote is OK if NPOV and no Undue, but more info on the journalist necessary; I also listed some new refs submitted on AfD page). There's also the issue of systematic bias vs. Arabs/Muslims/Palestinians in articles in general which I discussed in AfD. CarolMooreDC 16:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Rotem Guez
Article is about a Guez suing and being sued by Facebook and not much else. Only source is a ZDnet blog, but there are more out there available. I'm not sure how to handle the page. Are there problems with a BLP that is only about lawsuits? Bgwhite (talk) 00:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Such an article should not be under a biographical title - I would move it to a title reflective of the lawsuit, if the lawsuit is wiki notable, and edit it accordingly. After a quick look I suggest nominating it for deletion and further investigation of the creators contributions. . You  really  can  00:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)



Kim Dotcom
Individual at the center of the Megauploads arrest story. Seeing a lot of activity, so add to watchlists. The Interior (Talk) 03:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Chariots of the Gods?
Some edits appear to hit WP:BLP failrly clearly in this article ostensibly about a book:


 * (extensively rewritten by a former science fiction writer). 
 * However, neither this nor any other discredited evidence has been removed from subsequent editions of Chariots of the Gods. 




 * . Quoting von Däniken: "Oh, God, I have so many times tried to correct things, and my experience has been that the corrections are almost never made.

Noting specifically that ftvdb.bfi.org.uk is a "film database." And that the link does not provide any basis for the claims made. Which means, if I do not err, that the source is not RS for the claims made, that the source is not RS for any claims as to film claims (it appears slightly stronger than imdb at best), that since the claims made are not even supported by this source that they rather fails WP:BLP in the first place, and that the editor who has inserted them three times (3RR) in three hours is on thin ice utterly. (The entire text on the cite given is : An investigation into the theories of Erich von Däniken, who believes that extra-terrestrial intelligent beings visited the Earth in prehistoric times. Evidence examined includes ancient carvings, markings on the earth, the Pyramids and stone monuments from around the world. ) Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This is absolutely nothing new - about editors who object to material originating in documentaries about authors (with the authors' full knowledge) and objecting to the quoting of what authors themselves have said about themselves, but such is not allowed to be included in a Wikipedia article. The said material can exist in documentaries and interviews found in publications, but is not allowed to be referred to (even in the form of citations) in a Wikipedia article. Lung salad (talk) 23:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * IOW, you acknowledge that the claims are not made in the cite you furnished. Thanks! Collect (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Excuse me? So what was I quoting? Air-drawn fabrics? Maybe it was POV... Lung salad (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As the ftvdb.bfi.org.uk does not have any text supporting the claims you made, that is what WP:RS looks at.  In fact, it is a serious offence to claim that a cite supports a claim which it clearly does not support.  Count yourself a tad lucky here.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's the Playboy von Daniken interview. There is no transcript available for the documentary. Is there a prohibition on quoting from documentaries? Peter Krassa apparently commented on how Chariots of the Gods was rewritten in his book Disciple of the Gods (bio of von Daniken). Däniken apparently dedicated his book Die Augen der Sphinx (1989) to the person who rewrote Chariots of the Gods, calling him "literarischer Ziehvater" (literary foster-father). Lung salad (talk) 23:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Read WP:RS FGS. Videos are generally a problem unless a reliable transcript is available - mainly since in some cases clearly wrong claims have been asserted for videos based on one editor's interpretation of the video's content.   Find a transcript and cite the 3rd party archived transcript is the normal procedure.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Cheers, citations from documentaries are included in Wikipedia articles and a citation was provided for the other addition in the form of the article from Playboy. References to non-existent "admissions" are a perplexity from the above poster Lung salad (talk) 17:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And that sort of argument fails on Wikipedia - it is in the "WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" category.  We need a proper transcript to assign any such contentious claim to.  That is why WP:RS exists.  It does not mean every article is in full compliance .   And you assert here that the video refers to a "literary foster father" who edited the book - which is a far cry from supporting a claim that the book was "extensively rewritten" by a "science fiction author."  Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's quite a bizarre invocation of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. You are presumably aware of WP:OFFLINE, which says that yes, citations from offline sources are often found in Wikipedia articles and they are fine. That User:Lung salad might not be familiar with this policy doesn't mean that you can honk his argument away because he happened to use OTHERSTUFF phrasing instead of a policy shortcut.
 * Video documentaries can be used as reliable sources, and although you point vaguely at WP:RS "for god's sake" (?), I can't see anything that requires a "third party archived transcript" as the "normal procedure" when citing an offline source. The fact that you've had some bad personal experiences of misrepresented offline sources does not mean you can stop assuming good faith when an editor provides you with their own transcript of an offline source. --McGeddon (talk) 08:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And the requirement is that it be a straightforward claim in such a documentary. We have zero reason to believe that this is the case here when the editor asserts that "rewriting" and "editing" are totally different things.  If the video says "bearbeiten" or the like, then "edit" is the proper translation (which really requires the transcript as conversational German is difficult for English speakers to translate on the fly). Collect (talk) 12:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's an English documentary, a transcript was posted to the EvD talk page a week ago, and it includes the line "After extensive rewriting, by a former science fiction writer, the book [was] unleashed on the world." --McGeddon (talk) 13:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree that the video itself can be a valid reference. As for the threshold for inclusion, WP:NNC sets a low bar. I also think it has to be properly sourced, and right now one of the citations itself is deficient because the URL points somewhere that doesn't aid in verifiability. might be helpful to someone who has access to the work. Most of all, I think the proper venue for this would have been WP:RSN. JFHJr (㊟) 09:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * RS/N was possible were it not for the massive entwining of the claims with a BLP of EvD. Meanwhile, I see "The work as published is said to have been extensively rewritten by Roggersdorf" is claimed by an editor to be a statement of fact that the article was "extensively rewritten by Roggersdorf" whilst I read it as indicating an uncited person had that opinion as far as Der Spiegel was concerned. And I consider uncited opinions of that particular form to be "rumour."    Meanwhile we still have zero transcripts to work with.  BTW, the other claim is that "rewriting" is not "editing" - I suggested that the obvious claim which was borne out is that Roggersdorf "edited" the book.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A video transcript of the quoted segment was given here, in a thread you contributed to. --McGeddon (talk) 12:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope. What appears to be a part transcript without ability to check of the Englsih translation was given and the claims are given to the Narrator.   The sole translated sentence given by EvD is:
 *  Von Daniken: "Finally when I had the Manuscript nobody wanted it. I photocopied 20 times. Each publishing house sent it back with usual "blah-blah-blah we can't use it"."
 * Which does not seem either to be RS (Lung Salad did not even claim that this was an official transcript at all, and thus it is totally unverified) nor does it prove the claims made for it (Narration is not exactly RS as a minimum - it is an uncited voice in the background).  Thus wertlos utterly.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for advice on a BLP issue
Hi... I recently came across a talk page that referred to its associated BLP article mentioning that the subject had apparently participated in x-rated movies. The subject is prominent on a popular TV show and I very very strongly doubt there is any truth to the claim. The talk page comment was from quite a while ago, and the material in question is no longer in the article but it is accessible in the history. Should I: Advice welcomed, I am sure it would be a BLP issue if it was on the page now (and I would have removed it before making a report) but given it is a while back in the history I am not sure whether to just leave sleeping dogs alone. Thanks, EdChem (talk) 09:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) remove the talk page comment and just leave it alone on the theory no one will likely see it again?
 * 2) remove the talk page comment and then request it and the revisions with the BLP-offending material be revdeleted?
 * 3) remove the talk page comment and then email for the old revisions to be oversighted?
 * 4) not touch the talk page and just approach an admin who works with revdel?
 * 5) identify the article, etc, here despite the Streisand effect issue?
 * 6) go away, thinking "woops, I over-reacted on that one"?
 * 7) do something else?
 * Per WP:BLPTALK, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices, should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate". Feel free to email me the location of the offending statement and I'll take a look to see what should be done.  Dreadstar  ☥   04:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I have sent you an email. EdChem (talk) 10:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Latif Yahia
A blogger has repeatedly made false claims against Latif Yahia and, when they are disputed, reverted the content back. The article was poorly researched and potentially libelious breaking all of Wikipdia's rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perrynio (talk • contribs) 17:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The material you removed seems to be based on reliable sources (including 'the Guardian and the Sunday Times), whereas the only source you provide for your version appears to be Yahia's own website. I note also that you claim to be Yahia's literary agent, please read WP:COI. I suggest you discuss this on the article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: this is related to a previously archived thread. It is also likely related to previously blocked editor User:Arcanumpublishing2011, from the subject's publisher. Perrynio, apparently the subject's literary agent, has been blocked temporarily, but this article may require more attention for a while longer. JFHJr (㊟) 07:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Erich von Däniken
Has, as far as I can tell, quite serious BLP issues with recent edits including:, etc. With claims such as Erich von Daniken howsever has since been rumoured to have a serious psychological and neurological mental instability issue and as such should be taken as serious as one takes a 103 yr old dimentia patient serious and so on. This BLP is quite beset with people who seem to think that debunking fringe views necessitates making a poor BLP by including a great deal of non-utile and/or poorly sourced material. :(. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * One of the edits cited above was superceded by other later edits. Lung salad (talk) 00:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think your two diffs are hardly comperable, Collect. The first seems to be related to a content dispute (under discussion on the talk page), whereas the second is unsourced editorialising - clearly fit only for immediate removal. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The first is, I suggest, "contentious" and requires "strong sourcing" which appears to be lacking, alas. EvD may be the looniest author in the universe, but all claims about him must meet WP:BLP and I ask others to help ensure that such is followed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I've posted to both editors involved in the current edit war reminding them of 3RR (although BLP can be an exception of course). The page may need protection, but I also encourage other editors to keep a watch on it. I'm trying not to get further involved. Dougweller (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC).


