Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive146

Uki Goni
In the other works section, there is a piece poorly added which is libellous grafitti and even if it wasn't, does not adhere to grammatical standards. I'm too unfamiliar with wikipedia to use the diff system for highlighting errors without recopying them but its quite obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.60.243 (talk) 17:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Farhat Hashmi
I'll be very grateful for a neutral set of eyes to look at the Farhat Hashmi article, its recent edits and its talk page. I think that in places this articles strays away from the subject, a person (Farhat Hashmi), and wanders into only tangentially related wider discussions about Wahhabism, extremism, veiled women, etc. The inclusion of information on loosely related topics impacts negatively on the proportionality / balance / focus of the article. I don't mean its neutrality. That seems ok. I mean its emphasis. Despite the comment of one editor, thing has nothing to do with any "personal like/dislikes". I am merely trying to keep the article tight, focused and sticking only to the person it is about.GorgeCustersSabre (talk) 17:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look. Jayjg (talk) 01:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Marcus D. Wiley
Marcus D. Wiley attended and graduated from Willowridge High School. I was his Science instructor. He did not attend Missouri City High. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.163.112.15 (talk) 04:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This agrees with his graduation from Willowridge High School. Dru of Id (talk) 05:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Was Missouri City High School closed, or was it renamed? Dru of Id (talk) 05:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Imre Kertész
Earlier versions of this page made reference to Kertész having criticized film director Steven Spielberg. The reference may appear on Wikipedia pages devoted to Spielberg.

The reference is important as Kertész is understood as having made comments that were never libellous, sladerous or defamatory concerning what might be termed "commercialization of the Nazi Holocaust" -- an important point for those who appreciate Kertész´s comments concerning Spielberg (and other directors, producers, and actors) and the subject of the Nazi Holocaust.

Inclusion of the comment (cross-referenced, cited, and linked) would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.188.41.88 (talk) 09:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I added it. I took a few minutes to look at the previous versions. I didn't find any that matched your description. Have a look at "View history" to find the version you're talking about. At any rate, the page you wanted to edit isn't protected, and you could perform the edit yourself. Next time, you can click "Edit" or "View source" and search for whatever ("Imre") to find the content you want to select, highlight it in edit mode along with the supporting cite, copy, and paste it into the other (Imre Kertész) article, after clicking "Edit" there. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 02:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Jennifer McCreight and BLP1E
Editors at Talk:Jennifer McCreight disagree about whether or not the page satisfies WP:BLP1E. It would be very helpful to have advice on this question from uninvolved editors familiar with BLP policy. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Eric Joyce
I've removed some rather tabloid-esque breaking news about this British member of parliament. This will probably go back in once it's got some stronger sourcing and the details of the alleged incident are clearer; extra eyes on the article would be helpful. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Better sources are appearing quite quickly, BBC News has a very popular article about the incident. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Troy Hartman


This article needs to be analyzed. It has IMDB references, which are totally unreliable. --George Ho (talk) 04:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright. WP:BEBOLD and remove them. What do you mean by analyzed? JFHJr (㊟) 04:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Want to make sure they are accurate and obey WP:BLP. --George Ho (talk) 04:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * When in doubt, it's usually a safe bet that removing unreliable sources is A-OK. You did just fine. Thanks for catching it! JFHJr (㊟) 17:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The Heartland Institute

 * Toward the end of The Heartland Institute, there is a sentence about alleged recipients of the Institute's funding. It's nominally sourced to Scientific American, but careful study of that article shows that what SciAm is really saying is that DeSmogBlog asserts that the leaked documents show that the Institute is funding those individuals.  This isn't a clear WP:BLP violation, but it may be a subtle one.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 09:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's right to say that it's "nominally sourced" to Scientific American -- it is simply sourced to Scientific American. Just report what that reliable source says: here's what is in a leaked document.  We don't need to vet the sources used by a source that is itself reliable.  Is there any reason to think that the specific claims about the individuals are untrue?  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Where the article asserts that another article says something - it it that article which is really being cited. And, a;as, "truth" is not what is used in WP:BLP - any contnetious claims about any living person requires stronger sourcing than a blog and documents whose authenticity has not been shown, and has in fact been questioned.  This is the same sort of case as in the "climate cases" in general, where WP:BLP was actually reinforced by the ArbCom decision. Collect (talk) 13:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I vehemently disagree that we need to evaluate the sources being used by sources. Any newspaper engages in reporting, using sources in the more conventional sense, i.e., calling up people and asking them questions.  To pick an example almost at random: in the New York Times today  an article quotes a Mr Seneca -- it is no business of a Wikipedia editor to consider whether Mr Seneca is a "reliable source", it is entirely sufficient that the New York Times is a reliable source.  If other sources cast doubt on what Scientific American is reporting, then of course the article here can be written to reflect that.  But it's not up to us to second-guess what is in reliable sources.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Gamaliel (talk) 17:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Reliability is not an absolute. But what is at issue here is to pay careful attention to what Scientific American is saying.  If they are saying, in their own voice, something directly about these people, then we judge that statement in terms of the reliability of Scientific American, and we can report it in Wikipeda's voice about those people if we judge Scientific American a reliable source for that assertion.  If they are saying that a blog says something about these people, then we can report that a blog says something about these people.  Of course, we need to judge whether that is sufficiently weighty to be reported at all.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

John C. McGinley
Just read the Bio for actor John McGinley... I found that one of his movies was missing from the list. In the 1993 movie "The Last Outlaw" he played the part of Wills. Mickey Rourke and Dermot Mulroney also stared in the film. 24.0.220.51 (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That's not really an issue for this noticeboard. You can edit the article yourself or comment on the article talk page.  Thanks.  Gamaliel (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Amy Paulin
The third paragraph was added on 2/22 and is unsourced, biased, and innacurate in clear violation of BLP policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.97.104.30 (talk) 22:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed, I'll remove it. Can't speak to its accuracy but it is unsourced and the tone screams POV. Gamaliel (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Almost pure campaign bio otherwise - without sources. Collect (talk) 15:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * A user reverted the BLP edits. I've restored the last acceptable BLP version. This might need attention for a while longer though. JFHJr (㊟) 22:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Meg Ryan
In the initial summary Meg Ryan is referred to as a "disgusting actress." It's clearly libelous and callous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.234.205 (talk) 03:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have reverted it. Thank you. Dru of Id (talk) 03:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Ken McKenna (attorney)
This page has been nominated for deletion and subjected to numerous edits to make it less like an advertisement. To this day, this page reads like a cleaned up version of the subject's website and really only asserts notability related to the Judas Priest trial. On the talk page, someone indicated they believed the subject was notable because of the assertions of media appearances. There is no sourced information to support those statements however, and no evidence of any media appearances seems to exist online. If someone could take a look at this to remove the unsourced items, I think it would make the notability concerns that much easier to deal with. The section related to the political career also does not provide for notability under Wikipedia's notability guidelines (local politics does not provide notability). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.141.249.98 (talk • contribs)


 * Removed much of the unsourced stuff / PUFF. Too many ads on Wikipedia of this nature. Collect (talk) 15:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Fred Singer
The wikipedia entry for Fred Singer needs to be updated. A prize-winning, highly acclaimed book by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway called MERCHANTS OF DOUBT (2010 Bloomsbury Press) contains a lot of information on Singer. In particular, the same techniques that Singer used to contest the consensus opinion on secondhand smoke have also been implemented with regard to climate science. The book by Oreskes and Conway should be included in the bibliography/references section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.189.220.192 (talk) 08:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Many articles need to be updated, but this board is for problems in the light of WP:BLP. You can request edits by proposing them on its talk page. But please familiarize yourself with the history of the article in question and previous discussions. --Tikiwont (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

J.J. Milan
There is a section in J.J.'s article titled World of Warcraft that doesn't fit with the rest of the biography and hardly seems within wikipedia's scope or policies. Kyletheobald (talk) 09:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, taken out. Doesn't seem to meet WP:ATHLETE, though. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Marco Rubio
Lots of stuff as to when and by whom he was baptized etc. making up a very large part of his "personal life." Is it reasonable to make a big deal of what churches he attended before the age of 13 etc.? Or is it of insufficient value in what is a biography of a person and not just about his life before he was a teenager? I can see some material - but this BLP has had huge amounts of energy spent in discussion his religion and not all that much about his actual life experiences. Or is it important to stress his Mormon connection from when his family lived in Nevada? Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think there's way too much weight being given to the religion "issue". I've stayed out of it, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The interest in his religion gets a boost these days from his own soon-to-be-published memoir. It's clearly an important issue to him.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And that is a reason for the long essay on his religion? Not. Collect (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Too bad you have to be such a WP:DICK sometimes -- I now regret my edit summary here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I took your edit summary as an indication that you agreed with the weight I found reasonable. Meanwhile, when citing an essay, one should read its own warnings about using it .  Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes -- I did agree. So why come back with a tart post here ("Not").  Get over your WP:BATTLE.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Noreen Renier
This bio came up here a few days ago: Editor_assistance/Requests. The article as it stands needs either deletion or much better sourcing. At the moment, it is basically an attack page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Better" sourcing? It is a horrid example on Wikipedia.  I left a bit there - she is likely "notable" but what was there did not meet WP:BLP at all. Collect (talk) 15:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * An WP:SPA has restored problematic content. Generally it's poorly sourced, presents problems of WP:UNDUE, and turns the BLP into an attack page. This might need attention for a while longer. JFHJr (㊟) 14:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The SPA seems intent on edit warring to insert this content but shows no signs of wishing to discuss or seek consensus. Presumably they will reach 3RR fairly soon.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Unsurprisingly we are now past 3RR: see Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Justin Edl
Home on the Range is now regarded as 5.13-. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jelineguiles (talk • contribs) 00:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe you could discuss this on the article Talk page? Doesn't really need to be in this forum. Not that I know much about this stuff, but it seems like you have one source that says 5.13 and one that says 5.14. Maybe a third to break the tie? Mostly kidding, but neither source seems definitive.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Fred Singer
Hi. I came across this BLP violation/edit-war. At issue is this edit I find it a BLP violation as a clear rumour and also self-contradictory; on one hand it asserts that Leaked documents reveal that Singer is paid $5,000 a month by the conservative Heartland Institute on the other it states: though there is no independent verification as to whether these payments were actually made which begs the question how can in the first sentence be asserted that he gets paid when there is no confirmation that the payment was actually made. In any case I leave it up to the interested editors here to comment. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 01:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The material doesn't belong in the article (and in the lead yet). We'd have to wait for something more concrete.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. Thank you Bbb23. I just hope we don't get another you know who. :) Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 01:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree - though two editors seems heck-bent on including the problematic material in the BLP. Collect (talk) 13:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the consensus so far is clear. If they don't discuss they cannot revert for no reason. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 14:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Akon
User is making rafts of unsourced additions to articles, connecting Akon to numerous other artists, many of which don't appear to be associated. 99.136.255.180 (talk) 12:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This board is generally not used to complain about user conduct. I note a couple of warnings on the editor's Talk page, although you began with a level 3 warning, which is not usually done. That said, there is a pattern to the editor's changes that is disturbing, and I'm removing most of them as I write this.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Points taken--I didn't think the edits clearly constituted vandalism, but believed they merited reporting, and since they involved numerous BLPs I figured this wasn't an inappropriate place. Yes, the level 3 was too strong, but I felt I needed to ramp it up to get their attention, as they were on a roll at the moment. You've got me for being overzealous, but I envisioned that pattern going until they connected Akon with Fats Waller. Much appreciated, 99.136.255.180 (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely understand. Took me a while to rollback all of his edits. I'll continue to watch him.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Khader Adnan
There is a dispute here over how to present Khader Adnan's affiliation with Islamic Jihad in Palestine. See this diff - at issue is the third paragraph of the lead. Both versions presented in the diff are attempts to summarize the sources cited in the article, some of which state his membership and leadership in the group as a matter of fact, some as speculation, some as a past affiliation. His wife, who has served as his spokesman while he is detention, says he used to be a spokesman for the group but has not had any contact with them for more than four years (See the talk page discussion here). Note that a couple of the sources saying he is a spokesman or leader for the group date back to 2005. See the subsections Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine and Previous arrests and detentions in the article for the sources. If people want them relisted here for clarity, please let me know.  T i a m u t talk 17:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Please note that the core problem, as I see it, is that the current version of the article states his leadership in the organization, considered a terrorist goup by Israel, as undisputed fact. Given that this is disputed by some sources and that he is currently being held in administrative detention without charge, this seems prejuidicial and in my opinion constitutes a BLP violation. I'm not going to revert it on it site though, because its arguable and I don't want to be sanctioned for edit warring (these articles are subject to 1RR restrictions barring clear BLP violations). So the situation is little urgent, particularly since this article is nominated for DYK and could appear on the main page shortly. Thanks for your patience and diligence in advance.  T i a m u t talk 20:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I have rewritten the lead to better reflect the facts in the article and take out the speculation. Hope this helps. filceolaire (talk) 00:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This diff summarizes the sources currently in the article. It is pretty obvious most sources state unequivocally that he is a leader of PIJ (including the PIJ web site), and per WP:WELLKNOWN this stuff should go in the article without attributing it to 7 different sources and without weasel words. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I couldn't find that ref to the PIJ website in the article. If it is well known then you should be able to find a source. If it is well known and libelous and in a BLP then you have to quote a reliable source. The Israelis have now agreed to release Khader Adnan on April 17 unless they find something else on him so it looks like they don't think he is a PIJ leader either. filceolaire (talk) 10:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Mr Nice Guy has reverted my rewrite of the lede to this article. I left a comment on the talk page explaining why I think my rewrite was better that what he reverted. I would be grateful if someone else could have a look at this. filceolaire (talk) 11:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Yve-Alain Bois
The article states that Yve-Alain Bois has written books on American postwar art INCLUDING Wladyslaw Strzeminski and Katarzyna Kobro, who were both Polish, not American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.113.145.67 (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It no longer says that. The article needed a fair amount of work. It still needs work, mainly citations to secondary sources. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Alan Shearer
The goals to games ratio listed in the introduction states this is 0.67. when at the bottom of the article where the actual games and goals scores are listed it confirms that the ration is actually 0.51. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.179.152 (talk) 23:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Why don't you raise the discrepancy on the article Talk page? I don't see a source for either assertion, so I have no idea which is correct. For all I know, they may both be wrong.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins
Discussion at BLP Talk page