 * Why does the page need protection if the content that's being deleted has responsible citations that fall within Wikipedia Guidelines. Is there a problem with using Der Spiegel as a source? Does using Der Spiegel violate Wikipedia guidelines? If not, then it is the editor making the deletions, and there is only one such editor, that is the problem. Lung salad (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * At the most generous reading, the article says he acted as an editor - which is how English speakers term the guy who takes bad wording from authors and improves it. Saying he "extensively reworote" implies quite clearly that he was a substantial contributor to its content - which is not how my schlechte understanding of German makes it appear.  Cheers - but WP:BLP applies (noting further that you has assigned the one person two different names in the article).  deWiki says 1964 Utermann left the film business and again intensively focused on writing, among other things with the name "William Roggersdorf" as a reviewer of books of Erich von Dänikens where the word auf Deutsch is  Bearbeiter .  Which basically is what "editor" means in English (aren't languages wonderful to have in college?).  Cheers.  Collect (talk) 01:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That's not what it says in Der Spiegel - and there's another article from 1969 that provides further details, Lung salad (talk) 02:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Using your cite from above - it says Utermann had to edit every sentence to make the manuscript ready for publishing.  Editor.  Cheers. Per Der Spiegel as you cited it. Collect (talk) 02:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * There's a difference between editing and re-writing. "Reworked every sentence" is a viable translation. Lung salad (talk) 02:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "make ready for publication" is what Bing says.  I consider rewriting to be an intrinsic part of editing, as do all the dictionaries out there . Cheers - but Roggesdorg "edited" the book, and was not a "science fiction author" not an author at all in the normal English usage (he is not credited as Autor on the German editoion, by the way, but as "Bearbeiter" (Editor). Collect (talk) 12:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "science fiction author" is ancient history and has been supplanted by the citation from Der Spiegel that does not violate Wikipedia guidelines. The reference in Die Spiegel when reading the complete paragraph refers to rewriting and not to editing. They are two different things. Lung salad (talk) 17:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Tom Silva
3rd paragraph of Biography section conjecture including: "He puts any contractor on DIY channel and similar capitalist seeking venture risks to shame" and "He is frankly the best." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.131.209.91 (talk) 14:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Unreferenced puffery removed: it was added yesterday. You could have done it on your own (don't fear the edit button !), Thanks for bringing it to our attention.  Acroterion   (talk)   14:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Amy Hart
I am tryng to post my biography as a singer/songwriter. I have a few records out, one is listed already on Wikipedia, "Girls Just Want To Have Fun, The Movie" and I have two more recent releases, my latest is getting some airplay and such... I would like to claim Amy Hart for myself if possible, not sure how to do that...

Thanks for your help! I have started the article as Amyhartmusic today, 1/22/2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amyhartmusic (talk • contribs) 00:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not recommended that you write an article about yourself. If you are notable, someone else will notice you and write the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for posting here, Amy. Just to give you a little more explanation, as Ian says above, it's generally not a good idea to author an article about yourself. See WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY for details. The biggest reason is that editors have conflicts of interest when they write articles about themselves. See WP:COI for more. Also as Ian points out, if and when you are notable, someone who is unconnected to you will write an article about you. See WP:BLP and WP:NM for applicable notability guidelines that any article about you would have to meet. Please note, an article with your name was previously deleted for lack of notability.


 * By the way, your user space looks like an article about yourself. While WP:UP provides lots of leeway in content and disclosing your own information, your user space shouldn't look like an article. See WP:FAKEARTICLE for more. Please consider redacting your user page so that it doesn't look like an article. JFHJr (㊟) 00:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Rahul Easwar
Poorly Sourced, self promotional, even doubtful whether an article is needed in wiki on this personality. But anyway the article needs a lot of cleanup. Most of the links are dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditindia (talk • contribs) 11:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've done a little bit of work cleaning it up. Unfortunately, it needs some shape to it and I didn't do that. In other words, it needs to make more sense as to who Easwar is and what he really does. Instead, it has poorly worded, sometimes unsourced, disparate facts. One quibble: most of the links are not dead.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The article looks nice now, though unsure about how it meets the notability criteria. The source 1 is a tweet from the person himself. Source 3 and 4 are unavailable. Rest of the sources does not have any significant coverage on the subject of the article. In those reports mention of the person comes as he merely acted as spokesperson for the tantri community - by virtue of he being the family member of the traditional priests. The issues dealt by the sources are difference of opinion between the Government of Kerala and the Priest family. Not sure with these sources the Person meets the notability criteria or not. Shouldn't it be proposed for deletion?  Wikieditindia (talk) 10:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * PS: After cleaning up, if 40+ links are removed as dead and only 9 - still 2 dead in that - are kept, will it be an exaggeration to say 'most of the links are dead?'. Talk page of the article has the details of the removed links. Wikieditindia (talk) 11:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I dont think that the article should be deleted for the lack of sources. This guy has been on TED Talks's some local conference. The article seems worth remaining with as many sources available. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 12:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Worth remaining for what? Please see the article and see if its expandable.Wikieditindia (talk) 12:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

An IP editor has reverted much of the BLP related changes. I have notified that IP of the discussion here, but Rahul Easwar might need tending to for a bit longer. JFHJr (㊟) 07:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Created deletion discussion for Rahul Easwar Wikieditindia (talk) 10:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Antony Garrett Lisi
There are many sources reporting both good and bad about Antony Garrett Lisi and his theory. The theory is probably wrong, as are most new theories, but an editor has recently written the sentence "The theory is incomplete and not widely accepted by the scientific community" in the lede and I'm concerned this sentence (especially in the lede) may be defamatory, painting Lisi as a crackpot. Although it's obvious that Lisi's work is controversial, it has appeared in peer-reviewed journals (although the original paper did not), and there was a mathematical physics conference inspired by his work, and a recent feature article by Lisi in Scientific American.-Scientryst (talk) 04:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how anyone could possibly see that as defamatory. Lisi himself seems to have accepted this - he states that "the theory is not complete and cannot be considered much more than a speculative proposal". . AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree that saying the theory is incomplete is well established, the problem is saying that it is "not widely accepted by the scientific community," because that implies it is not accepted as a work of science, which is an extremely defamatory description of a physicist's work. I think it would be fine to replace this problematic sentence with Lisi's statement as quoted by AndyTheGrump.-Scientryst (talk) 05:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't understand your logic. Is the statement "not widely accepted by the scientific community" true or false? It seems to be true. It implies nothing whatever about it not being 'accepted as a work of science'. That is how science works. Scientific theories get proposed, and the best get 'accepted' - until a better one comes along. Maybe in the future it will be accepted. Maybe not. Maybe it isn't recognised as a scientific theory at all. Either way, we aren't reporting other than what the sources say. There is nothing 'problematic' in reporting as fact something that Lisi acknowledges - there are no 'implications' at all, as far as I can see. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the statement "not widely accepted by the scientific community" is false because it is overly general. Specifically, I think Lisi's idea was accepted by the scientific community (or rather, the small subset of it that took an interest) as an incomplete unification theory with some typical and serious deficiencies. That is significantly different than "not accepted," which I think is needlessly and inaccurately defamatory. And I'm not sure you're right about how science works. Is string theory widely accepted? It's certainly accepted as a work of science, but it would be a stretch to say it's widely accepted as a correct theory. But, I don't think it matters what I think, what matters is that the reliable sources do not support the statement that Lisi's work was "not accepted." The reliable sources are all over the map, with praise and criticism, but none call him a crank.-Scientryst (talk) 07:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's right. The reliable sources aren't calling Lisi 'a crank'. Neither does our article. It appears that you think that an article that doesn't describe Lisi as a crank is defamatory, because it doesn't explicitly say that he isn't. That is illogical nonsense. You have presented no evidence here that our article is in any way either in violation of policy, or factually incorrect. I suggest that this thread be closed as the pointless waste of time it is.... AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I did not wish to waste time with a long argument. My concern is simply that saying a scientist's work is "not widely accepted by the scientific community" in the lede of a BLP is potentially defamatory, and it should probably be deleted unless solidly backed by reliable sources. I posted this to BLPN to get feedback or action on it.-Scientryst (talk) 18:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll find a source for it. Satisfied? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * How about this, from Scientific American: "Today the theory is being largely but not entirely ignored". AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * How about that. Was that quote from before or after Scientific American published a feature article on the theory?-Scientryst (talk) 07:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Scientryst is claiming, falsely in my opinion, that the statement as written means "The scientific community does not believe that what Lisi does counts as science". Because Scientryst's past history on this article, I cannot assume good faith that Scientryst actually means this ridiculous conclusion.  The sentence as written means that they consider (as the SA article says) the theory to be wrong.  No reasonable reader would think that the meaning is that Lisi's claims aren't scientific. In my far from unbiased opinion, Scientryst is grasping at straws to attempt to remove a factual claim about Lisi from this article. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup. Though if the scientific community did state that they didn't think it was science, and we said that they said it, none of it would be 'defamatory' anyway. We don't say that. We say that Lisi's theory isn't widely accepted. It isn't. We aren't saying it is wrong. We aren't saying it isn't scientific. We are saying it isn't widely accepted, and that is all we say... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Would it be OK then to shorten the line to "The theory is incomplete and not widely accepted."? This would make it seem less like scientists have rejected it as not science.-Scientryst (talk) 07:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Joe Paterno
I'd appreciate an administrator over at Joe Paterno ASAP. Multiple reliable sources are reporting his death, but one administrator fully protected the page and says they are not sufficient. It would be nice to have a second set of eyes look over the issue and take whatever action is appropriate. Even if he isn't dead now, this is a developing story and the full protection would mean the article could easily get out of date without prompt administrator intervention. 151.213.41.131 (talk) 02:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No. That admin did precisely the right thing. Official sources are denying the report. Keep this at the talk page; there are plenty of admins there. ⋙–Berean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  02:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, multiple sources relayed the report from CBS Sports, which in turn was based on twitter. These reports have been retracted. Mackensen (talk) 03:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, you edited a fully protected page without talk page consensus per WP:FULL. -- JOJ <sup style="color:#CC9900;">Hutton  13:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Alveda King
IN the abortion section, instead of one making a statement followed by another statement or example offering differing information in a second sentence, the paragraph use the word "but" to suggestcontentious inaccuracy. Sentences need to be re-written to assure accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.189.130.11 (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I don't quite understand. There are two abortion-related sections, and I assume you mean "Abortions" (the first), since the other doesn't contain the word "but." I read it a few times and didn't strike me as problematic. I even gave her talk a listen, memorialized on youtube (WP:RS?), which seemed pretty accurate. If you like, you could make the changes you'd like to see, leaving an edit summary explaining how they're closer to what the cited source actually says, if that's the case. Follow up here if there's a better way to improve the article. JFHJr (㊟) 05:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Subtle, plausible vandalism may be the most pernicious kind. Consider the biography of Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, current head of the Democratic National Committee. Her mother's name is Ann Wasserman, and her father's is Larry Wassserman. Several times in recent days, the claim has been added that her mother is actually Diana Wasserman-Rubin, who is on trial on political corruption charges. Also, that her stepfather is Richard Rubin, who is in prison on a conviction for tax evasion. The result of the vandalism has been negative press coverage of Wikipedia in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel in an article called [http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/broward/blog/2012/01/wassermanwhat_wikipedia_claims.html Wasserman-WHAT? Wikipedia claims Wasserman-Rubin and Wasserman Schultz are mother-daughter]. I've added the article to my watch list and encourage other editors to do so as well.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  02:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to warn everyone: I clicked on that link because I was curious. A few seconds later, an audio file started playing, which led immediately thereafter to my computer crashing, and hard.  I don't believe I've had a crash this hard in the 14 months that I've had this thing.  Disclaimer - I really don't know if your experience will be the same or if the audio file was the reason for the crash.  Just wanted to say something just in case.RadioKAOS (talk) 03:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

E.R. Braithwaite - correction of birth date
E. R. Braithwaite was born on June 27, 1912. The current Wikipedia article has him born June 27, 1920. Please correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.99.197 (talk) 03:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have linked your comment to the article to aid discussion. Dru of Id (talk) 03:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Both years appear in ostensibly reliable sources. I've modified the lead in the article, and cited one source describing both dates reported. JFHJr (㊟) 04:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Michael Sata
False Information about the demise of the subject: Some one entered false information that the president of the Republic of Zambia His excellency Michael Sata was assassinated yesterday morning. The information is not true according to the official state houses's web site. The information has been deleted from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mashaphiri (talk • contribs) 01:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If the vandalism persists, you can seek semi-protection of the article at WP:RPP.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Judi Shekoni
Two problems with this article. One is that there are conflicting sources on her age & I doubt we can solve that. The other is that an editor is trying to keep in material which makes the article virtually all about her romantic interests and not about her career as a British actress, model and television presenter turning the article into the equivalent of a gossip column. See my edit here where I removed the birthdate and some of the romance material. Note that the editor emphasises her age for some reason by prefacing a quote from an interview with 'who was 22 at the time', which seems a strange thing to add. This editor just readded the 1977 birthdate while on his talk page saying that Ancestry.co.uk says 1978. Dougweller (talk) 06:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd removed the birthdate entirely and some of the gossip stuff, posted to the article's talk page and the editor's talk page. He's replaced 1977 despite saying Ancestry.co.uk says 1978 and also the gossip stuff. Other editors have reverted him in the past but he is ignoring them. Dougweller (talk) 16:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would have removed the DOB altogether as well if you hadn't beaten me to it. As a related note, per prior discussion, ancestry.co.uk should not be used as a reliable source, especially for contentious info in a BLP. <b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 17:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm sure the editor will be along to replace it again, although if he does it today that will be 3RR. He replaced it after I posted to his talk page that there was a discussion here. He also replaced the gossip-type material twice today (once after I told him about the discussion here). Dougweller (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Edit warring to restore contentious info to a BLP is blockable regardless of whether they pace their edits to avoid a technical 3RR infraction. I've added the article to my watchlist as well; hopefully Shylocksboy will begin to use the article talk page to help come up with an amicable and BLP-compliant solution to the problem as opposed to repeatedly reverting multiple editors. <b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 21:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * An IP was blocked a little while ago for restoring it. Thanks for adding it to your watchlist. Dougweller (talk) 06:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

William Zartman
He is a member of the Steering Committee of PIN/ Clingendael, a research network, Processes of International Negotiations at the Clingendael Institute of International Relations, The Hague, Netherlands.

He has more recently published: Engaging Extremists: Trade- offs, Timing and Diplomacy (with G. O. Faure). United States Institute of Peace, 2011. Negotiating with Terrorists; Strategy, tactics and Politics. (with G. O. Faure) Routledge, 2010. Conflict Resolution. (with J. Bercovitch and V. Kremenyuk) Sage, 2009. Escalation and Negotiation in International Conflicts. (with G. O. Faure) Cambridge University Press, 2005. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.229.188.145 (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Sounds nice. If you can find a reliable source, other than Zartman, discussing this information, it probably has a place in the article. It could use some attention; tagged for notability since 2008. JFHJr (㊟) 23:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Jim Breyer
Subject contacted me noting that his biography has been tagged as being 'like a resume' for several months. He wanted to know what can be done about it. I removed the tag and made some minor edits, and posted on the talk page asking the original tagger for help, but bring it here as well to get more eyes on the issue.