No policy violation yet, but there appears to be a move to make one. Shortly after word that Dawkins tried to tell Christians they aren't really Christian if they have any secular attitudes started spreading around via both Christians of all politics and conservatives of all religions as an Internet meme (it's the featured main page article at Conservapedia, for example), a questionable "let's label Dawkins not-really-an-atheist" RfC "coincidentally" shows up at Talk:Richard Dawkins. This should be closely watched for signs of meatpuppetry. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 23:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is hardly the most important BLP issue for that article. The question is whether Wikipedia editors should continue to describe Dawkins as an atheist when he has quite recently described himself as something else (agnostic).  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * With several definitions of the terms, being one is not inconsistent with being the other. Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Paul Gottfried


Hey, all. There has been a recent edit to Paul Gottfried's page with the following comment:

"Gottfried is also a known anti-feminist, Paul Gottfried maintains that the change of women's rights "has been a social disaster that continues to take its toll on the family" and contributed to a "descent by increasingly disconnected individuals into social chaos". [2][3]"

The links referenced in the article do not contain the quotes listed in the paragraph. It appears this was a sloppy cut and paste from the "Antifeminism" page, which includes information about Gottfried. The link included on that page is "http://www.lewrockwell.com/gottfried/gottfried9.html". The full quote from that article is:

"Serious conservative scholars like Allan Carlson and F. Carolyn Graglia have maintained that the change of women's role, from being primarily mothers to self-defined professionals, has been a social disaster that continues to take its toll on the family. Rather than being the culminating point of Western Christian gentility, the movement of women into commerce and politics may be seen as exactly the opposite, the descent by increasingly disconnected individuals into social chaos."

Clearly, Gottfried here is describing the opinions of others, rather than making these statements himself.

I believe that the recent edit to Gottfried's page should be removed, and perhaps the Antifeminism page should be updated as well. Please let me know if I've provided enough information. I'd really appreciate any assistance you can provide! I'm not Gottfried, but he's asked me to see if I can follow up on this on his behalf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherwood robert (talk • contribs) 07:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The sources cited for that paragraph do not even remotely refer to, let alone support the comment. I have removed it.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 09:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In fact, all the commentary on his political position was unsourced, so I have cut it all out. It will require verification by independent reliable sources.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 12:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Piyush Trivedi
Piyush Trivedi is a mess with a huge amount of detail and trivia about an obviously notable academic, with the only thing approaching a reliable source his biography on his university's website. It's being edited by someone who seems to be related,. I could have taken to to COIN but this board seems more relevant. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Sigh, missed the fact that the editor created the article and that he's been warned for various things in the past. He's just re-uploaded a copyvio file also. He doesn't respond to any comments. The subject of this article deserved a decent article and ironically this is what he doesn't have at the moment. Dougweller (talk) 14:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I've just deleted an unreferenced and indiscriminate list of career claims from the article. I've been watching this article since it's creation and concur that does not respond to any concerns raised about his editing. He/she continues to edit as he/she pleases regardless of policy. I did try to find some reliable sources for the article but without much success. Pol430  talk to me 19:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Given that even the claims somewhat supported by the single reference were in fact fudged with WP:PEACOCK and inflated figures, I've removed all uncited claims. I don't think any of the content belongs without a reliable source, preferably not a primary source like the CV in current use. JFHJr (㊟) 19:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks everyone for your help. I ended up blocking the editor indefinitely for copyvio after xe uploaded a copyvio image for the 3rd time after being warned several times. The editor I'm sure means well and may be a relative, but since they've made no attempt to communicate I felt the only alternative was a block. I left an explanation about what would be expected for a successful unblock request and hopefully they will make one. Dougweller (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Darrell Scott
The article gives credit to Darrell Scott writing Folsom Prison, which was covered by Johnny Cash. Cash was already performing this song, which he mostly wrote, 6 years before Darrell Scot was born. That's not to take away from the many amazing songs that Darrell did write. But such a glaring error should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdror (talk • contribs) 16:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. You can edit this encyclopedia yourself. If you find glaring mistakes, please do remove them. Be Bold! is our motto. :)·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

John Calipari
I was drawn to this article for another reason, but while there, I noticed the Controversies section. I severely edited the first subsection, but I'm not sure if any of this belongs in the article. I haven't reviewed it in any detail, but what I've looked at strikes me as WP:COATRACK and WP:UNDUE. Ironically, I and another editor have just been battling with an IP who removed subsections without explanation. I reverted on principle, but I'm not sure that the IP isn't right to remove them. There's a discussion about the subsections on the Talk page, and one editor has recommended a disposition of each. More eyes might be helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Andrea James
There is a quite complex case here at the NPOVN, in which a group of editors are adding additional critical content to the BLP of a wikipedian (who they quite clearly dislike for various complicated reasons), after she posted a request to include information from reliable sources to balance a perceived imbalance towards a too critical coverage. It seems some editors are trying to make a point rather than follow policy. More eyes on both the Andrea James biography and the BPOVN thread would be great. I don't think its in great style to respond to a BLP concern by piling on.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Adam Rich


This article has a "Legal troubles" section. However, I wonder if this is necessary to leave it as is or remove it as "unverifiable". --George Ho (talk) 03:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I've deleted it. It seems to be sourced from a law firm's website(!) and is any case of highly-questionable weight. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What about sources from Google News: ? --George Ho (talk) 03:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest that, for a start Biographies of living persons applied to the section as it stood: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". As to whether there should be a (properly sourced) 'Legal troubles' section, that is another issue - I'd start by asking whether sources that discuss Rich in general raise these matters? If it is frequently commented on, then maybe it might be worth a line or two if the article can actually be expanded beyond the stub it currently is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

What about this source: the cocaine news? the flu virus? shoplifting? 1991 drug abuse? --George Ho (talk) 03:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: There were additions: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adam_Rich&action=historysubmit&diff=479436595&oldid=479332061 --George Ho (talk) 08:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Martina Navratilova
wikipedias discussion on the virus toxoplasmosis says she retired in 1982 from it. She did not retire and her bio says nothing about toxoplasmosis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.111.128.81 (talk) 03:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The article says Navratilova retired from a competition (the U.S. 1982 Open) because of a toxoplasmosis infection. A contemporary press report suggests that she lost the match, rather than retiring, though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I've fixed the article. --FormerIP (talk) 03:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Alec Monopoly


User:LTufo1125 is continuously vandalizing and adding innapropriate materal that is false about alec monopoly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.25.211.193 (talk) 05:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * AfD, anyone? There's certainly precious few results in .  Not sure whether to pull the trigger...  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like a good AfD candidate to me. He might have a few points under WP:ARTIST, but not enough IMHO, and doesn't readily pass WP:GNG. JFHJr (㊟) 23:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've nominated for deletion (link above). JFHJr (㊟) 23:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Edward A. Flynn
Content regarding this individual's personal life, specifically an alleged affair continues to be added to the article. ,, ,. None of the references provided state that Mr. Flynn even confirmed that the alleged indiscretion involved the person mentioned in the article. Instead, he is quoted as saying: "I have done my wife and family a great wrong, and I profoundly regret the hurt I have inflicted on them and others affected by my conduct." It should also be noted that there is an active OTRS ticket open on this matter asking that the material be taken down. Tiptoety talk 07:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I appeared to have been reverted over this issue; i don't believe that the reversion shoud have been done given this is an ongoing BLP issue under discussion. I believe the coverage of the alleged affair is not worthy of inclusion, given the short length of the article; it placed undue weight on an alleged affair which does not hold prominence in regard to his notability. I also show concern that the woman involved in this incident was named in violation of WP:BLPNAME. &mdash;Dark 07:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You've mentioned "undue weight" a few times now. I could see such an argument if there were a separate section devoted to this incident in an otherwise short biography, but we're discussing two sentences (possibly one sentence with some editing). Can you explain how you feel these two sentences (or possibly even one) in a four-paragraph article are undue weight?
 * Regarding "alleged affair," I'm not sure how it can still be called alleged when the person in question publicly admitted to it. Are you disputing that it occurred? --MZMcBride (talk) 19:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This also makes me question the editor's intent when he chose to add the section. &mdash;Dark 07:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that IP's intent is relevant to the question at hand. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I re-instated the material after it was removed (yet again). I don't see any issue mentioning the affair as it's sourced, relevant to the article subject, and unequivocally not a matter of undue weight. I don't have an issue with not mentioning the other individual involved and I think Tip's most recent edit was a step in the right direction. I think removing the second sentence about both people being married would be appropriate, as it's implied by the first sentence (that mentions his wife). --MZMcBride (talk) 19:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Vikas Pota
As with the Brian Solis report, this is an example of blatant self-promotion and again, I would delete it were I more confident about the policy aspects of doing so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.144.231 (talk) 08:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing this one out. I think your notability concerns here are made in good faith, and I certainly agree that there was a problem. I've removed significant portions of the prose, mainly unsourced claims. I'll also leave a note at the talk page. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 03:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * PS: It's generally best to voice your concerns first at the article's talk page. If necessary, tag for notability with along with that talk page note. If your concern has to do with deletion, WP:BEFORE is helpful, along with the WP:PROD tag I see you've already mastered. And as a final suggestion, it's helpful to refer to a notability guideline such as WP:GNG, WP:ACADEMIC, WP:NACTOR, WP:ANYBIO, etc. There's an alphabet soup of different guidelines, but it may be worth the wikilink. Happy editing! JFHJr (㊟) 03:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Meryl Streep
The last sentence of the first paragraph of Meryl Streep s bio has libelous info and contentious wording. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.185.164.128 (talk) 19:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That was just a bit of vandalism, and it had already been removed by another person by the time you asked the question here. In the future, you can remove such problems yourself, which is often faster and easier than notifying people.  See Be bold for more information about how you can help Wikipedia in this endeavour.  Thanks again for your diligence in keeping Wikipedia accurate and free of vandalism! -- Jayron  32  19:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I note, though, that it was added by an IP address with a history of previous blocks for BLP issues regarding celebrities (although none in the last few months), so another block is worth considering, perhaps. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Ian Baraclough
Baraclough has just been appointed manager of LOI side Sligo Rovers and his profile appears to have been hijacked as a result — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.29.168 (talk) 22:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for letting us know. The vandalism has now been fixed by other editors, and the article has been temporarily semi-protected by User:Crazycomputers. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Ergun Caner
Mythbuster09 has been making massive deletions to the Ergun Caner wiki. The deletions are properly sourced and come from a number of sources. 1. I cited his brother's book about their conversion. 2. I cited the book Ergun Caner co-authored with Emir Caner, Unveiling Islam. 3. I cited two unedited videos of speeches Ergun Caner gave to the USMC in North Carolina. 4. I cited two articles written by David McGee about events that Caner spoke at in Bristol, VA. 5. I cited once, the blog of the man who acquired the videos by the Freedom of Information Act. He said the content in these articles show a clear bias and this is not a place to recount every speech Ergun Caner has ever made. However, he himself attempted to recount the controversy in summary, but deletes the material from the local reporters. I do not wish to start an edit war so I am taking this to the talk page. I have tried talking to Mythbuster09. He has only responded by editing the page. MosesModel 01:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MosesModel (talk • contribs)


 * I posted a warning on Mythbuster's Talk page about 3RR and invited him to discuss the content issues on the article Talk page (you've created a topic) and/or here. It's a lot of material to digest about a controversial figure, but I am curious about sourcing. What makes you think that Viddler videos are a reliable source], or, for that matter, a blog? The video you cite is a video posted by an ordinary user, which makes it WP:PRIMARY and unreliable.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I've done a little more work on the article, mostly removing an awful BLP source and tagging {cn. I recognize that the article in question is a BLP, but this is equally a content dispute and a user-related issue. As far as it is a BLP issue, I think Bbb has it right. It is not, at any rate, about "every speaking engagement Dr. Caner has ever had" — it's the subject's reaction to a controversy that was apparently somewhat noteworthy and overall additive to the notability of the subject. I also left a note at the talk page, which I hope will be the forum for future discussion. JFHJr (㊟) 06:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Also note that "anonymous" makes for a bad source for any claim in any BLP. Collect (talk) 13:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Good Evening. I am posting my response here as well as the TALK page. Please forgive me if I have misunderstood a Wikipedia policy, as I am still pretty new to this site and learning the ropes. I am baffled that Mosesmodel's edits have been allowed to continue on Ergun Caner's page, as he has failed to demonstrate his ability to maintain verifiable sources and is clearly not writing from a neutral and disinterested point of view. I have edited Ergun Caner's page to fall within the guidelines of Wikipedia's BLP policy and would ask that this page be reverted to my previous form and protected from further editing by Mosesmodel. I will address Mosesmodel's complaints and explain my reasoning below.