The reason this is an issue is that for business people, a "like a resume" tag might be presumed by some to reflect negatively on them, possibly giving the impression that they are non-notable and did something inappropriate at Wikipedia. If the article does read like a resume, then something should be done about it, but with some haste, rather than leaving a negative tag up for months.

In this case, it may very well be that the article needs significant trimming. I'm looking into that but would love some help.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If the editor that tagged it didn't leave a description of the problems on the talk page then the tag may be removed immediately. Reference Tagging pages for problems as well as WP:DRIVEBY. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  18:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Salman Shah
This page has seen a lot of vandalism over the past 3 months, oddly regarding the individual's child's name. While this seems like a practical joke, it is libellous and potentially embarrassing for a man in Dr. Shah's position. It is requested that this page at leat be placed on temporary protection to avoid such instances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.185.166.230 (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected for two weeks. This is an unreferenced BLP so it could use some editors to improve it at least nominally. Gamaliel (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Sachin Pandit (person)


(Redacted)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachin69 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Sachin. Please don't copy and paste here the article you've repeatedly written about yourself. Please post here if you have a question or complaint about a living person's biography.


 * Please note, WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY is strongly discouraged here, because people have a massive conflict of interest writing about themselves. Please refrain from making more articles about yourself. Case in point: your autobiography was deleted at least 5 times now. I'll also note you've begun using more than one account for some reason. Again, please refrain. Thank you. JFHJr (㊟) 19:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Vladimir Kush
Currently under AfD, Vladimir Kush has had content repeatedly inserted in violation of WP:BLPSPS. In the article, it's been mostly uncited, but derives from the subject's own website. Of issue are his education, claims involving third parties (government/KGB), which are generally self-serving. Also, a very substantial part of the article is based on the SPS. Any attention that might be lent here would be appreciated. JFHJr (㊟) 22:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Peter Julio Grout
I believe Peter Grout has retired.

I am not aware that he was ever a Reader at Oxford and he never was a Fellow of Universty College, Oxford - he merely had an external appointment to teach some maths to chemists at the college. I believe he was a university lecturer without affiliation.

The "Grout Group" would extend to a couple of doctoral students over a period of twenty-three years...so the statement in the biogrhy could be technically correct but somewhat misleading.

All material should be readily verifiable from University sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.69.253 (talk) 08:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I have removed material not supported by a citation. Is this person notable?  Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No, I don't reckon so. I couldn't find much better sourcing, so I've left a template and comment at the talk page. JFHJr (㊟) 04:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: I've WP:PRODded the article. JFHJr (㊟) 18:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Charles A. Hurley
This article appears to be a concatenation of mentions in refs of two different people. I am first and foremost concerned that this article may amount to an implicit Attack page, in the context of the current US Presidential candidate nomination process. The notability of these two persons is also a concern, and a no less important BLP concern.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: this article has been WP:PRODded. JFHJr (㊟) 04:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And deprodded. The "Chuck Hurley" mentioned in the context of Rick Santorum is an Iowa evangelical and clearly another Chuck Hurley to the former CEO of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. I think the former MADD CEO is notable, I'm working on expanding the article. Babies, bathwater. Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Vernon Davis
there are many things in this article that are not fact, but just opinion. for instance it says davis "vaulted into the group of elite tight ends". this isn't a fact, as what is elite differs from person to person. my opinion is that in the playoff game last weekend, davis paid money to malcolm jenkins to let him abuse jenkins all game long. i wouldnt be allowed to post this on here because it isnt fact. davis being elite cant be allowed either, as it is not a provable fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.181.189 (talk) 02:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It appears the language you describe has been removed. You're right about not being able to insert opinion willy nilly. The other side of that coin is that if you spot undue praise or criticism that isn't supported by a reliable source, you can remove it yourself. JFHJr (㊟) 05:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Sarah Barlondo
I am fighting a losing battle over reliable sourcing of the Sarah Barlondo article. My requests for sources other than imdb and articles about the shows she's in keep getting removed. Help? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've removed much of the information from the article that is unsourced. The article needs inline citations instead of relying on a list of references (all foreign and some of dubious reliability). I've posted a note about what I did on the article's Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Those sources are very reliable, why do they keep being removed ? Same when I write she is ALSO a model,singer,tv host. It keeps being removed. I speak Spanish and I can tell you the sources are NO dubious reliability. Why do you write an article on the Talk page if you can modify the reference list? I dont understand. IMDB is perfectly reliable as well and there is her biography there, her website as well says a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maniman22 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No, IMDB is not reliable for her biography. Search archives at WP:RSN for more information. What other sources exactly state that she's a model and TV host? I saw singer in one listed reference, actually. JFHJr (㊟) 06:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Lamar Smith
Perhaps you've heard of him, the primary sponsor of a little-known piece of obscure legislation called the Stop Online Piracy Act. The following text about Mr. Smith presently appears in that article, and I'd like assurances that the cited sources meet BLP quality requirements, and that the text is appropriate for the article and properly supported:
 * In January 2012, bloggers using Wayback Machine claimed that Smith's own campaign website had apparently used a copyright protected image without attributing it to the photographer who took it. Time noted, "It doesn’t seem like a huge violation, but that’s the point; if SOPA passes, who knows how minor infractions like this will be handled."Time.com, The Atlantic Wire.com In a prepared statement that acknowledged no wrongdoing, Smith's campaign staff said that the contractor who created the website had been replaced in October by "a company that assures all images are properly used."  Smith said, "If we should have had permission, then the independent contractor should have done that. We cannot check on everything the independent contractor does."chron.com