Mosesmodel Complaints: 1. I have still cited each book mentioned by Mosesmodel as a source, perhaps not in the same structure, but certainly referencing the same material. 2. Through reading the talk page, it is my understanding that the videos that Mosesmodel has attempted to post have already been debated and determined to be primary sources, of which there is no place for in a BLP. 3. I had no problem with the sourcing of the McGee article, however, again as I read through the "Talk" page associated with Ergun Caner's article, I found the determination, by an editor, that stated this page was not a place to recount every speaking engagement this man has ever made. 4. Mosesmodel cited a blog from which one of these videos was taken. To only cite specific videos that purport one side of the story is neither neutral, nor disinterested. Mosesmodel thus is not using his editing abilities to present a neutral, encyclopedic entry. 5. Yes, I have tried to recount the controversy, in summary, and give the average reader a neutral overview of the controversy. I have not deleted every reference to the controversy, nor did I intend to. I merely, as stated in the BLP policy, paired back the information so that it remained neutral and within BLP guidelines.

Mythbuster09 Concerns: 1. I have done everything in my power to correct the bias writing and create a page that is encyclopedic, not a tabloid page. 2. In so doing, I have edited out specific references to one or two speeches that Ergun Caner presented, as they are not reflective of his entire speaking career. I have several hundred videos and transcripts available from his career where he negates the information Mosesmodel wishes to use in his videos. Instead of flood this page with hundreds of cited speaking engagements, I merely deleted the select few that Mosesmodel used, and did not add any, in order to maintain a neutral tone in this article. 3. If you look further back in the page history, you will see that Mosesmodel has attempted to give disproportionate space to this "controversy" time and time again. This, to my understanding, is yet another violation of the BLP policy. Both criticism and praise should be presented responsibly, which I have tried to do. I have addressed the controversy, I have cited articles that detail the controversy, and I have moved on. Mosesmodel attempts to make this entire article about the controversy, which again, is against BLP policy. 4. All in all, the policy of Wikipedia seems to be that, when in doubt, pair back the article to comply with the BLP policy. I think if you read my article in its most complete form, that you will find I have presented Ergun Caner's history, career, and the controversy in a fair and neutral way. 5. It appears that this is not the first time Mosesmodel has tried to dispute other users. A quick search on the internet pulled up a Twitter account and a YouTube page of his where a majority of his energy is spent trying to "expose Ergun Caner." This is hardly then a user who can be trusted to write from a neutral or disinterested tone. I would ask again that you would protect this page from his edits and allow my neutral article to presented in full. Thank you for your quick response to this situation. I hope that this can be resolved fairly.--Mythbuster09 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mythbuster09 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Alexander Montagu, 13th Duke of Manchester
Edit warring by, née

This UK peer has had a "colourful" life. Multiple convictions for fraud in multiple countries and a bigamous marriage are just part of it. These accusations are far from complimentary, but they're supported by clear refs from multiple UK broadsheet newspapers. user:Breadbasket disagrees and has removed this content five times over the last week, leaving the article as a completely anodyne (and effectively unreferenced) statement of nothing. It now even manages to contain the overlapping statements "[marriage #1] were divorced in 1996" and "In 1993, married [#2]", yet without using the term "bigamy" so that the crucial point here isn't obvious to the reader. This is whitewashing - removing the conclusion, yet not having the confidence to claim that the cause isn't itself correct.

The editor has an interesting history too. A relatively low mileage editor, they have been focussed on this article for some months, with attempts to speedy delete it last year, lots of traffic in the WP: namespace, sundry warnings to and from others and a block for edit-warring. They're also in the habit of blanking their talk: with the usual message "We do in general not wish to receive messages here.". Fuller versions are,. From this behaviour I'd have a strong suspicion of a COI with the 13th Duke, except that the editor's behaviour on other nobility-related articles suggests it might just be a personal foible.

This is edit warring. However I'm raising it here first to gain consensus that the detailed version of this article is considered appropriate, otherwise it would be summarily rejected at WP:3RR if this hadn't already been done. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I am one of the editors who has been reverting BreadBaskets deletions. The quality of the citations stands up, and the incidents detailed would be considered a vital part of any biography. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 12:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I am involved too and here is my notice WP:AN3.--Yopie (talk) 13:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: some really useless verbiage is now removed - including stuff about how he should be "styled" which is found in no other Wikipedia articles that I could find. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * While not disputing your "verbiage" comment, that was a couple of obscure footnotes and some uncontentious copyediting, not anything to do with the content under discussion here. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Which is why I called it a "note" . I just wanted folks to notice that the article had some edits by me which I did not regard as being remotely contentious.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment BreadBasket contacted/obliquely threatened me on my talkage yesterday, regarding Montagu. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 02:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Is this the same person?


Is the person mentioned in this news story the same person described in this biography? An editor is making this claim, which seems plausible, but given the nature of the crime involved I have reverted because it is not entirely clear to me. Another editor has previously reverted for the same reason. Additional opinions are sought. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Insufficient indicator overlap between articles for certainty; although someone familiar with the subject might draw that conclusion, to the unfamiliar it seems like an assumption based on age, location, and name - certainly not definitive. Dru of Id (talk) 14:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Insufficient? Really? (1) Name and location (2) "...Standish has gone on to enjoy a high profile career." (3) Albania (4) United Nations. I've no doubts. Care to refactor, Dru? JFHJr (㊟) 20:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I've no doubts, but nor do I have sources, and that's what counts. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The source is sufficient. It's not WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, since these several details do actually appear in the reliable source linked above. Or is there something wrong with getreading? JFHJr (㊟) 20:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd say we need to err on the side of caution here - at least until we can find better sources. I'm doing a bit of checking myself, and will see what I can find. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * We need a reliable source (and in particular one that isn't taking it from Wikipedia!) to equate these two. To deduce they are the same person is certainly WP:SYNTH, even if it were true, and here are some reasons not to believe it.  Standish1, the subject of the news story is described as Mark Alex: Standish2, the subject of our article, is Alex.  Standish1 is described as a former teacher: Standish2 isn't.  Standish1 is described as having written a whistle-blowing account of the abuse scandal: Standish2 isn't.  Standish1 is described as press officer to the PM of Albania: Standish2 isn't.  This is so very far from being an open-and-shut case, and the consequences of getting wrong are so serious, that we should simply decline to equate these two people until an unimpeachable source does so for us.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Point taken, however it seems like you're putting the cart before the horse. Your analysis of the differences between the two treats the contents of the Wikipedia article as a source for comparison. Right now, there's no sourced article content to actually compare it to. You can't possibly expect the article here to include every bit of corroboration when it's not even properly sourced. There is no Standish2; omissions may be found in edit history and/or explained by the non-notability of the teaching position aside from its connection to the conviction. JFHJr (㊟) 22:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I've nominated for deletion based on notability concerns. JFHJr (㊟) 22:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: The name "Alexander Standish" is relatively common, as it is the name of Myles Standish's son, and was reused by many over the years. Any connections should require the utmost care. Collect (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Bill Clinton
Not to rain on any Republican's parade, but Bill Clinton was most definitely not, as the article states, "found dead on his room. No further informations (sic) known." Impossible, because he did not die on February 08, 2012, as the "Death" section of his Wikipedia page states. The big clue here is that, he is alive, yet, has a "Death" section.

As incorrect statements go, this is probably one of the biggies. Might wanna give it the ol' change-a-roo.

But don't worry. I already screen-capped it and posted it on my Facebook because it was hilarious.

~ Chris


 * Vandalism already reverted. – ukexpat (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Ted Nugent
The information in the 'Military' section is incorrect regarding statements made by Ted Nugent in the interview which is archived here:

http://web.archive.org/web/20100325201937/http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/features/ted-nugent-off-his-rocker-479556.html

Specifically, 2S Vietnam draft classification versus 1Y as stated by Nugent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makalu7 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all, maybe you should try citing your source when you make an edit on a BLP. Secondly, you should avoid vandalism, such as renaming the school he attended "Chickenhawk Community College". Bakkster Man (talk) 14:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Anastasia Klose
The second link "2. Anna klose art info..." links to a porn website, there should be a process to easily report such issues, luckily I was was over 18, children should not be exposed to such things, you should be able to easily report such issues, I still can not find who I should be sending the information to, and I do not know what the link should be, do not wish to edit it myself. It should be noted this is an article about a living person. Plus know hoping I have not down loaded a virus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.172.119 (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for posting. I've removed all cites to artinfo.com.au since I found each to be an attack/malware page. I've also removed citations to blogs, since biographies must contain only reliable sources. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 23:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Nancy Seaman
Listed for deletion here Articles for deletion/Nancy Seaman Needs more comments so a consensus can be reached.

I think it violates WP:BLP1E because the event(crime) is bigger then the person and sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. I think it violates WP:BLPCRIME and WP:CRIME because I am not sure if it confers notability or if sources provided meets the guidelines regarding reliable sources at-least 1 isWP:BLPPRIMARY. Theworm777 (talk) 11:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Sarah_Marie_Johnson


AfDs for this article: 

Needs more comments so a consensus can be reached.


 * I think it falls under WP:CRIME, WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLP1E I think its just 1 event and don't need its own article and should be merged with Parricide. Theworm777 (talk) 11:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Disappearance of April Fabb


Previous BLPN discussion

The same editor is back trying to reinsert the material that violates WP:BLPCRIME. His last reversion edit summary says "If this is so bad, why leave-in the other refs to Black?". I believe he is referring to other articles that also violate the same policy.

First, the material can't remain in the Fabb article because it is a BLP violation against Robert Black (not a wonderful person to defend, but even bad people have rights). Second, violations of the same policy that exist in other articles can be dealt with, but WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid reason for keeping a BLP violation in an article. Finally, one of the reasons I didn't fight as hard to keep out the Black material in the other articles was because of some confusion about BLP policy/guidelines on this issue. That confusion has since been resolved.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that the content should stay out per WP:BLPCRIME. And I think the Disappearance of Genette Tate needs watching also. It's even worse, naming two possible murder suspects without a body, ending in "Police later said that there is not enough evidence to rule out a link..." Sourced, of course. It isn't encyclopedic, and it's against BLP policy as the previous discussion helpfully illustrates. Even reliable sources print things that don't go into BLPs. JFHJr (㊟) 00:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for removing the violation from the Tate article.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I was called here to comment by Bbb23. The view being taken here seems perfect as per policy. If there's any administrative assistance, please feel free to ask and leave a note on my talk. Thanks. Wifione  Message 06:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My position on this issue is stated at User_talk:Ianmacm. All of my edits are made with extreme care in the area of WP:BLP, and there seems to be some misunderstanding about this. The Barnstar that Wifione awarded User:Bbb23 is a particular source of concern, as it appears to suggest that WP:BLPCRIME is an absolute rule when it is not. Anyone who intreprets WP:BLPCRIME as an absolute rule has misread it. The purpose of BLP policy is to prevent defamation, not to whitewash articles by removing material that is WP:WELLKNOWN.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 12:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That may also be a valid viewpoint surely. I've protected both the articles to prevent more edit warring on the issue. Kindly work out the issue on the talk page of the relevant articles or here, whatever may be comfortable. Once you all have sorted out the issue, do inform me and I'll unprotect the articles. Wifione  Message 15:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have thought all along that this is a talk page issue (the issue has yet to be raised once there, which is telling). If there was the smallest doubt in my mind that Robert Black's lawyers were going to come galloping over the hills and sue Wikipedia for defamation, this material would have gone. The police know that as with Jennifer Cardy, there are similarities with the 1978 disappearance of Genette Tate. This is in multiple reliable sources.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 15:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I should re-mention Ian, I did find your argument quite compelling and logical. BLPCRIME is for relatively less known people. In case of WELLKNOWN persons, we should simply document what the sources are mentioning (provided there are multiple sources validating every single point being added). If Robert Black is well known (he seems so to me), then WELLKNOWN rather than BLPCRIME should be followed. Having said that, I'll withdraw from this discussion and leave you all to sort this issue out. Please do inform me when the discussion concludes. Wifione  Message 16:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I have to state that I agree with Ian that the issues, on both the April Fabb and Genette Tate pages, should have been discussed first on the revelant talk pages - rather than the wholesale deletions of Robert Black entries. In both cases there are multiple references, both quality press, books and TV, to the suspect and they have not been sued!!  It seems to me that the logical endgame of these serial deletions would be to remove suspects from all crime pages: ie; what would the D B Cooper page look like without mention of suspects (both alive and deceased)?


 * We are not helping anyone researching any of this cases by leaving-out a well known suspect. We are not accusing or libeling anyone by stating they have been suspects.


 * I am sure that those interested (with one possible exception) can come to a eventual agreement and stop the continual deletions.


 * I thank for protecting the Fabb and Tate pages and agree that WELLKNOWN should be followed, rather than BLPCRIME.