On a related note, can we convey in Wikipedia's voice that Mr. Smith is ironically guilty of copyright violation? I know he hasn't admitted as much, but it's rather obvious, isn't it? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh for crying out loud... It's bad enough that Wikipedia threw out any claim to objectivity by linking to the article on SOPA during the protest (no chance it would be a fair presentation if it's used during a political advocacy stunt) but now people are trying to insert that POV into more articles. Mere bloggers aren't reliable sources. Personal opinions of editors about what is ironic and not are not allowed in articles. There may be a mainstream source out there, but it seems to be WP:UNDUE to talk about it, unelss we want to just give up all rpetense and change the name of the site to AntiSOPApedia. DreamGuy (talk) 17:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The artist created one of the images specifically in protest against SOPA and PIPA. Oh, Hello Xenophrenic, are you the one who keeps putting the word 'Expert' into the article, over and over and over and over and over and over again no matter how many times your told it's a peacock term ? is that you ? Penyulap   talk 21:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Smith appears to be attempting to excuse it by saying that it's second-hand infringement -- a type of infringement that the courts often seem more than willing to prosecute in instances of P2P networks. And I wouldn't consider Forbes to be a 'mere blogger'. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The foundation and the wikipedia project has a stated activist position against this living person so NPOV is never going to happen is it. The project has a stated position against him. So, you want to say in wikipedia's voice that he is a copyright violator - hilarious. The projects activist opposition to him asserts the project has a bias against him and as such BLP suggests wikipedia should not be hosting an article about him. You  really  can  17:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Last I checked, "the foundation and the wikipedia project" leadership does not edit -- we do . So their views don't taint the neutrality of that article unless we allow them to. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The foundation and en wikipedia has lost all chance of attempting to claim NPOV in regards to this living person.   You  really  can  18:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the material. It's unreliably sourced and poorly worded. Even the Forbes cite is to an opinion piece that baldly states Smith is "guilty".--Bbb23 (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * How much coverage has this issue had in the mainstream media? It seems to me to fall firmly into 'undue' territory if it hasn't been seen as significant elsewhere. And we certainly can't accuse Smith of copyright infringement in our own voice, regardless of how 'obvious' we may think it is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, since there doesn't appear to be any objection, we're going to expand the Lamar Smith Copyvio section in the SOPA article to 4 paragraphs and give it its own header. We'll cite the originating blog, state affirmatively that a copyright violation by Lamar exists, and we should include statements from the photographer that was victimized. HERE is a rough draft. We're also going to pretty it up with full-color pictures (with permission, of course!) of the stolen image and a "protest" version from the artist, just as soon as we can get small technicality cleared up. It should be properly sourced now, with proper context and weight concerns addressed, and should be quite informative to readers of the SOPA article. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Where do you get "there doesn't appear to be any objection" from? You have yet to produce evidence that this issue has been given significant coverage elsewhere - and without that it is totally undue. Furthermore, under no circumstances must Wikipedia assert that there was a copyright violation until this has been affirmed in a court of law. Now get off your soapbox and do something useful instead. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's correct but missing the point. "X said Y". Wikipedia isn't saying "this was a violation" in its own voice. Reliable sources are saying it was a violation and we're reporting the fact. Same as "The US Government says Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization" or any other view where we have attributed a source rather than use Wikipedia's voice - WP:NPOV. If other significant reliable sources say "this was not a copyright violation" NPOV would require we balance using view too. Have they? FT2 (Talk 00:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Xenophrenic is talking about the SOPA article, not the Smith article, which doesn't make it any less problematic. And who is "we"?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This type of editing and users that want to use wikipedia for their own activism is going to grow and grow. Wikipedia is the new online equivalent of the anonomouse occu-pie movement. NPOV is dead, the foundations POV, and any protest group that turns up is is the new position to edit articles towards. You  really  can  19:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Although I understand your point about SOPA and the Wikipedia blackout, at the same time, activist editors are a recurring theme on Wikipedia, so, in that sense, this is nothing new. Also, I think it would be more reasonable just to focus on the issues with the Smith and any related articles rather than addressing the broader implications as to the encyclopedia generally (that would be better addressed in a different forum).--Bbb23 (talk) 19:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * More activists will come now. Wikipedia is now known to be a place that supports activism. Yes, your right though, its a broader issue. -In fact its not even an issue anymore its a historic fact.    You  really  can  20:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yup. Along comes YRC with another soapbox... Can we please stay on topic. As a point of information, I supported the blackout, and am quite capable of discussing this without engaging in hyperbole. We already have policies regarding weight, relevance etc, and this issue should be treated like any other. Anyone incapable of doing that shouldn't be involving themselves in the discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The only serious "objection" I've seen is that an editor deleted related content from Smith's BLP on the grounds that it was "unreliably sourced, poorly worded"; surely the wording and sources now in the SOPA article addressed that. Would there be any objections if I cut-&-pasted the content from the SOPA article to the Smith BLP?  (I assume if it meets BLP standards on one page, it should be fine on all Wikipedia pages.) Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would object to the change to the Smith article. I think we need more input on the material in the SOPA article, and it's not correct that material that is acceptable in one article is necessarily acceptable in a different article.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Not really - we often remove content from a BLP to another location where is is less weighty and less accessed and as such less of a violation. Why do you want to post exactly the same thing in multiple locations? Which section is it in the SOPA article? Please can you provide a link to the content you want to cut and copy into the BLP. thanks -   You  really  can  19:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You don't get to decide what objections are 'serious'. If you do as you have stated, I will remove it as a violation of WP:BLP (which incidentally is exempt from WP:3RR), and report you to ANI for edit warring. We are discussing the issue here, and I expect a response to my questions regarding weight. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: I have removed the relevant section from the SOPA article too, as a violation of WP:BLP. We cannot assert that Smith violated copyright without a reliable source that says the same. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

−
 * (ec)I'll add my opposition to adding this content to Smith's page. Even in the SOPA page, I not entirely comfortable with it. Irony is sweet, but not necessarily encyclopedic. If the national press decides to make some hay with it, then we should re-evaluate. The Interior  (Talk) 20:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Before Andy busts a seam, let's step this back a little. Let's start with this section on Smith:
 * Stop_Online_Piracy_Act
 * Same content and information, with sourcing and weight concerns addressed, no? It just needs a couple informative images added, but that is being worked on. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see the content that is User:Xenophrenic's desired addition to this BLP. - I absolutely oppose that desired addition. It has almost nothing to do with him personally. You  really  can  20:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Even with the "response" article by the Houston Chronicle, I think the whole thing is much ado about nothing. To the extent it belongs in the SOPA article, it doesn't need its own section, and it could be handled in at most two sentences. It certainly shouldn't be expanded.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello I'm a major contributor to the article, this convo is right not for me wp:too long. The images that got Mr Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) into so much hot water have now, at my request to the artist, been re-released under a license which allows their use on Wikipedia, so whilst you lot discuss this, I'll go off to other languages and spread these iconic images. Please ensure that the images remain on the article page would you ? thanks. Penyulap  talk 20:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I barely understand what you're saying (although it sounds crusader-like), but, with respect to this encyclopedia, what images in what article?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I added a link to the relevant section (with pictures now!), but it has been deleted ... no, wait ... it's back.  Ooops, it's gone again.  Wait...  after that last revert, you should find it here:
 * Stop_Online_Piracy_Act
 * If you are fast, that is. It's been through a dozen reverts thus far, but 3RR should be suspended on such important matters. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And the material remains OUT until there is a consensus for inclusion. At this point, the consensus is leaning toward exclusion. Also, WP:3RR is not "suspended" for "important matters". I suggest you read it before you violate it.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. To quote WP:3RR "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP)" is exempt from 3RR. Note 'removal' - not 'addition'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

It's all over the news and English wikipedia can't string three words together.

DJ Schulte is the artists name, so Cntrl-F that in each.

          

Or just google it. there are better ones out there. It reminds me of this quote ...

''A wise editor invoked the image of a "Camel" (df=a horse assembled via committee). I think what happens at Wikipedia is more like the way you can get two or three editors to discuss a question and finish with 17 (wrong) answers.-- Djathinkimacowboy <sup style="color:#000130;">irrelevancies <-Faux signature'' Penyulap  talk 21:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Gee, slowtwitch.com, I'm impressed - not to mention blogs, derivative sites, and the fact that you liked one so much you repeated it in the list.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I just took the first handful off google, you know, in case there was anyone completely incapable of using google themselves. Anyhow, when I have time, I'll try and help anyone who wants help to try to find one that's notable and complies with blp. Penyulap   talk 22:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * None of this trivia belongs in his BLP whatever citations you find - Its only minimally tangentially anything to to do with him at all. So, this is the BLP noticeboard - as long as you don't accuse him of copyright violations, or add any claims that he was involved in such acts and don't give it much weight you should try to add a sentence to the Stop Online Piracy Act article. In July 2011 Smiths campaign website run by Best campaign website corp was claimed to have hosted an unattributed picture without permission.  You  really  can  22:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I was asked to visit this page and comment by Youreallycan. As I'm not sure what I can say beyond what I said to him already this is a recap of my input from our discussion:

This news title specifically stated that Forbes identified the person as a hypocrite. That's no less quotable as something Forbes said than when the Daily Mail memorably declared Norris and Dobson to be "murderers" (1997) in the murder of Stephen Lawrence case. A headline is a reliable source for a plain statement that X said Y. In this case it's a reliable high-quality source that Forbes called the person a "hypocrite", and the rest of their entire article is completely dedicated to explaining why. The quotation marks are for the usual reason, because it's an actual quote of the specific term used.

This wasn't some random matter. It was discussed on at least 3 major, reputable news media - Time, Atlantic Wire, and Forbes - and a number of other reliable sources. In each case, it was directly commented on and considered as a reflection on or negative point to the man, not some unknown subordinates. It gained significant attention in that whole editorials focused on this one issue (ie not merely "in passing"). It was raised as a discussion point for, and in the context of, his sponsorship of PIPA, that his own office had used infringing material on his own website. Had it been deemed "minor" by the mainstream, sites like these would not have published whole articles on it using terms like "hypocritical" and in one case "stealing". "Hypocrite" is the milder of the two.