 * With best regards to all, David, David J Johnson (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

There appears to be a consensus reached on a new version for the Tate article (drafted by Ian). As I believe both Ian and David agree (from reading their conversations), the stuff about Black in the Fabb article is more attenuated than the material in the Tate article. So, I have two questions. First, do Ian and David believe the Fabb article can remain without the Black material? Second, if not, does Ian want to take a stab at drafting a new version as he did with the Tate article? I'm not saying that I will approve of the version (that's not meant to be condescending), but he did a very good job with the redraft of the Tate article, so ...--Bbb23 (talk) 01:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The Fabb case is now so far back (1969) that anything said about it today is speculative and largely of historical interest. The main link to the Tate case is that both cases received huge media coverage in their day, and the police were never able to come up with any firm conclusions as to what had happened, or to find a body. The case of Jennifer Cardy was reopened after credit card receipts and witness statements placed Robert Black in Northern Ireland in August 1981. Similar evidence now exists against Black in the Tate case, but without a body being found or a confession, it looks unlikely that charges will be brought against him. I would not object to pointing out that the Fabb and Tate cases are eerily similar, because they are. Both cases involved 13-year-old girls on bicycles vanishing in country lanes in a baffling way that has never been solved. However, there needs to be more caution in naming suspects in the Fabb case, as the the only real evidence against Robert Black and Peter Tobin comes from theories that were formulated years later with no firm evidence to back them up.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 03:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree, in the main, with all that Ian has written above. I do feel that the "eerily similar" cases of April Fabb and Genette Tate cases should be mentioned in both articles. Over the years evidence has come to light regarding Black and the Tate case, this is not so in the Fabb case - although he still remains a suspect. If we leave Black out of April's page, then there should be some reference to suspects being investigated, rather than the short line stating that investigations are continuing. With best regards, David David J Johnson (talk) 11:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Ian has reworked the April Fabb page, which I believe will be acceptable to all, please see Ian's Talk Page. Regards, David David J Johnson (talk) 17:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Kip Noll


Is this person dead or alive? HWWilson said that he has access to the same-sex porn magazine Stallion to confirm that his real name is Thomas Earl Hagen. The "Thomas Earl Hagen" guy in the Salt Lake City obituary is dead, and HWWilson believes that Thomas guy is the same Kip Noll, a porn actor/model. In other words, Kip is supposedly dead. I couldn't find sources that Kip is dead as "Thomas"; in fact, the obituary did not mention "Kip Noll" or that Thomas is Kip. Nevertheless, HWWilson keeps adding it after I deleted that entry over and over. Also, there were talks about his "death" in the talk page prior. Should this be reported to WP:COIN, or what else? --George Ho (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And does Stallion have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? And is there any identification of this person that does not involve original research to synthesize these sources?  It doesn't sound like any of this can be used.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * According to HWWilson, Kip Noll gave out an interview with the Stallion magazine. Still, that doesn't prove that Kip Noll is dead, does it? HWWilson is too insistant, and I can't find a way to convince him about how appropiate that entry is. --George Ho (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's still WP:SYNTHESIS at best. Without a reliable source to say what his real name was, there's no synthesizing even reliable sources to indicate the obituary was for this subject. It's entirely believable, and IMHO very likely true, but we need sources; the research can't happen on Wiki. JFHJr (㊟) 22:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If we had a reliable source saying that A=B, and a reliable source saying that A is dead, I think it would scarcely be synthesis to say that B is dead. We might have many other problems here but I don't think it's best framed as a synthesis problem. bobrayner (talk) 12:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is synthesis because no reliable source says A=B; source 1 says A had several siblings, source 2 says B died with the same number of siblings. The synthesis is double: that A=B; and that source 2 describes the porn star (not someone with the same name, assuming the name is correct). The editor in question is not stopping despite several warnings, both template and otherwise. Admin assistance is probably needed. JFHJr (㊟) 17:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, no one else besides HWWilson has an access to Stallion magazine that confirms may or may not confirm "Kip Noll"="Thomas Earl Hagen"; even so, there could be a lot of people with the same name 'Thomas Eagen' and same amount of siblings. Even when likely, there is no actual proof that Kip Noll died under a different name, and there are no obituaries that mention his work as a porn actor. --George Ho (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC) --George Ho (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Not going to read up on the particulars of this since I am at work, but based on what I read here, this is a clear cut case of OR synthesis. Unless we have an obituary that identifies this specific deceased TEH as KN, then we cannot make this leap.  There are millions of people in the world, and any number of them could have the same name and approximate age.  I've met myself a couple of times.  We simply can't identify dead Utah citizens as porn stars without solid evidence.  Can you imagine the headlines?  "Distraught family sues Wikipedia over homosexual porn article".  Regardless of the particulars of the case, Wikipedia is not the proper forum to make these kinds of links.  Perhaps this man is actually KN, but that's for bloggers and historians and journalists to make the case, not Wikipedia editors.  Gamaliel (talk) 02:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Geoff Thompson (writer)
I have just amended the Geoff Thompson (writer) article as someone had inserted comments saying theat Geoff Thompson was (Redacted). I need to know who made the changes so I can take legal action

(cur | prev) 00:07, 19 February 2012‎ 81.141.179.62 (talk)‎ (5,726 bytes) (undo) (cur | prev) 00:07, 19 February 2012‎ 81.141.179.62 (talk)‎ (5,726 bytes) (undo) (cur | prev) 00:04, 19 February 2012‎ 81.141.179.62 (talk)‎ (5,592 bytes) (undo)

Please can you provide me with the information so I can pass it on to our lawyers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louisthompson1989 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The IP address you have pasted above (81.141.179.62) made the changes at those times. Your legal beagles will need to contact the Internet Service Provider or organisation responsible for that IP address. Please do not engage in any further discussion on Wikipedia about legal action, because Wikipedia has a strict policy (as you have been informed on your talk page) that you may not edit Wikipedia while legal action is unresolved. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't realise that it was against wikipedia rules. surely you must understand that it is frustrating that such damaging comments can be placed on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louisthompson1989 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes. I have watchlisted the page so that any further changes of this nature can hopefully be dealt with more promptly. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I've also left a little note at the talk page of the IP address responsible. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

After reviewing the edits in question, I suppressed them so they are no longer available to read in the history of the article. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 16:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The potentially defamatory material was re-added earlier today, this time by IP address 81.141.179.105


 * The re-added material was removed by User:Theroadislong, the new IP address has been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia by User:CIreland, and the article Geoff Thompson (writer) was, at the request of User:Theroadislong, semi-protected for one week by User:AlexiusHoratius. This semi-protection means that whoever is repeatedly re-inserting the material will not be able to edit the article until they have a Wikipedia account with greater tenure and contributions (which is possible but, for that type of editor, fairly unlikely).


 * Louis, it also, as an unintended consequence, means you won't be able to edit the article either, for at least a few days. During this time, please make any requests for factual corrections on the Talk/Discussion page of the article, including details of an independent reliable source that supports the change.


 * Given the nature of the material being added, I would suggest that the article requires indefinite semi-protection if the problems resume after the one week. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Demiurge: I like the businesslike and calm way in which you handled this situation. Good work! EEng (talk) 01:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you Eeng - I must say it's more a case of good teamwork and prompt action taken by several different editors, as I don't have the time nor the tools to handle every aspect of situations like this on my own. It is reassuring that the system Wikipedia has in place seems to handle incidents like this relatively smooothly now. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Brian Solis
This page is pure self-serving advertising for a commercial venture. It cheapens Wikipedia and should be removed at once. This content was uploaded by the subject in order to give the impression of importance to his business. Ignore this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realsouthwest (talk • contribs) 01:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to agree with you, but we don't delete things at BLPN. Try WP:BEFORE if you want to nominate for deletion. In the meantime, I've addressed the worst BLP problems. It's still not a very good biography, though. I hope more editors will have at it. JFHJr (㊟) 03:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * PUFF incarnate - less so now. Collect (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This article is blatant self-promotion. The subject has published a couple of books but there is no way that his career is sufficiently notable to merit an encyclopedia entry.  I would simply delete it (if I knew how!) but somehow it seems wrong to take such drastic action without at least discussing it first and getting a second opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.144.231 (talk) 08:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * First, let's keep conversations in one place. Second, I noticed and reverted your PROD; see the edit history for an indication that repeatedly PRODing an article is disruptive. Please nominate at WP:BEFORE if you think this article should be deleted. Otherwise, please remove poorly sourced and non-noteworthy BLP material, especially if it makes a contentious claim. WP:BEBOLD and fix the problem instead of repeating. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 20:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Shakthi Scott


This article is written in such a way to promote the subject and his works. The author has written it in a style of expressing his/her own thoughts. Moreover, the article doesn't seem to connect with anyother article. 59.163.114.169 (talk) 09:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This article was recreated after it was deleted through a formal AfD. Because it was not recently recreated, I've put it up for AfD again. Keep in mind, we don't delete anything at BLPN; next time you see something amiss, try WP:BEFORE. Thank you for posting. JFHJr (㊟) 23:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Marek Halter
I am currently reading a book written by Marek Halter in 2010 - The Kabbalist from Prague. The last book listed in his article is written in 2008. How can I contact the editor of his article? I don't want to make changes myself. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.123.132.148 (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please bring this up at the talk page of the article in question. Captain Screebo Parley! 18:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Morton Deutsch
Bender235 keeps reverting Morton Deutsch's page to a shortened, incomplete version. Morton Deutsch is a 93 year old accomplished individual who deserves to have a complete entry on wikipedia. Please let me know what I can do to stop Bender 235.

Joe

(Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.82.59 (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Text here, to be complete, should have an inline citation. This is especially so when the content in question is a massive 17,000+ characters of both uncited texts and "references" — it's not clear what statements are supported by what source. is making the Morton Deutsch article conform with Wikipedia requirements for living persons' biographies. There's no reason to stop anyone. If you'd like to add content, please support each statement with an inline citation or two so that what you're publishing is verifiable. Unless the information is about personal matters or early life, such that only the subject would really have knowledge to write them, a third party source for the information is best. Please see WP:RS about reliable sources and WP:BLPSPS for things you might or shouldn't cite to the subject.


 * Finally, I'll point out that you're engaging in an edit war, which will probably get you blocked if you continue. Happy sourcing! JFHJr (㊟) 00:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And wouldn't Morton Deutsch, "a social psychologist and researcher in conflict resolution" be saddened to learn there's a war (even if merely an editorial war) over his Wikipedia article? For shame! EEng (talk) 01:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

A complete,accurate biography of Morton Deutsch has been prepared by a Professor[ a former student of Morton Deutsch],with the approval of Morton Deutsch.This biography is constantly being replaced by a very abbreviated statement,which contains errors,and does not provide a useful summary of Deutsch's career and accomplishments nor of his many distinguished awards.This inadequate statement should not be allowed to constantly replace the fuller accurate biography of Morton Deutsch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.82.205 (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The full,accurate,error-free biography of Morton Deutsch in Wikipedia is constantly being replaced by avery brief,inadequte statement,which contains errors, that does not contain any description of Deutsch's career,his many professional contributions,nor his many distinguihed awards.This very inadequate statement should not be allowed to constantly displace the fine biography of Morton Deutsch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ida Prager (talk • contribs) 20:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:AUTO and WP:COI, for starters. The information you want to include can perhaps be included if it is done right, with reliable sources and a neutral (non-promotional) approach.  But accomplishing this will require learning something about how Wikipedia works -- it is often not what people think it is.  I will leave you a set of links on your talk page to help you get started.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh talk page
I just deleted a section containing one entry from Talk:Rush_Limbaugh. I deleted the section title also due to its tone. Normally I would leave a note, but that was challenging since the title went, too. I'm not requesting any action, but I wanted you to know in case an explanatory note on the page is necessary. All the best, Overjive (talk) 05:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oops, someone undid my edit, claiming "its only a talk page". Please ensure this ends per BLP.  Thanks, Overjive (talk) 06:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how the IP's comment was a BLP violation and have restored the comment. Please see WP:TPO.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I restored the original section title. Cheers, Overjive (talk) 14:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Óscar Uzcátegui


I just came across this article while patrolling new Venezuelan articles, and I'm unaware of the latest thinking of how to handle uncited BLPSs. The article was translated from the Romanian version, where it is also uncited. It's a mess. Is it OK to reduce it to a stub? If not, I don't have time to sort through the long translated mess. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 14:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, stub it and list it for deletion (AfD). Fails WP:GNG as there is no English-language coverage of the guy, apart from his biography on the Gnostic bla bla website, to which he is affiliated. Also fails WP:BLP as totally unreffed. Captain <font color="DAA520">Screebo <font color="32CD32">Parley! 17:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I looked into this for a bit and came to the same conclusion as Captain. Left a note on that talk page and didn't find much from searching reliable sources. Next stop: WP:BEFORE. JFHJr (㊟) 17:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a note that sources do not have to be in English to qualify for notability. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm very aware. I always do check other languages to the best of my ability. That said, trivial mentions are trivial mentions in any language including Spanish and Portuguese. What I found as to substantial coverage or citation was confined to the subject himself and associates like Samael Aun Weor... JFHJr (㊟) 18:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers Cusop, I failed to mention that most of the other stuff (not in English) is youtube videos or gnosticism websites belonging to his mentor Samael Aun Weor. <font color="B22222">Captain <font color="DAA520">Screebo <font color="32CD32">Parley! 18:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I nominated for deletion. Link above. JFHJr (㊟) 04:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Newt Gingrich presidential campaign, 2012
One editor proposes using as a source for stating that a named person made a large donation to a "super PAC" not officially connected to the campaign. Several questions arise: I think this covers "ringing the changes" on the obvious issues there. Collect (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Is an anonymous source sufficient for a contentious claim in a BLP article?
 * 2) Is the Gingrich campaign article governed by WP:BLP with regard to third parties who are living?
 * 3) Is the article a WP:BLP with regard to Gingrich, and is the claim from an anonymous source thus a contentious claim about him?
 * 4) Is a claim of several multi-million dollar donations not contentious at all, no matter the source?
 * 5) Is the actual donation to a super-PAC not actually properly connected to the campaign?

1.) It's USA Today, so it's a reliable source

2.) Nope, a campaign isn't a living person (it's comprised of living people, true, but it's not a living person)

3.) Not a contentious claim, again, the source is reliable, but it would have to be presented as - is, not as part of someone's OR

4.) same as 3

5.) It's connected, per the article.

That being said, if it was used to advance and original idea or a claim not backed up by the sources, it would be wrong to add it in. <font color="#00ACF4">@-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons► Moon Base Alpha -@ 17:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Note however that WP:BLP applies to "any Wikipedia page", not just to "biographical" articles. – ukexpat (talk) 18:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Police officers charged criminally in Canada


Gross WP:BLP violations: lists non-notable individuals acquitted of charges, or yet to go to trial. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A speedy delete seems in order. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed re WP:SPEEDY. If it doesn't work, please leave another note here. I'd be glad to help move it toward deletion. JFHJr (㊟) 23:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy has already been tried, and contested. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've deleted any mention of persons or cases. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I was in mid PROD when I got an edit conflict. It's been taken to AfD (link above). Thanks for everyone's attention on this one! JFHJr (㊟) 00:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note, the article creator has reverted material removed as WP:BLP violations - could an uninvolved person please explain to him/her that this is unacceptable? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've a left a note at the editor's talk page and urged discussion here. I support Andy's reverts. Contentious BLP content must remain out until a consensus is reached on its inclusion. It doesn't matter that it's at AfD. JFHJr (㊟) 00:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What I did was take the names out so it dont fail WP:BLP I did not revert it, like the others did without really looking at it and seeing the changes. If there was a problem with the refs after what I did he should have said so on the AFD until a consensus is reached and not revered it. I think it will be deleted but it needs to be done the right way. I am not the article creator I just came to help when it was listed here Article_Rescue_Squadron/Rescue_list Theworm777 (talk) 09:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It had good sources was not "unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable. So it did not need to "be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." It really didnt not matter and was going to be deleted like I had said but It should have been left there for the discussion. The guy only started the page 4 or 5 days ago. I was just there helping him. The way that guys article was done was really wrong. I know it was a stub even with info I added back in but you all just removed it there was nothing to even talk about on it. Theworm777 (talk) 20:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Boy, you have a bad case of WP:IDHT. As was explained to you, the material you re-added violated WP:BLP because you left the references in. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand that it did violated WP:BLP but it did not need to "be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." All stuff that violates BLP dont need to be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.  Only stuff that is "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". Is what I am saying.  Theworm777 (talk) 21:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You are wrong. Material that violates policy (any policy) should be deleted. And restoring it after being told that it violates policy is grounds for a block. If you want to argue about the interpretation of policy, you can - but you don't need to restore the contentious material to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Just like Andy said, ANYTHING that violates WP:BLP, well-sourced or poorly sourced, can and should be removed on sight. No discussion needed. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Wrong it is not "well-sourced or poorly sourced, can and should be removed on sight." Yes, "Material that violates policy (any policy) should be deleted". But that dont mean it should be deleted by anyone without waiting for discussion and a consensus. Only "unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable. So it did not need to "be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Not well sourced.Theworm777 (talk) 21:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You have had policy explained to you repeatedly. If you don't like the policy, then raise the issue at the appropriate place, and propose that it be changed. WE aren't interested in your vacuous Wikilawyering. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The article has been deleted, I think this can be marked as "resolved" and any differences in interpretation of policy moved to a more appropriate venue. -- The Red Pen of Doom  21:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes it can be droped now I will stop talking about it. I just think the way it was handled was wrong and dont want people to do stuff like that again. If it was not the right way to do it. If it was not the right way to do it they need to know that. I dont think it was the right way. Is my point here Theworm777 (talk) 21:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

L.P. (singer)
There is a Laura Pergolizzi fan who has been removing her name from her Wikipedia profile. Just as Cherlyn Sarkisian is known and indexed as Cher and Stefani Germanotta is known as and indexed as Lady Gaga I can see indexing Laura Pergolizzi as LP. However another editor who is a Laura Pergolizzi fan has been removing her name reference from the San Francisco Chronicle and presumably information on her parents. This turns Wikipedia into part of a blatant marketing campaign which seeks to generate mystique for the performer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardBond (talk • contribs) 00:24, 29 February 2012‎ (UTC)


 * I've restored the content. This looks like it might shape up to be a 3RR issue; post there if that happens and an admin here doesn't catch it. JFHJr (㊟) 01:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * ThanksRichardBond (talk) 01:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Christina Petrowska-Quilico
What seems to be the issue with neutrality of this article? As far as I can see, pertinent facts are all corroborated by the Canadian Encyclopaedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halibutron (talk • contribs) 16:01, 29 February 2012‎ (UTC)


 * It reads a bit like a CV. If the "Career" section was off-set by more biographical information (and inline cites provided), the emphasis would be different.  Right now, both tags seem justified, but with a little work they could be removed.  The Interior  (Talk) 21:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I've removed everything that wasn't cited. Things can be replaced if and when they're cited, and if actual source s indicate this individual's activities are significant. Sorry, my yardstick is not the CV-looking Canadian Encyclopedia that ostensibly supported much content. Multiple sources, please, and something that doesn't look like a crap CV. JFHJr (㊟) 23:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Dominique Hourani
The lead simply says "Dominique is a Lebanese Pop Star, former top model, Beauty Queen and an Actress who is considered one of the sexiest beauty and elegance idols in the arab world." The article goes downhill from there. It has no references at all. Dougweller (talk) 16:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Pure promotion IMHO so I have tagged for G11 speedy. – ukexpat (talk) 18:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 11:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

H. A. Hellyer


HA Hellyer has clearly authored his own biography quite extensively without any kind of independent verification. Listed are such personal stories such as "Hellyer’s PhD was examined, and passed with minor corrections." Mr. Hellyer has placed a very optimistic version of his resume on wikipedia as a form of self-promotion to aid in his job hunt. Is this the purpose of wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HenryKissinger01 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Heads up to others following on, article is very long and only refs to his website (3) bar one to an institute he works for. <font color="B22222">Captain <font color="DAA520">Screebo <font color="32CD32">Parley! 18:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've gutted the article. Even a WP:BLPSPS can't be used to support the article or any of its contents as they were. I've left a note on the talk page, and I'll repeat it here: there's zero indication of notability. Next stop, WP:BEFORE? JFHJr (㊟) 23:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Good move, I will try to give it a look in by this weekend, if you decide to nominate for deletion, post the link here. Cheers! <font color="B22222">Captain <font color="DAA520">Screebo <font color="32CD32">Parley! 10:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've AfD'd it. Link above. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 06:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Name Correction
Dear Admin,

Please correct this page name " Fazlur Rehman Khalil " because the real name is " Moulana Fazal ur Rehman Khalil ".

kind Regard's Sami — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samiullah313313 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * FYI, an administrator is probably not needed. Rather, what you need is a reliable source stating that is the subject's name. If you could post one here, I'm sure someone would be happy to make that change for you. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 22:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't know if the op was looking for a page move? The info has been added to the lede with an rs, this link seems to show that the Moulana bit is part of an aka, so I left it as is. <font color="B22222">Captain <font color="DAA520">Screebo <font color="32CD32">Parley! 12:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Jacques Roy (physician)


I would appreciate some guidance on this article. Apparently this is a story that just broke. AT this point, the subject is accused, but certainly not convicted of anything. It would appear to me that WP:BLP1E applies and, given the severity of the accusation (apparently the only thing that are supposed to make this person notable), this seems a BLP issue to me. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 23:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPCRIME is more germane "...when the person has not yet been convicted." Dru of Id (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it should be on http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Main_Page not here unless he is convicted WP:BLPCRIME. Theworm777 (talk) 09:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Yumi Stynes
This article has been changed to state that this womans children are dead, they are not. She has been involved in making a comment on a television show the "circle", and the internet has gone crazy with people venting their anger at her. They have made death threats and things like what has been done to her wiki page (see controversy). Can you remove the offensive comment and disable her page until this dies down. Her children are very much alive and well.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seraphina1973 (talk • contribs) 08:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Ronnie Lees


Anyone want to clean what appears to be an autobiography? Dougweller (talk) 11:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It's at AfD now. This one had me chortling for a while. Born "in the 1970s." The saddest part about this BLP was that it was made with the help and guidance of AfC. The wealth of fake cites apparently went unnoticed, as well as an initial decline on notability. Awesome process: I am in awe. JFHJr (㊟) 06:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Hamid and Umer Hayat
Is this normal? I find this too wierd and it caused me some confusion when I tried to read the Fazlur Rehman Khalil arrticle, mostly Arabic names contain ur ou ak interjections, couldn't understand the and. Why is there not a bio, and a section, or two bios? Without reading more, I assume that this is not Laurel and Hardy, Rod Hull and Emu or even Peaches and cream. So why the double act? <font color="B22222">Captain <font color="DAA520">Screebo <font color="32CD32">Parley! 13:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Biographic info is sparse, but present; think more Bonnie and Clyde, or The Falcon and the Snowman. Dru of Id (talk) 13:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm completely unfamiliar with the article and the case, but it looks to me like the court case is the only thing notable about either person (as far as WP is concerned anyway). I wonder if the article might be better served by a move to United States v. Hamid and Umer Hayat, and focus on the court case.  Perhaps something closer to United States v. Morrison.  Thoughts, anyone? <font face="Frankenstein SF, Luftwaffe, Fraktur, Old English Text MT">Wilhelm Meis <font face="Helvetica">(&#9742; Diskuss &#124; &#x270D; Beiträge) 13:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The case name isn't in the article and I only see United States of America v. Hamid Hayat online. Dru of Id (talk) 14:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Success. U.S. v. Hamid Hayat and Umer Hayat. Dru of Id (talk) 14:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Ariel Levy
Last edit by User:Arielvlevy may be a conflict of interest or just a vandal. It might even be OK.Hybrid2712 (talk) 17:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My guess is COI, not vandal. I've reverted the edit and posted a COI tag on the editor's Talk page. However, the birth date (which was changed, along with removal of the supporting sources) was not reliably sourced, so I've removed it from the article. I also removed the gay and Jewish cats as unsupported, although they may very well be true.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The user removed a birth date sourced to a blog site, and to an opinion piece, and you call that a conflict of interest? It's not. It's someone fixing a minor detail in their bio, not remotely self serving. I'm sure they appreciate their new welcome message though. Kevin (talk) 23:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm concerned, the encyclopedia would be better of if article subjects never edited their own articles. In this instance, the subject put in a new DOB (without a source) and removed two sources. One removal was proper (it was a blog). The other was not, but it didn't support the asssertion. I moved that source to the end of the sentence because it helped support the opening sentence otherwise. And I don't think the editor cared at all about being welcomed to Wikipedia or about editing Wikipedia generally. She just wanted to do what she wanted to do. And, in any event, the possibly incorrect DOB is no longer in the article, so she accomplished part of what she set out to do.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Kevin, to the point that I have respectfully removed the COI notice/warning on the new user's talkpage and replaced it with a standard new user welcome message. The ethos of improved sensitivity to the legitimate concerns of BLP subjects suggests that it is not, under any conceivable standard, a "conflict of interest" for someone to correct his or her own birthdate. The issue of the references can be addressed with the editor, if at all, by a tailored message addressing the specific issue, not a boilerplate notice strongly implying that the new user has done something wrong. While I appreciate Bbb23's concerns for the COI guideline and for the integrity of the encyclopedia, these concerns should be expressed and acted on in a way that doesn't necessary offend BLP subjects and potentially drive off new editors (who may of course in some instances be the same people).

Although I would feel this way regardless of who the subject and the (suspected) new editor might be, I find it even less likely that we are dealing with a bad-faith COI situation given who the subject is, namely, a writer for a well-known publication. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Although your explanation is far more tactful than Kevin's, you still had no right to remove the warning. You could, instead, for example, have added a Welcome message and expressed your view that what she did was not a COI.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Cindy Hyde-Smith
The current biography says both that she is "currently running for Ag. and Commerce... and that she "was elected for Ag. and Commerce. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.171.237.174 (talk) 02:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks like it's fixed now. Thanks for posting! JFHJr (㊟) 09:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Criss Angel
An edit-war is going on about adding some graphic language about Criss Angel describing someone using profane terms. The edit is linked here. In my opinion this addition is a clear WP:BLP violation. Your opinion on including the linked edit is welcome. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 05:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

This is not an edit war, and I have serious concerns about Dr.K failing to assume good faith on my part. Please see my comments in the discussion page here.DenJansen (talk) 06:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * After some trimming of uncited related trivia, the user has, in very good faith, accepted the removal of his desired addition at this time. -  You  really  can  07:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Your BLP expertise has resolved this matter quickly and efficiently. Thank you very much Youreallycan. BTW I always assumed good faith on DenJansen's part and I am glad this was resolved in a good-faith manner. Take care. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 13:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Cool. You're too kind. Thanks - You  really  can

Boris/Bidzina Ivanishvili
I'm not familiar with the rules for BLP. We have a jingoistic dispute over which name to use for Russo-Georgian millionaire Boris/Bidzina Ivanishvili. "Boris" seems more common in English: Forbes uses it, as do 17 of 18 confirmed hits at GBooks (4 with 'Boris' in 2010, one with 'Bidzina' in 2011). However, some newspapers use "Bidzina" (supposedly the Guardian and the Telegraph; I haven't confirmed). His website uses "Bidzina". This might be a case where he went with "Boris" at first, either because he was doing business in Russia or because it was a more familiar name abroad, and then switched to "Bidzina" when he went home to Georgia (the Economist used 'Boris' in 2008 but 'Bidzina' in 2011), though that's just speculation. If his name has changed, 'Bidzina' is more recent, but 'Boris' was used when he was better known / more widely reported in the West.

(Regular Ghits are 483k Boris Ivanishvili, 94k Bidzina Ivanishvili, but if restricted to updates in the last year, 14k Boris Ivanishvili and 76k Bidzina Ivanishvili (phrase search). But they seem a bit screwy: if you restrict Bidzina hits to ones which do not include 'Boris', the number jumps to 1.65M, so I don't know if any of the numbers mean anything.)