FT2 (Talk 00:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't ask you to comment, although of course you can - my request to you was just that as you are insistent in adding something about this to his BLP, that you please present your desired addition, and the citations that you want to support it with, here for discussion and evaluation.   You  really  can  00:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It seemed best to recap and present the actual concern first as I hadn't previously been linked to this thread and obviously discussion has taken place. You should have most of the sources already (I've given you the sites, Forbes is in the diff, Time and Atlantic Wire are linked above) and more aren't hard if really needed. FT2 (Talk 00:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, a link to our discussion would be fine - In our discussion you assert that an addition should be made to his BLP, can you present what you want to add here for discussion and evaluation?   You  really  can  00:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Linking to this thread made me aware that there are users who also see it similarly, which I hadn't known. Before weakening what consensus may feel to be correctly treated I'd like to avoid assuming. I would be fine considering if there's a better way to do it, to reassure you if I'm able, and I'll give it thought, but I'm also remaining more open given the above discussion, to the possibility that no NPOV/BLP issue actually exists with the wording as it stood. FT2 (Talk 01:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So you support and want to replace your previous addition to his BLP? This was your, now removed addition and the citations you used to support it ......  You  really  can  01:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

In January 2012, it was determined that Smith's own website had used copyright infringing materials,

described as "hypocritical" by Forbes.
 * - http://www.dailytech.com/Obama+Admin+Declares+War+on+SOPA+SOPA+Author+Caught+Stealing+Work/article23783.htm
 * - http://mashable.com/2012/01/12/sopa-sponsor/
 * - http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2012/01/13/pipa-weakens-as-sopa-gets-hypocritical/


 * We're here to have more eyeballs, some have spoken, others not yet. Let's see what others say. If it helps, I posted my reasoning behind having used the Forbes article in the section below, mainly because the slightly separate but related issue was being discussed there whether a headline is capable of being significant or quotable in the first place. FT2 (Talk 01:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Only a court can decide whether someone has infringed someone else's copyright.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (inserted text) For a court case to even take place, a plaintiff has to decide if copyright infringement has taken place and decide if they are able to, and willing to, proceed. Penyulap   talk 18:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * For someone to be liable for copyright infringement, someone has to sue. What's your point?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I also want to add, although I am one of the worst in such matters - the sentence doesn't make sense, and the comma is wrong, and the second part is unexplained from the first. "it was determined that Smith's own website had used copyright infringing materials, described as "hypocritical" by Forbes - what was described as hypocritical by forbes?   You  really  can  01:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Lamar Smith (2) - Quoting article titles

 * - http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2012/01/13/pipa-weakens-as-sopa-gets-hypocritical/

Is this article title a reliable source to state that - Forbes called Smith a "hypocrite" - I have to state that imo it is not but User:FT2 insists it is? You really  can  22:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * If it were the title alone, I think it would be inappropriate. But it's repeated within the prose:

"It may sound silly, but it points out the realities of SOPA that almost any domain on the internet, even Smith’s own, could be taken down for good should it be found in violation of copyright. Hypocrisy in Congress is nothing new, but this is a particularly relevant example that deserves attention."


 * What about that bit? JFHJr (㊟) 23:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There is the journalistic license - it doesn't actually say Smith is a hypocrite just leads you around to thinking that it does and then it gets repeated as if it does.    You  really  can  23:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I would not use that source period. It's the same article that says, ""The second item of note is that SOPA author Sen. Lamar Smith (R-Tx) has himself been found guilty of violating copyright." Irresponsible journalism.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Very good point. I agree inclusion of "hypocrite" or the like per this source alone would present a BLP problem. Thanks for catching that rather wild claim. JFHJr (㊟) 23:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Anyone that is calling Smith personally a hypocrite because a company employed by his campaign team to create a website inadvertently had an unattributed picture on it, is just not a neutral - basically, such assertions are partisan attacks. Smith had no involvement or personal responsibility in that at all.  You  really  can  23:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * (This is on the same issue as the above, but covers a specific point about it. Indenting as a subsection for clarity without changing the text) FT2 (Talk 01:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

As to use of a title, a newspaper is as reliablely sourced as its article. Remember, we're saying "the source says X" and undeniably the source has said X. In this case here is the matter:
 * The article is titled "SOPA gets hypocritical"
 * The article lead is a large image of Lamar
 * The second paragraph is about Lamar
 * The fourth paragraph states "The second item of note is that SOPA author Sen. Lamar Smith (R-Tx) has himself been found guilty of violating copyright" and cites the image author as stating permission was never given.
 * Entire article is about Lamar's image
 * Image is prominently pictured in the article
 * Statement by image author denying permission given to Lamar is prominently shown
 * Article's second-last paragraph references "Hypocrisy in Congress". There is nothing in the article this might reference except Lamar and the image.
 * Article concludes that Lamar, as the "ringleader" for the bill, is being "exposed"
 * "Hypocritical" is a strong word that is not used lightly
 * The article is devoted to the one issue.
 * There is nothing in the article that the headline or content "hypocrisy" might reference except the above
 * The article is clearly intended to convey to the reader that the headline and content "hypocrisy" do refer to the above

Overall it is clear and plain reading that Forbes is making a statement that in its view Lamar is hypocritical - strongly so. FT2 (Talk 01:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't care how many bullet points you list. The Forbes article is irresponsible journalism and should not be used as a source for anything. I'm not going to pretend I have no editorial judgment just because Forbes is ostensibly a reliable source. We are not robots.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * A source that states that "Sen. Lamar Smith (R-Tx) has himself been found guilty of violating copyright" is self-evidently not reliable for what it says about him. He hasn't been 'found guilty' of anything. There has been no trial... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone can claim it's not a reliable source. The statement is sourced (and identified as an issue reflecting on Lamar) in high quality sources. Forbes and Time don't become unreliable low quality sources just because the topic is an individual - they remain examples of very high quality sources, and in my view high enough quality for a BLP citation.


 * That multiple reliable sources, all normally seen as very high quality, all covering it that way, shows strongly that this cannot be deemed an isolated case of "irresponsible journalism" at Forbes.


 * The question in this subsection is "did Forbes state that in its view, Lamar is hypocritical? I say the above shows they did. Do you have reasoning showing they didn't? If not, this subsection's closed and the question reverts, should we say they did, or that others said similar? That's being discussed above.
 * FT2 (Talk 01:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The idea that the government would prosecute Smith charging him with criminal infringement is laughable. As for civil infringement, one isn't guilty, one is liable, and it can be decided on summary judgment or after a trial. Regardless, Forbes doesn't get to decide anything.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * @Bbb23: Who's said they would. Red herring as the issue is whether Forbes did or didn't call him hypocritical.


 * Youreallycan opened this section with a specific question separate (though related) from the main BLP issue (under discussion above): "Is this article title a reliable source to state that - Forbes called Smith a "hypocrite"?"