Normally, I'd just go with "Boris" per COMMONNAME, unless we could show sources really have switched over, but are there BLP issues that would override that? Do we take personal preferences into account? (I'm not linking this discussion to the bio talk page, because the squabbling there is unlikely to illuminate anything.) — kwami (talk) 22:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Unless you know of BLP issues, WP:COMMONNAME should control. That policy says to avoid web searches and concentrate on news and books searches. It also says to avoid non-English speaking sources, but I don't know how to do that on a google news archive search. On a google news archive search, for Boris I get 87 hits, and for Bidzina, I get 126. For books, I get 27 hits for Boris and 1 hit for Bidzina; that would tend to support that Bidzina is more recent given that books aren't written as often as articles. Just on my searches, I'd go with Bidzina.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks!
 * In a phrase search, I get 2 to 68, even more lopsided. — kwami (talk) 23:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Jay R. Kaufman
A new SPA editor (SudburyTaxRelief, contribs) is persistently adding SOAPBOX material to Jay R. Kaufman, declining to engage in Talk page discussion about its problems; please advise. AV3000 (talk) 20:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've left a note on the editor's Talk page. I've reverted the unusually unorthodox material. If he refuses to cooperate, I suppose he will have to be reported for edit-warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. AV3000 (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Frank Huguelet
IP address 12.73.205.149/136 is repeatedly trying to insert undocumented and libellous information into the article Frank Huguelet. This is a man in Missouri named (Redacted) who has a personal issue with Frank Huguelet and is trying to sully his name through Wikipedia. (Redacted) has been stalking Huguelet online for over five years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.126.22 (talk) 21:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for bringing this to our attention. The article as it stands is wildly promotional and far from neutral; however, the additions made by the various IP addresses are totally unacceptable. Perhaps a passing administrator would like to semi-protect the page and/or block the various IP addresses.


 * I've redacted the name of the person you believe to be responsible. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * To be slightly less out-of-process, I've filed a request at WP:RFPP. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The article was semi-protected for the inadequate period of two weeks by User:HJ Mitchell. Please add it to your watchlists for the inevitable problems when the semi-protection is automatically removed. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Brandon Cruz
a user called Sector001 is always re writing the page that is actually about me. yes, i am the subject of the page. i rewrite it, he undoes it. i have not been very nice to him, sorry, but he has NO RIGHT to think he knows of my life. what is the policy of the actual subject writing the truth on their related page, and then having a self appointed internet wiki cop telling them that they cannot change their own story? he says that he can't verify that i am who i say i am. is there a place i can reply to him, or an admin, to verify that i am indeed who i say i am? thank you, brandon cruz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itismesoleavemypagealone (talk • contribs) 00:50, 4 March 2012‎ (UTC)
 * Some of this has already been explained to you, but see WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY and WP:COI. Btw, this an example of your handiwork in the article, and it's not pretty: "Brandon Cruz also asks that no one mess with this page, as he alone knows what he has done. Internet cops and self appointed Wiki security guards are a joke." If you have problems with the article, feel free to suggest changes (and sources) on the article Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

John Searle
User:Hibrido Mutante has repeatedly added a large section to John Searle dealing with the article subject's quarrel with the late Jacques Derrida, most recently here. I have numerous problems with this material. For example, it seems to be written like a POV essay rather than something appropriate to a biography (although Hibrido Mutante has made some changes to that material in response to my criticism of it). My main problem with it, however, is that it is grossly undue and largely repeats the content of another article, Limited Inc. I have tried to explain to Hibrido Mutante that there is no point in simply pasting the contents of one article into another article, but he has ignored me. I have nothing against the article discussing Searle's disagreement with Derrida, but this undue material gives the dispute vastly more space than it deserves, and isn't appropriate for a biography. User:Maunus has helped by removing some of that material, but what remains is a lop-sided (and poorly written) section that discusses Derrida's criticism of Searle and says nothing about what Searle said in response.

I should add that Hibrido Mutante has worsened the situation by behaving in an inflammatory way on the talk page, accusing me of "intellectual terrorism" while logged out as an IP, eg here. The comments the user has made on the talk page while logged in makes it clear that this is the same person. I find it impossible to engage in any discussion with him under these circumstances, and believe he should be blocked for violation of WP:CIVIL. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Another editor came along and reduced the size of the section. Are you satisfied with it now? Personally, I'm not, but I also can't even follow much of it and didn't try hard to do so. Putting aside the number of long quotations, it's very oddly written (in my view).--Bbb23 (talk) 02:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The section on Derrida's controversy with Searle now consists of two paragraphs. The first of them is not problematic. The second is problematic, for several reasons: it is poorly written, it is confusing, and it comes across as biased (eg, as siding with Derrida against Searle). It is not necessarily a clear BLP violation, but perhaps a borderline one, and I believe the best course would be to remove it. I would accept a shorter and more neutrally written discussion of the issue. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 05:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh
See edit  which very substantially adds material to the "Sandra Fluke affair" to this BLP. I suggest that the added material and language violates WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP as being excess weight, excess POV, excess repetitive opinions of various people, etc. In short -- a section which already pushes the envelope is not well past that point in my opinion. I realize this is political silly season, but that does not mean WP:BLP goes out the window I trust. Collect (talk) 02:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Collect very substantially deleted content, including the reactions by President Obama and Republican presidential candidates Romney and Santorum, leaving a one-liner ("others also decried the remarks") and a bunch of refs . Only some of the content was restored. The length of the section is in proportion to the coverage of the incident in reliable national and international secondary sources. One could even argue that the section should be longer per WP:WEIGHT because the story got more coverage than the other controversies mentioned in the section. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 03:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you assert that:
 * In his show on March 3, Limbaugh denied that either he or the Republican party hate women or that he is a danger to women,[164] but repeated his previous attack against Sandra Fluke and insurance coverage for contraception.
 * Meets NPOV and WEIGHT concerns?  The iteration of the words "slut" etc. both in a sentence and in a blockquote is not giving excess weight thereto? Sorry -- but 17 lines in a BLP on a recent issue phrased in an accusatory manner does seem, on its face, to be a wondrous example of "silly season excesses."  Collect (talk) 03:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's the only paragraph that is not strictly necessary and can be removed. But deleting the responses by President Obama, Romney, Santorum, and Pelosi et al. – aspects that received the most extensive coverage – and leaving one line with some refs was completely unhelpful. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 03:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with you, Collect, but it's been a long day on Wikipedia, and I don't feel like weighing in on the article Talk page or attempting to change the text (other than some copy edits I just made), at least not today. I want to eat dinner.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't worry - "silly season" is still in full force and vigour here. Collect (talk) 03:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the way it is worded now on wikipedia takes the comments out of context like some newspapers have. I think it needs rewrote and a full quote from when he started talking about Ms. Fluke tell he was finshed about her added to it.Theworm777 (talk) 03:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This could be libelous information from a newspaper which should not be repeated. Just because a newspaper might break a law dont mean we can repeat it here on wiki. So verifiability might not be the only thing needed here. So admin should look at it to make sure its not libelous. Theworm777 (talk) 04:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Remy Ong
The subject of the article hit a dog on the road and ran away from the scene. Apparently, this caused an "uproar" in the Southeast Asian nation of Singapore. Are we now in the business of documenting each and every minor incident that happens in an individual's life? The section has also been suggestively labelled "Hit-and-run case", as if he hit a human being and ran away from the scene. Should WP:NPF apply here? — Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  11:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It was certainly blown out of all proportion, and earlier versions made multiple allegations that were not supported by the sources - I rev deleted a lot of edits. Don't know if it should be omitted altogether, but there was a lot of WP:UNDUE about it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I support the removal by Zeb. I think proportion concerns speak to WP:UNDUE, at least for me. That aside, it's worth addressing here that the incident was covered by multiple sources, which is what this indicates. Note, however, these sources contain inconsistencies among them (for example, search for "pregnant"). Also bearing on the issue may be the Singaporean context of rather stiff penalties for things that pass as minor misdeeds in many other countries. On balance, inclusion of the incident especially as a punishable offense would be WP:UNDUE unless a court conviction is actually secured and its coverage indicates significance. WP:BLPCRIME is applicable here; though no versions that I could see referred to the possible penalties, they did refer to the police investigation, and that's enough for me. I'll concede this individual is quite well known, but I think the conviction requirement there squares well with WP:UNDUE. Later developments will indicate whether this is a minor event or a career ender, but kind of thing doesn't normally belong in an encyclopedic BLP, and there's no practical reason to include the material in the meantime. JFHJr (㊟) 01:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

After hearing the debate here and on the talk page, I still support the inclusion of the incident BUT only if there is any penalty handed out. For now it's only the news articles and mention of the police investigating, but should there be any punitive punishment handed down later on, it's appropriate to have the section reinstated. FYI Nick, the local law that applies to Singaporean Remy Ong also states that a "hit and run" can and will apply to certain animals like ass, dogs and horse.Lets have more debate by editors familiar with Asian cultures and laws. Nick seems kinda biased on one side, we need someone on the other end :) 182.55.242.227 (talk) 07:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has only one objective, that is to be an encyclopedia that its users can trust. And I am Asian. —  Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  15:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * News reporting and the online anger of the incident seemed to have died off after the initial 2-3 days, making it seemingly temporal NEWS. If any further action results, as above, that would be different. Zhanzhao (talk) 17:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Dana Loesch
This is a biography of a person who is, shall we say, known for making controversial comments. Naturally there have been disputes over what should make it into the article. In particular, there's been a recent dispute over a comment she made regarding a Virginia bill that would have mandated trans-vaginal ultrasounds before abortions. The comment is sourced, but the only sources available seem to be partisan blogs and websites (either pro- or anti-Loesch), e.g.. Is this sufficient for inclusion in a BLP? I'm inclined to think so, but other editors disagree. In any case, more neutral eyes on this article would generally be a good idea, because it's one of those that inevitably attracts people trying to push a political agenda from both sides. Robofish (talk) 00:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If there truly are no sources except partisan political websites, then I would conclude that the incident is not really about Dana Loesch, but rather about the politics involved. In this case, the event is not relevant the biography of an individual, and the inclusion of the event becomes simply a coatrack for pushing politics of one stripe or another.  Gnome de plume (talk) 01:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Pardon my neophyte status here, but would the actual statement Loesch made be considered a viable source? The statement was reported on by a number of websites - admittedly partisan sites - but then so was her statement regarding Marines urinating on the corpses of dead Afghan fighters, which has also been included in the article. There is actual audio of her statement on youtube. Does that count as a source? Osiriscorleone (talk) 01:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So the only coverage available is in partisan blogs (which I'm not sure would pass as reliable sources categorically). That might indicate the event or commentary is not very noteworthy, but of low actual and enduring biographical significance. Here, I think inclusion would likely overstate the importance of those comments. That goes equally for the Afghanistan comments apparently not in dispute. If reliable sources indicate significance, the events in question would be more of an encyclopedic BLP and less of a chronicle of comments that got a blip in the blogosphere and brief network hay. Meanwhile, if something is demonstrated to be significant, you can cite the original quote to her blog. Some things are fine from blogs and other unreliable/POV sources, but not most; see WP:BLPSPS. JFHJr (㊟) 01:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I'll drop the issue. Osiriscorleone (talk) 01:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

There's some text that has been replaced regarding the subject's commentary on actual news. I was the editor that removed it per my comments above. I'm not inclined to edit war about it, but could someone else please weigh in? JFHJr (㊟) 22:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've since deleted that text. I think that the version by AzureCitizen meets NPOV and BLP but still fails UNDUE. (I'm embarrassed that I failed to spot the UNDUE problem until JFHJr pointed it out.) Cheers, CWC 17:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

This BLP is seeing the same content restored, plus some more of the same. To me, it still looks like WP:COAT, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. It could use some input from others. JFHJr (㊟) 20:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, and also think it's way too POV, so I've deleted it again. Cheers, CWC 10:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Robin Ficker
There is an ongoing dispute over the description of Robin Ficker as a sports "heckler," with "fan" and "spectator" being substituted. I favor the former term as clearly and accurately reflecting the many cited sources. Objection has been raised that "heckler" is an outdated term as he no longer engages in the activity, but I don't think that is relevant to notability given the many sources from the time in question. This has been discussed most recently on the Talk page and previously through comments in the Revision history. -- Pemilligan (talk) 06:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there something more I was supposed to do to get some help here? -- Pemilligan (talk) 05:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Flagged up, other editors give it a look in,
 * is an SPA who has, to boot, declared a COI as being asked to edit on behalf of Mr. Ficker (to apparently 'clean up' the article by removing unsavoury/unwelcome information).
 * Also, Robin Ficker (in one of the refs) wrote an op-ed for the The NY Times titled The Heckler's Code and *is* notable for being a heckler, amongst other things. Haven't had time to thoroughly check the article, just addressing the OP's query, a lot of the refs look dubious too.
 * Would appreciate some more eyes on the article and the user:Trainhead. Am going to post on all talk pages concerned about this issue. Thanks in advance! <font color="B22222">Captain <font color="DAA520">Screebo <font color="32CD32">Parley! 22:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Bad Girls Club
Bad Girls Club is about a reality tv program. It lists the cast members and labels them in various ways, including 'porn actress' and 'stripper'. Some of the sources are fine, some look very dubious, eg Poptower.com. TMZ is considered reliable but only on a case by case basis. The program itself is used as a reference as well, which I find dubious for something like this. We've had at least one OTRS ticket from someone who was listed here as a porn star with a dubious reference - the complaint was that the listing was stopping her from getting work. Obviously we don't take the word of someone for such a complaint, but these women deserve to have reliable sources just as much as anyone else. Dougweller (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I just looked at the Cast member section (the article is not an easy read for me). I removed one label as supported only by a blog and poptower.com (and I removed the citations). The others in that section are less clear to me, particularly a source like news.avn.com.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems unlikely that the show is in itself a reliable source for statements about the cast members. Does its production team have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"?  Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Cusop, women shouldn't be labelled as porn actresses without reliable sourcing. That's a serious BLP violation. FurrySings (talk) 14:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Jose Antonio Vargas
Previous BLPN discussion

Last summer there was a big brouhaha about whether Vargas should be described as an "undocumented immigrant" or an "illegal immigrant". Vargas uses the undocumented label, but others believe the illegal label is, I don't know, better? more accurate? something else? There was a discussion on the article Talk page and a discussion here, and the label "undocumented immigrant" was kept. Anyway, the article remained fairly stable for quite some time, although occasionally, editors who had not participated in the discussion (usually IPs) would come along and try to change it. I'd revert it, and there weren't any major disruptions.

Now, we have another editor who has altered the article in a curious way. He hasn't changed the term "undocumented immigrant" in the body of the article, although in one instance he wikilinked this entire phrase: undocumented people brought to America as innocent children. What he's done is highlight the issue by changing the infobox so that Vargas is now "known for" being a winner of the Pulitzer prize and being an "illegal immigrant" (there was no "known for" previously in the infobox). He also stuck in parameters about Vargas's citizenship (Filipino) (not actually sourced except he was born there) and residence (US), both of which I wish didn't exist, but I digress.

I removed "illegal immigrant" from the infobox. I also made other less important changes per the documentation in infobox person and per WP:OVERLINK. The other editor reverted and opened a discussion on the Talk page. I'm hoping other editors will contribute here rather than there (last time discussions occurred in both places) and I'll point them here.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I may have misunderstood the note on Talk:Jose Antonio Vargas - I thought the discussion was to take place there with folks being pointed from here to there. In any case, I've commented there essentially as follows: I think we settled the matter the last time we discussed this, by quoting him in the text - he refers to himself as an undocumented immigrant, we have it in quotes and with citation, and nothing new has been raised to change that. Short of the US government, he is the only  source of information about his immigration status, and we quote him as such. (I don't doubt the veracity of his revelation - I am just saying that we're not going to find independent sourcing for that fact.)  As for the infobox, it's important to remember that we're never required to include every field, and surely the infobox should not be used to promote an argument or a point of view as it appears was being done here. I see no reason for the "known for" field in this instance, in fact, as at best it is a judgment call. I moved the Pulitzer to "awards" where it belongs, and we already have his occupation/profession. To say he is known for his immigration status is an opinion, not a fact. The article was written in April 2009, long before his immigration status was known - he is amply notable having nothing to do with his citizenship. Tvoz / talk 06:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Left this off in my previous comment - I also agree that the "residence" and "citizenship" fields are problematic here and seem to have been added to make a point. I reverted to the previous setup, ommitting them - these fields are not required to be in the infobox. We say where he was born, and we should let the article explain the rest, which is better than a boiled-down one-word descriptor. Tvoz / talk 06:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

In a recent reversion another editor removed well sourced verified content on grounds that added content violates UNDUE even though it meets VER via use of multiple reliable sources. This maybe related to the discussion above, where other editors have not sought to compromise per WP:CON. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * RightCow is attempting, any way he can, to insert WP:UNDUE material, even though three editors disagree with his position. He has the mistaken notion that there is no consensus on these issues. I reverted his latest material, and when he restored it, I reverted it again. Some of the material he added, in addition to being undue, is just wrong and not even compliant with the sources he cites. There are mistakes in it, and there are misleading statements. I've lost patience with him, although I know that's not helpful, but it's hard when an editor just keeps pushing and pushing, no matter how many times he's told he's wrong.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The newly added content is taken from reliable news sources, and indications that the material is incorrect is itself an incorrect statement. If needed quotes from the RSs can be added to the references to verify the content meets VER.
 * Please assume good faith and remain civil and not direct comment about other editors as above.
 * I have attempted to compromise, I have kept with VER, and am continuing to follow BRD. The original discussion was regarding how immigration status should be stated.
 * The reverted content is a new discussion. It is related to the previous discussion, but does not change how immigration status is stated, therefore is a separate discussion IMHO.
 * Why should verified content not be kept if it is supported by multiple reliable sourced content?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * See the statement of at WP:VER regarding WP:NEU:
 * "All articles must adhere to the Neutral point of view policy (NPOV), fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views need not be included, except in articles devoted to them. Where there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution: "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y," followed by an inline citation. Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view; indeed many reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is simply to present what the reliable sources say."


 * Presently the article only has one viewpoint, thus not keeping with NEU.
 * Excluding verifiable content, even content supported by an existing reliable source already used in the article is not productive to the article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a biography, not an article about immigration law - it is not a question of differing viewpoints. There is no consensus for the changes this editor keeps adding, in fact there is not a single editor in agreement with him. Yet he keeps doing it, with the effect that the three editors who oppose the changes are getting tired of going over the same ground.Enough is enough - this has moved into the area of tendentious editing. Tvoz / talk 04:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Changes are well sourced to reliable sources, and other editors are removing content not keeping with WP:VER. Amount of content is balanced, and does not attempt to create UNDUE WEIGHT.
 * NEU prescribes that all reliable sourced material should be balanced within the article, other editors have removed well sourced content from reliable sources claiming to cite BLPN allowing no content that is disagreed with or that does not agree with a position held by the subject, this creates an unbalanced POV. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Imagine of no content was allowed to be added to articles regarding former POTUS Bush, or POTUS Obama that didn't fall in line with the subject's policy positions.
 * Additionally the most recent deletion of well sourced material was arbitrated to the source and was removed. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Other editors are violating BLP by completely white washing the article in opposition of the following statement:
 * "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone."


 * All material that is not in line with the subject's POV has been removed and claims of UNDUE have been levied against myself. Per NEU, a balanced article is what is needed; how said material is presented can be discussed, and through discussion CONSENSUS can be reached, but if CONSENSUS by a majority of editors is to not allow any content that disagrees with the subject's POV at all is in violation of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS as it is not keeping with main Wikipedia Policy. Please see Talk:Jose Antonio Vargas. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Prem Rawat
Prem Rawat has a brother Satpal who is mentioned four times in Prem Rawat's article, the last being in 1974 when he was also known as Bal Bhagwan Ji. At some point Satpal started using the title Satpal Maharaj, the first reference I can find for the title Satpal Maharaj is from an India news report in 1997. Question - should he be referred to as Satpal Maharaj in the article when he wasn't using that title at the time? I believe that he should be referred to by his name "Satpal" and once as "Satpal (also known as Bal Bhagwan Ji)", the title he was using at the time of the mention. Thanks.Momento (talk) 21:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I would say, keep it simple as possible, list the names and the explanation in the first instance and then call him what we call him in his article - the name he is known as now - Satpal Maharaj. only complicate the naming if really needed to explain the content. It's a bit of hair splitting really. You  really  can  20:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Satp Maharaj" is a title and it complicates the article in that Prem Rawat succeeded his father as "Guru Maharaj Ji" in 1966 and it wasn't until much later Satpal took the title "Maharaj" giving us three "Maharaj" in the same article.Momento (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The main reason for leaving "Satpal Maharaj" out is that is suggests that anyone who changes their name after they have ceased to be involved in a BLP subject's life should have their new name added. Ie Apple (formerly known as Banana, also as Cherry) so introducing a name that has never been associated with the subject of the BLP.Momento (talk) 20:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Kim Dalton
This article is autobiographical. As someone who holds a reasonably high profile position in the Australian media I feel it is reasonable to post a short biography on Wikipedia. The short synopsis of my career I feel is not particularly self promoting and it does not comment on or advocate in regard to areas of my work and actions I have taken which may be contested. Unfortunately an anonymous person posting under the name duckquackquackquack keeps inserting material relating to a particular debate around the issue of outsourcing ABC production. I have no problem if this person wishes to set up their own page to advocate their position. However, I think it is unreasonable that they advocate their position anonymously and effectively mount a criticism of me. I would appreciate it if you were able to take some action on this matter.

The text in question is below.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Kim Dalton.

'Privatising the Australian Broadcasting Corporation'''

On 10 August 2011, in a letter by the CPSU (Community and Public Sector Union) on behalf of ABC Staff, the Section Secretary Graeme Thomson responded to ABC Managing Director Mark Scott's 'all staff email', which defended Kim Dalton's axing of TV programs: The New Inventors, Collectors and Art Nation. Mr Thomson confirms that ABC staff has called for an audit of what has become known as the 'Dalton Model', a style of management that diverts public funding to the private sector, resulting in the termination of in-house productions, mass redundancies and skill shortages.

Independent Senator Nick Xenophon passed a motion in the upper house on 17 August 2011 with the support of Labor and The Greens for an inquiry into 'Recent ABC (TV) programming decisions'. The report which came out in October 2011 is critical of Kim Dalton's management, quoting him in Perth, where he announced to ABC production staff 'that only program ideas pitched from outside the ABC would be considered for production' 3.37.

With regard to the 'Dalton Model', the Australian Senate recommended this:

'The committee recommends that the ABC ensure that it maintains an effective capacity to internally produce quality programming across the regions in addition to news, sport and current affairs. The committee notes that the increasing use of external producers has the capacity to diminish the ABC’s independence and skill base. 3.50'

On 24 February 2012, the ABC appointed Katrina Sedgwick to a newly formed position of ABC TV Head of Arts. In this role; created to 'provide stronger focus on the ABC's arts programming', she answers directly to ABC Head of Television, Kim Dalton. Ironically, it was Dalton who 6 months earlier axed the internally produced program Art Nation. Dalton revealed to the media that 'As a result of changes to our arts production and line up last year (2011) we have increased the resources committed to primetime arts programming to be commissioned from the independent production sector.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim7159 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The added section is very messy, and I've removed it. It's possible that some of the material could be added back into the article in a more balanced way, particularly as it relates to Dalton himself, as opposed to ABC or other executives at ABC. I've commented on the article Talk page about the problems with the section (primary sources, undue, coatracky, POV, poorly drafted). I had trouble following it. At the same time, the intro to the article, which is all that's left, was poorly drafted as well, and I've removed unsourced material and cleaned it up a bit (there isn't much).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've reworked the material to be more coherent and less undue. It didn't need its own section (let alone the title, which is clearly POV. I have one issue with the material as it stands - in case anyone wants to look into it. The senate inquiry began in August 2011. In one newspapaper article it said that a report from the senate committee was expected in October (no year). In another article from the same paper, a day earlier, it said October 2012. I put that in, but, frankly, despite the proverbial slowness of government bureaucracy, it's hard to imagine the report would take well over a year. At the same time, assuming it was really supposed to be October 2011, I couldn't find any information about the report. In other words, what happened after August 2011?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Is Kim Dalton insisting on controlling his own biography? 'The short synopsis of my career'? The revision by Bbb23, although simplifying the article has resulted in the loss of content. If it is to be revised, I suggest leaving the course of events involving the Australian Senate. It is also important that the article contain information relevant to an obvious effort by Dalton to funnel public money into the private sector. The senate has made comment on this and Dalton himself recently mentioned it in the media. The additions I have made over time are well referenced and I would be the first to amend any inaccuracies. With regard to the confusion over the Senate Report, the dates are correct and available on http://www.aph.gov.au. --Duckquackquack (talk) 05:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * There were many problems with the article. As for the material you added, if you'll look at what's currently there, you'll see that much of what you put in has been retained. It's just been told more coherently and more neutrally. The rest of the material that was taken out (not yours) was just unsourced (your material at least was sourced - it was almost impossible to follow, though). If you think additional material needs to be added to the article, tell us what you want to add, but don't just restore what was in the article before - that makes zero sense. As for the dates, I'd like some clarification on that because, as I said above, I'm not comfortable with them. However, just pointing us to the Australian Parliament homepage doesn't shed any light on anything. Is there some subpage in particular that is helpful?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

A real need here is for solid background to balance high-profile the subject currently has. this is a good source, and I'm sure that those who actually know what his job involves can find more. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Point taken that it was hard to follow but I now have a major issue with the article, the Senate report into ABC TV programming decisions, which specifically mentions Dalton came out in October 2011, here is the official link http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees?url=ec_ctte/abc/report/index.htm. I would like to quote Recommendation 1. 3.50 'The committee recommends that the ABC ensure that it maintains an effective capacity to internally produce quality programming across the regions in addition to news, sport and current affairs. The committee notes that the increasing use of external producers has the capacity to diminish the ABC’s independence and skill base.' This is at odds with the way Dalton is currently running ABC TV and should be juxtaposed with the recent article (http://www.mediaspy.org/report/2012/02/24/abc-tv-appoints-head-of-arts/) about the new head of arts and dalton's comment that he has 'increased the resources committed to primetime arts programming to be commissioned from the independent production sector. Given that Dalton is a public figure and answers to the government I believe that 'increasing programming from the private sector' and the Senate's recommendation that 'increasing use of external producers has the capacity to diminish the ABC’s independence and skill base' is relevant and should be added to this biography. Please respond before I make the changes. --Duckquackquack (talk) 02:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You have had zero support from others on such issues here  - I think that should be noted by you at this point.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not looking for support, I'm pointing out to the group that this article is obsolete. The Senate report that it mentions has been available since the 13th of October 2011. Check the link. http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees?url=ec_ctte/abc/report/index.htm --Duckquackquack (talk) 14:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Duckquackquack went ahead and made the edit, which I've reverted. Duckquackquack is juxtaposing these two quotes in a manner that I would consider WP:SYNTH and an inappropriate use of a primary source. January  ( talk ) 16:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