 * I have explained why I think the answer is yes, the article is a reliable source for the statement "Forbes described Lamar Smith as 'hypocritical'." and that question is answered.
 * FT2 (Talk 01:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Forbes themselves don't even appear to have passed a comment - the author of the article is not Forbes - None of these sources can be described as high quality - they are all op eds and mostly partisan attacking in nature - This opinionated editing to attack living people using en wikipedia disgusts me, discussing it unendingly disgusts me, even more so when it is with experienced editors and administrators. You  really  can  01:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * FT2, you're again asking me/us to ignore the rest of the article. As previously stated I don't know how many times, the journalist loses all credibility when he makes wild accusations of copyright "guilt". I don't believe that bringing up that point qualifies as a "red herring".--Bbb23 (talk) 02:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey I recognize that image in the forbes link. Quite a notable image. I had the artist change the license for us to be able to use it. I propose for it to be inserted immediately into the article along with what Lamar himself said about the image, from his official press release, or a statement his office put out if he said nothing himself. Is there any problem with that, any objections anyone ? Penyulap   talk 02:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure it would present a problem in the BLP, if that's where you intend to put it, namely for WP:UNDUE weight. It's a huge image, and a small part of the BLP. The prose it would entail would probably not be encyclopedic or fall within WP:BLP guidelines. JFHJr (㊟) 03:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Youreallycan and Bbb23 above. The source doesn't seem very reliable because of the rather wild accusations. The inaccurate attack nature also undercuts its usefulness in a WP:BLP. I don't think this particular article avails itself to the reliability Forbes generally carries because other parts of that article are inaccurate, perhaps even misleading ("found guilty"), and clearly an opinion piece ("Glad to see Protect IP being neutered, and SOPA’s ringleader being exposed, hopefully this continues until the issue becomes so toxic, no sane congressperson seeking reelection would dare go near it."). To be honest, the Insert Coin pieces in general seem bloggy. Since reliability seems to be a threshold issue in this case, discussing WP:RS might best done at WP:RSN. JFHJr (㊟) 03:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * FT2's analysis of the Forbes article is rock solid, I can't find fault with his reasoning any way I look at it. AndyTheGrump, your logic is in error, The statement that he is guilty of infringement is correct without a court case. The statement that he has been convicted would be incorrect I might ask DJ about his feelings on this, whether he has considered pursuing the matter, or if he wants the guilty party to go free. Either way, you can't call Lemar a criminal or convicted but you can certainly say he's 'guilty', and you can certainly say he's making excuses, shifting responsibility, 'passing the buck'. 'Guilty' people 'escape conviction'. The Forbes article is fair, there is no room for misinterpreting their statement. Penyulap   talk 04:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Your the one thats guilty, guilty of losing all focus in regards to NPOV and conflicted editing.   You  really  can  10:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Answers like this can rapidly convince someone, that one's initial work was appropriate and concerns are emotional labelled as policy issues, rather than policy or fact based. FT2 (Talk 12:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think its quite clear that penyulap has got a bit overboard in regard to this issue - as revealed in this upload - and this section on his talkpage.  You  really  can  12:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't possibly see how that's to be interpreted as my taking sides in this issue, I'm humorous everywhere I go. I didn't notice editors needed help on this article until wikipedia went read-only, and I still don't care about SOPA. There is nothing more irrelevant to me than US politics, I simply have a habit of helping editors who are having difficulty. Like here, and here. Compared to you, or the editor who started this BLP discussion, who kept shoving in 'expert' I'm the placid voice of reason. I could, possibly, care less, if I put in a great deal of effort, but Meh. Penyulap   talk 19:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Placid voice of reason"? You are humorous.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Correction: The "Expert" header was "shoved in" by a different editor, to the "Opposition" subsection, and I copied that identical header to the "Supporters" section for balance. The links you provided above show my repeated reversion of your attempts to scrub "Experts" from just the "Supporters" section while maintaining it under "Opponents".  As for your related concern about referring to Floyd Abrams as an expert, you can take that up with him.  I've already addressed it on the Talk page.  If you are the "placid voice of reason", when should we expect you to begin employing it? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)Someone was thanking me on my talkpage for helping the Tamil wikipedia, which I only made one small contribution to, and the only reason I am here is because I am wondering why, after contacting the artist who made the image that Lamar or his office has issued statements about concerning copyright, the image still isn't used on English wikipedia, that's all I'm here for, so I can tell DJ that his gracious response to my request for a new license hasn't been for nothing. I mean, where does this image go ? Does it go in an article about the artist ? he gets a mention in Forbes doesn't he ? He's the talk of the town and is it the white house or congress ? I don't know which. Seems strange to me that a picture can't be included anywhere on english wikipedia. If it was used somewhere, anywhere, I could let the artist know that his contribution to this project was meaningful. I'm ashamed that I can't do that. Penyulap   talk 19:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Completely off topic, but those aren't cedars in the picture. The Interior  (Talk) 19:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Penyulap - You over estimated the "iconic status" of the picture. Its simply not iconic at all. It is a landscape - the picture itself adds nothing of value to the reader.   You  really  can  19:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Really? I should ask him about that. Seems an interesting note depending where it gets used. What kind of trees are they ? Maybe it can be used in that article. I shall ask him about that for sure, the location and so forth. Brilliant thinking there Interior. I can go about my merry business after shoving it into botany. It certainly makes me laugh and I'm sure i can convey that Ironic humor to DJ when next I speak with him, that his image started off in a scandal(yes yes whatever you call it) but ended up exclusively in Botany and Geography because we can't cover politics in a competent manner. Lolz. Penyulap   talk 20:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Too much here - but I waded through most of it. The claim that a person is "guilty" implies "of a crime" when the actual infringement was made by a contractor of the person, who failed to give a photographer credit, i.e. inadvertent infringement, and so fails. This is not a "crime", and would not appear to be the type of IP violation covered by SOPA at all. "Piracy", that is willful infringment is what is sought to be covered. If it were a violation which would have been covered by SOPA, then the article author might have had a point, but it isn't and doesn't. Second point is - does Forbes in its editorial voice aver that Smith is a "hypocrite" and the clear answer is it does not. It is an attributable opinion only of the article author, and thus must be attributed as such, provided that the author has sufficient credentials to publish such an opinion. What I find vastly amusing is that Forbes has almost surely "infringed copyright" (almost every mag has messed up credits!) so I find it all "tempest in a polemic teapot time" at best. Best course? Not to use the stuff - all it does is mess up what ought to be a proper encyclopedia article. Cheers. See also for part of the history of copyright cases where NatGeo republished old photos on CD without separate premissions from the photographers. Collect (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, that makes good sense. How about saying his website "infringed copyright", avoid terms such as pirated, guilt, crime, heisted, criminal, willful and intentional. Sound ok to everyone ? Penyulap   talk 18:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Kai Bird
Dear Wiki editors,

Can someone please restore the copy on my bio. The Benny Morris quote is still there and I still find it highly objectionable.

Kai Bird Kaibird4263 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC).

Dear Wiki editors,

Well, someone reinserted the Benny Morris material again. Obviously, someone is determined to keep this language on my bio. Is there anything you can do to stop this?

Kai Bird Kaibird4263 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC).

Way back in Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive109 and Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive108, concerns were expressed about the inclusion of a misleading and negative quote about Kai Bird. At the time, the material was removed. There has now been an attempt to re-add it (which I have reverted) so I would appreciate it if people could keep an eye on the article. Someone who is apparently Kai Bird has also expressed concerns about it (before I removed it again). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The contentious material was restored without discussion so I have removed it again on BLP grounds and watchlisted the article. <b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 16:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Christina Slade (academic)
Reads like a copy-and-pasted CV. Therefore, it's not an encyclopaedic article: there's no NPoV and it goes into far too much detail (e.g. listing apparently every conference talk she's ever given!). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordoni (talk • contribs) 10:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I trimmed it a bit, but it really needs a rewrite by somebody who is good at that, which I am not. --Mollskman (talk) 17:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What was left was clearly a copyvio from her CV hosted by her former employer, no longer available, plus some unsubstantiated claims. If she's notable, she'll gain a mention somewhere, anywhere other than her own CV. JFHJr (㊟) 17:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Lubomyr Luciuk
[ Outing removed -- different id's have re-inserted this info, please do not post anyone's name as this violates  Our policy on outing ] continues to insert inaccurate and possibly libelous remarks about me on the "Lubomyr Luciuk" Wikipedia entry. I have removed these twice. He is not a credible source of information about my scholarly or professional accomplishments or activities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.59.176 (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The biography needs a fair bit of wikification and general improvement - if anyone is clued on on the subjects topic area - in the political geography of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, refugee studies, and the ethnic and immigration history of Canada.   You  really  can  21:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Matthew Ziff
A help request went up from User:Mziff, claiming that he is Matthew Ziff, the subject of said article. The user complains that the article is subject to repeated vandalism and addition of false information, despite his numerous attempts to fix it. I answered the request, noting that articles on living people are held to a higher standard and that such vandals can be dealt with, but also broached the subject of his apparent conflict of interest, presuming he is indeed the article's subject. At the same time, I looked at the article and compared it against the actor's biography on IMDB here, and the flow of the biography (and much of the wording) appears to match a bit too closely for comfort. I'm really not sure how else to proceed, so I'm looking for any advice or guidance on how to handle this. -- McDoob AU  93  00:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've removed all the unsourced and improperly sourced information, leaving very little except the filmography, which itself is problematic because none of the films has articles on Wikipedia, and none has sources except by reference to IMDb. I've also added to the user's Talk page a more stern warning about COI. I removed the tag you put because it's no longer true. Thanks for helping out.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Works just fine for me ... thanks for looking at this so quickly. -- McDoob  AU  93  02:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've taken to AfD: Articles for deletion/Matthew Ziff. Fences  &amp;  Windows  03:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fishier:Richardsinclair.jpg This has created an imposter Musician/Band catagory on Facebook.
I am Richard Sinclair, musician (from Canterbury, England) now living in Martina Franca, Italy. I am still alive and active as a musician. On FACEBOOK, Sombody has taken a photograph of me playing a live concert and inserted the French Wiki as 'info' This is a Musician/ Band PAGE. https://www.facebook.com/pages/RichardSinclair/105524906147639?ref=nf

Consequently I cannot use the FACEBOOK Musician/Band catagory. Which is where, people in the world will go to search for me. I have been reporting this page to facebook since I joined up, last autumn. I have now submitted another explainatory email to Facebook support and also the authorities here in Italy,. my country of residence. The Privacy authority and also the Police Force who deal with fraud, Guardia di Finanza. I have created a normal facebook profile. https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1000028425134358ref=tn_tnmn and in the last few days my posts that I put there have been appearing automatically on the imposter page so I consider this to be Identity Theft. Please will you REMOVE IT. I am not able to comprehend French and cannot do this myself.

I hope that you will understand that my communication to people is my Actual Living, so I ask you for help on this. Email: (Redacted)

Thank you, Richard Sinclair — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.252.250.29 (talk) 08:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is an issue for Facebook, not one that Wikipedia can really do anything about. I think this is an automated Facebook process and even if it was pulling the information from Richard Sinclair on English Wikipedia, it would be up to Facebook to change the fact it was pulling it from Wikipedia not Wikipedia to change the fact it has an article on you. As it is pulling the information from the French Wikipedia, English Wikipedia has no say on their articles/policies and you would have to discuss any changes to the article on the French Wikipedia itself. I don't see any evidence that they have a policy of dealing with the subject of an article although perhaps a better french reader than myself could identify one? Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 11:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Very confusing. The section header pointer doesn't point to the picture, which is actually here. The Sinclair article on the French Wikipedia is here, and it appears that someone who is probably Sinclair removed the information from the article, susbtituting only his e-mail address (rather droll, actually). I have a moderate comprehension of French, but I don't fully understand what he's talking about here (in English).--Bbb23 (talk) 02:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As I already stated, I am a bit puzzled by this whole thing. Nonetheless, the supposedly problematic picture is on Commons, so I nominated it for deletion with some explanation as to why. Hopefully, they'll sort it out.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said before, It's not our problem - Facebook are mirroring our content automatically but Mr Sinclair thinks a Wikipedia editor is cyber squatting on the "Richard Sinclair" Facebook page which isn't the case. He needs to talk to Facebook and possibly speak to a social media consultant about his social media strategy. If the image is genuinely free, then deleting it will harm the encyclopedia without addressing Mr Sinclair's concern. Someone should also revert his change to French Wikipedia - I would, but I'm not sure which policies they have that can be given as grounds for the change. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 11:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Have restored the French Wiki article - Hope marking it as Vandalism won't cause too many problems but it was the most applicable French Policy I could find. I've also commented on the Commons deletion discussion. I will drop a message on his account on both French and English Wikipedia's and hope he logs back in before making further changes. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Having spoken with Mr Sinclair on his talkpage. While the majority of his concerns still rotate around a misunderstanding of Facebook's processes. I've attempted to assist him with his other inquiries - The French wikipedia article gives very little information about his life and makes a major mistake. I've tried to put in a translation request over there for them to translate our article which will fix that situation but if any French readers could look at fr:Richard Sinclair and see if I've set the Translation template up correctly I'd appreciate it. The other issue was the photograph which he dislikes, I've suggested that it would be helpful to the encyclopaedia if he could supply a better one and have pointed him to commons in regard of that. I also pointed out that as the subject of the photograph he may have to inform OTRS that the photographer has released the rights of the image to him (unless he photographs himself with a timer or shutter release cable.) Mollskman has already pointed out the COI in Richard editing his own article, so I've not reinforced it yet but will keep an eye on it in the meantime. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 13:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Jorge Posada
On the biography of Posada it states that he has 4 x World Series Titles (WS Rings). The reason stated on your site is because Posada was not added to the 1996 postseason roster. Although he did not play during the postseason he was already in the Yankees active roster, which is why he played during their 1996 regular season and had debuted in 1995. When a WS is won by a baseball team, every single player on the active roster receives a WS ring, regardless if they played during post season or not. The reference Wikipedia itself offers is one by Bryan Hoch titled "Six games, five rings, four Yankees". The four Yankees being Derek Jeter, Andy Pettite, Mariano Rivera and Jorge Posada. In other words, Wikipedia's reference contradicts what's stated as far as his awards are concerned. Even the MLB site claims Posada as having 5 WS rings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SGMVic (talk • contribs) 17:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Soledad O'Brien
Someone on twitter claiming to be married to Soledad O'Brien keeps editing her article to add himself and remove the cited husband and kids. Americanwhofan (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I have reverted a bunch of recent changes back to the last "good" version and tagged the copyrighted screencap image for deletion on Commons. – ukexpat (talk) 19:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It just seems to be a vandal-ish user - revert, warn, and block as required.    You  really  can  20:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * And reverted again...heading to AIV if it happens again. – ukexpat (talk) 20:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This disruptor User:Anyainny seems to be a return sock of the recently indefinitely blocked Anya SOB -  Semi protection and blocking of this new disruptor will help protect the BLP.  You  really  can  20:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Tim Potts
The entry that bears my name is so full of falsehoods that it hardly bears trying to correct. If I weren't a public figure, I'd sue for libel, but I am aware of New York Times v. Sullivan, as is the author of this garbage, most likely.

I very much appreciate Wikipedia and donated to it last year. I now work two full-time jobs plus serve on a school board. I do not have time to waste on this nonsense. Can you please take this article down and refuse to post anything about me in the future?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TWPotts (talk • contribs) 20:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The negative material has now been removed. Regarding taking the article down, I can see no particular reason for us to have an article on this person anyway, and will propose it for deletion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I've reverted and reported the vandal in question at WP:UAA. I'll help watch the page while it's being WP:PRODded. JFHJr (㊟) 21:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've blocked both of the attack accounts indefinitely for that. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Simon Upton
It is stated in this article that the Right Honourable Simon Upton is the recipient of a QSO (Queen's Service Order). As a member of Mr Upton's family, I am in the position to confirm that Mr Upton has not at any point accepted nor has he been offered a QSO. On behalf of Mr Upton, I would like for this reference to a QSO to be removed, but am unable to do so myself as it is written in the introductory passage. Could someone please remove this for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ls2xlanguages (talk • contribs) 22:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I've removed this, as it seems to be unsourced. In fact you should have been able to edit the article, by clicking the 'edit this page' tag at the top of the page. In general, we prefer that articles are not edited by individuals connected with the subject (see WP:COI), but a non-controversial edit like this would have been entirely acceptable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Stephen Daldry
The statement "He is also notable for having all of his feature films that he has directed go on to be nominated for Best Picture at the Academy Awards, the films of which are Billy Elliot (2000), The Hours (2002),The Reader (2008) and Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close (2011)." is false. Billy Elliot was not nominated for Best Picture at the 2000 Academy Awards.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.240.80.59 (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Billy Elliot came out in 2000 and was nominated for the 73rd Academy Awards in 2001, so it is correct. Dru of Id (talk) 00:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It was nominated for Best Director. Dru of Id (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have amended it to 'Best Director or Best Picture', so thank you. Dru of Id (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Salvador "Sal" Magluta and Augusto "Willy" Falcon
I'm a little concerned about this article. The subjects were convicted of money-laundering/jury tampering but acquitted of the charge of drug trafficking. This much is referenced to a reliable source. But the article goes much further than that and probably needs further inline cites and/or a second pair of eyes. See especially this section. For background see also the first section of Talk:Continuing Criminal Enterprise. - Voceditenore (talk) 10:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This article needs serious rewrite. 90% is unsourced and violates BLP and OR. Please help.--Mollskman (talk) 15:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Note that there is an incipient edit war developing where article's creator and an IP have been reverting all changes to the article by other editors, including those related to complying with BLP policies: removing blp sources, restoring deleted unsourced material, restoring non-neutral phrasing etc. Given the misconceptions expressed by the article's creator here, here, and here, this article really could use some extra eyes for a while in case my advice to him/her has no effect. It also needs higher quality sources. Some of the assertions are sourced to sites like talkleft.com, mapinc.org, and America's Most Wanted. Voceditenore (talk) 08:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Joseph Lin
Joseph Lin was _not_ born in New York.

He was born in the USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.212.109.50 (talk) 22:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * New York is in the U.S. :-) However, the source doesn't say he was born in New York, so I removed it. I've also redone the article a bit. It needs more work, but I don't have time for it at the moment.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)