You have reverted the new information, fine. But you have left the article incorrect. THE SENATE REPORT HAS BEEN RELEASED (not due in October 2012). If you do not want to correct this I will. --Duckquackquack (talk) 00:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added the reference to the Parliament website that indicates the report was issued on 13 October 2011. I understand the problem January had, but at this point I am just citing the Parliament site for the fact the report issued and the date on which it issued. Anything more than that (describing the report based on the report's contents, or even quoting the report) would be a problem with WP:PRIMARY.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Viktor Yanukovych
Your attention is urgently needed on this article. An edit-war has erupted over including the details of the personal life and business activities not of Victor but Oleksandr, his son, in a transparent attempt to embarrass Victor Yanukovych by implication and weasel means. There has also been a message left on my talk with charged analogies. Help is needed. The edit in question is: diff. Further, a more general look is needed into the other sections of this article. There is a blunders section which reads like a polemic suitably titled: Yanukovych's famous public speaking errors (blunders). This needs to be removed also. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 23:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sorry if my atempt at satire at your talkpage was misunderstood; but nobody did violate any 3RR so I do not see an edit-war. The article is in bad shape though... The Yanukovych's famous public speaking errors (blunders)-chapter is not up to wiki-standards and I kept reading in Ukrainian respectable sources that friends the Ukrainian Presidents son get high post in Ukraine (no I can not proof that is just a coincidence; but it certainly is weird); I thought it should be mentioned in the article about his father... This all can be discussed at the article talkpage. I.m.o. no need for any Administrators to step in. —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  00:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * PS Yanukovych has made some blunders that are noticeble; Yanukovych's famous public speaking errors (blunders)-chapter should not be removed it should be rewritten in a neutral tone. For now the section looks POV; but it does not have too......... —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  00:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yulia, don't worry! This isn't WP:3RRN or WP:ANI. Nobody called for administrator action. This noticeboard is to bring problematic content about living persons to the attention of volunteers. I'm sure a few of us here will have a look. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 00:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you Yulia for your comments. I agree. I am sorry I didn't get the satire in your message but the edit revert on the article made me feel like it was serious business. :) Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 00:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dr.K that the material about Yanukovych's son does not belong in the article. The blunders section is more complicated. As written, it is clearly WP:UNDUE. I would recommend integrating anything truly noteworthy into the rest of the article rather than any of it being in a standalone section.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much Bbb23 for taking the time. As usual I agree with your recommendations. :) Best regards. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 00:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks all! Just to be clear I will not oppose Bbb23 as I see now what is standard in Wikipedia but I have made a start with an article about this son, Oleksandr Yanukovych, (will take a new look at it after the week-end) and I did write in there "Various Ukrainian press have sugested people close to Oleksandr have landed some of Ukraine’s most important position". —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  01:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you familiar with the phrase: "by a remarkable coincidence,"? You might find it useful.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Grant Cardone
Editor “Henry Sewell” and others have been making changes to the Grant Cardone page since at least June 2011. Combined with attempts to restore prior versions of the article, this engagement may qualify as an “edit war,” which indicates the matter should be raised to the Noticeboard for discussion and resolution.

The “Henry Sewell” version of the page removes relevant or noteworthy information from earlier versions of the page (e.g., acknowledging the birth of Mr. Cardone’s second daughter, Scarlett; descriptions of Mr. Cardone’s businesses under the “Entrepreneur” section; citation to his fourth book, The 10X Rule).

Per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, “Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources.” Mr. Cardone is a motivational speaker and author, and his religious beliefs are not relevant to his public life or notability as a motivational speaker and author.

Wikipedia’s editorial standards for Biographies of living persons (BLPs) expressly state that editors must “Be very firm about the use of high quality sources.” See Wikipedia:Biolgraphies of living persons. The claim that Mr. Cardone is a “high-level Scientologist” is not supported in the text of the article found in footnote 2 of “Henry Sewell’s” edit of the Cardone article. Footnote 3 of the current Cardone article, a citation to truthaboutscientology.com, does not appear to satisfy Wikipedia’s standards for reliable sources. When a reliable source is required, the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. See Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Likewise, the Village Voice article cited as Footnote 4 of the current Cardone article does not state that Mr. Cardone conducts “Fair Game” activities in the body of the article.

Even if Mr. Cardone’s religious beliefs were relevant to his public life or notability, the overall treatment of Mr. Cardone’s adherence to Scientology is not given neutral treatment, from the description in the opening paragraph to the “Attack on Milton Katselas” section. This runs contrary to Wikipedia’s presumption in favor of privacy in BLPs, the importance of a neutral point of view (one of Wikipedia’s core principles), and is inconsistent with the balanced and proportionate treatment found in discussion of Scientology on pages of other public figures who are adherents to the Church of Scientology (see, for example, the relatively modest discussion of Scientology on pages for John Travolta, Jenna Elfman, Anne Archer, and others).

"Henry Sewell’s" comments on the Grant Cardone Talk page suggest a personal agenda to antagonize Mr. Cardone, rather than bona fide efforts to edit the article in a neutral manner in keeping with Wikipedia’s BLP standards. On October 1, 2011, “Henry Sewell” posted the following message to the Talk:Grant Cardone page: “Having some fun and games with someone attempting to remove the mention of Cardone's involvement with Scientology's Fair Game practises in relation to the mass email sent to Scientologists linked to its Los Angeles Celebrity Centre. If it persists, I shall add additional data concerning the email, and a letter Cardone sent directly to Katselas.”

The “Attack on Milton Katselas” section is problematic in a few ways: When the subject of a BLP is a public figure, allegations must be supported by multiple sources (Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons: “If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.”). Here, the Milton Katselas section is supported by citation to just a single source, the Village Voice article.

Second, BLPs must be balanced: “Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints…[c]are must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased or malicious content.” The section heading, “Attack on Milton Katselas” is not neutral. The section itself comprises an entire printed page of a three-page article (excluding references), and is therefore “disproportionate” relative to the overall article. Again, compare both the quality and quantity of content to that found in BLPs of other notable Scientologists.

The inclusion of Mr. Cardone’s involvement in “Freedom Motorsports Group, Inc.” appears to be made for no other purpose than to further establish a connection between Mr. Cardone and the Church of Scientology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.167.107.157 (talk) 00:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that the article as it stood was bad, and I suspect that including the whole text of that email would also be a copyright violation. I have reverted to the shorter version of the article. Kevin (kgorman-ucb) (talk) 01:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

More eyes on this article would be appreciated. Despite being an apparent copyright violation and representing significant BLP concerns, my initial edit was reverted. Kevin (kgorman-ucb) (talk) 15:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted the removal of the information concerning Cardone's attack on Milton Katselas. I'm not sure how else his activities in this regard could be described, especially in light of Wikipedia's own article on the subject of Fair Game. Also, the claim in regard copyrght can be ignored in that there has been no complaint made in this regard and, even then, what has been quoted amounts to "Fair Use". If there is a consensus that the email material be removed, there is no consequential need to remove the section dealing with this aspect Cardone's biography. Henry Sewell (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's inappropriate to have two thirds of someone's biography dominated by negative content sourced from a single village voice blog post. It raises massive WP:UNDUE issues and is drastically inappropriate in a BLP. Re: copyright, we don't wait for someone to make a claim - and the email in this context is unlikely to be fair use, and definitively fails WP:NFCC.  Do not restore material that is under discussion for BLP and copyright reasons; this is explicitly forbidden in WP:BLP. Kevin (kgorman-ucb) (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The Scientology assertion in the lead wasn't even supported by the source (no mention of being "high-level", just I like Scientology). The reference in the body to short-lived company was obviously coatrack. I removed both. There's no indication that his liking Scientology has anything to do with his career. The rest of the article spends far too much time on trivia and lacks sources, but I haven't touched that yet. Do we really need to know that he moved from City A to City B to City C to City D? That he worked at McDonald's when he was growing up? Come on. Even the stuff about Joan Rivers and his "success story" is pretty silly. I know Hollywood can be silly generally, but even so.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Sheldon Souray & Angelica Bridges Divorce
There seems to be a some disagreement about Sheldon Souray and Angelica Bridges being divorced. When either page is modified to say they are divorced, the changes are reverted. I've found multiple sources saying the 2 are divorced. I can add them all to the statement saying they are divorced, but it will likely be reverted again. I'm not sure why this a divorce that happened in 2007 is being removed. AuroraHcky (talk) 02:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks to me like garden variety removal of content by an IP with some agenda. I've restored the divorce assertion to both articles and left a warning on the IP's Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If that low grade citation report of a TMZ retracted article is all there is to support the detail it should stay out waiting for stronger sourcing. - as such I have removed both of User:Bbb23's additions.  You  really  can  02:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It was one source. I'll update it with one of the sources I've found that mentions their divorce. AuroraHcky (talk) 03:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The Scott Burnside article already used as a source in the Souray entry How hockey brought sobriety, unity to Souray family mentions sharing custody with his ex-wife Angelica Bridges. I also found a transcript of an interview Souray did in 2011 mentioning his public divorce New Star Sheldon Souray has 'something to prove again' when he takes to the ice this year I believe the first article mets the Wikipedia criteria for credible sources. The second might not though. AuroraHcky (talk) 03:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that cite is pretty clear for. ex wife - I don't know if the divorce is finalized from the articles, there seems to be a dispute over the settlement. - You  really  can  13:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I read the Yahoo! sports news article before determining that it was reliable, not for the events after the divorce, but just for the opening paragraph, that there was indeed a divorce. The fact that the parties have legally squabbled afterwards, not uncommon, even after parties are divorced, doesn't mean anything unless the divorce decree is actually voided, and there was no evidence of that. I'm actually less happy with the two subsequently discovered sources. The ESPN article just has the phrase "ex-wife", and to me that isn't sufficient for us to say that a divorce occurred (or when). Sometimes the term is used loosely just to mean that a couple is no longer together. The SportsDay interview is no better. First, it's only him referring to the divorce, and as YRC points out, it doesn't say that it's over ("I was going through some stuff with a public divorce with kids"). If YRC feels the first source isn't good enough, that's okay as I see no urgency to including this material, but I don't think the other two sources should be used. I've done my own search with Google News and found nothing helpful. Most articles refer back to the original TMZ, at least partly retracted, report. It seems clear to me that Bridges filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles in 2009, but what's not clear to me is whether the 2007 divorce was ever finalized. It's a little weird, though, for our articles to act like they are both still together and "reconciled".


 * I should also point out that in the current state of the articles, there are NO citations for the marriage at all in the Bridges article, and the only citation in the Souray article is to the ESPN piece that refers to Bridges as Souray's "ex-wife". More irony.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I found an additional article, though I'm not sure if it would be a credible source, that states them divorcing in 2007 EXCLUSIVE: FANTASY STAR FIGHTS TO KEEP KIDS AND RETURN TO LUXOR SHOW It was written in 2009 at the time of the custody battle. I just think it's very odd that they're listed as married on Wikipedia (though unsourced) and thought it should be corrected. AuroraHcky (talk) 19:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Arthur
To whom it may concern.

Although I attended the same drama school as Alex Sweet the information and any references to me he has supplied are incorrect, please remove from the page.

Kind regards Arthur Byrne — Preceding unsigned comment added by 9teeskid (talk • contribs) 00:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've removed the section on you as unsupported (and trivial). The article is messy.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Richard F. Cebull
This article has received a fair amount of attention since the e-mail he forwarded was (apparently) forwarded to the media. There is currently a battle going on about whether we should include an interpretation of what the e-mail means by a journalist. One editor insists on putting it in (the usual "it's a fact and it's reliably sourced" argument), and two editors (me included) believe it doesn't belong. The inclusion editor refuses to address some of the issues raised on the article Talk page.

At one point, the e-mail was quoted in the article. It was removed by yet another editor who felt it was WP:UNDUE, although that's not precisely what she said in her edit summary. That editor hasn't contributed to the current discussion.

The Talk page discussion isn't long, so you can fairly easily follow the issues. In a nutshell, my view is we shouldn't be including interpretations of the e-mail, even if reliably sourced. The interpretation currently included is just one interpretation. There are others. So, do we have to cite to all of them? If we do, I think that's clearly too much WP:WEIGHT. If we don't, we are cherrypicking. As for putting back in the text of the e-mail, I have mixed feelings about that. On the one hand, I like it because then, as lawyers say, the document speaks for itself. On the other hand, I can see Jokestress's point, that it's more information than is needed. I suppose I favor just restoring the article back to before the interpretation and without quoting the e-mail. It's a reasonable digest of what happened. It's unlikely there will be any further news on this issue until the Ninth Circuit issues a ruling on the judicial misconduct issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Iain Duncan Smith
Can I ask for more eyes on this article? A single purpose IP is continuing to add sections like these which are stuffed full of synthesis, original research and attacks on the article's subject. Myself and another editor have already removed them, but they keep adding them back. Valenciano (talk) 23:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've semi-protected the article and the talk page for a week in an attempt to discourage them—those rants are clearly not compatible with BLP policy. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  23:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Robin van Persie

 * - Robin van Persie's supposed "Nazi Salute"

An editor has been removing a referenced but controversial action by a famous footballer. This is one such edit. The section is worded:
 * After the match, Van Persie was accused of making a Nazi salute when celebrating his second goal, however, he strongly denied the allegation calling it "insulting".

With the Daily Mail as the reference. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2055547/Robin-van-Persie-denies-Nazi-salute-Chelsea.html "I'm no Nazi! Van Persie slams internet rumours over 'salute' celebration against Chelsea". For some reason this has become controversial today, four months after it was added. Discussion at Talk:Robin van Persie. Need some additional comments here or there. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The Daily Mail (a questionable source anyway - see numerous WP:RSN discussions) describes "wild claims on the internet" that van Persie made a Nazi salute. It doesn't say he did. Wikipedia content is supposed to be based on what reputable sources say, not on vacuous internet rumour. The editor was entirely correct to remove this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And BTW, I suggest that regarding this edit summary you read WP:VANDAL. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Andy, these Daily Mail rumors shouldn't be in the article. FurrySings (talk) 15:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Lots of IP edits to that article - mainly all reverted - I would suggest three months semi protection for that bio. - You  really  can  15:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

stalker of sally boazman freed
I am the person accused of this `stalking` incident. My name is Hilary Reeves(nee French).

I have recently deleted this article about me, as i thought after 9 years it was inappropriate to my circumstances at the present, as i am in a legal tangle regarding this issue, which has excluded my main reason for being arrested. My concern over subliminal messaging at the place of her work. I have also noted, that as the Leveson Enquiry is including many famous people for the alleged hacking of their phones, and i have reason to believe this is being done to my e-mails, i have been omitted from that.

The article also suggests the name of Jamie Pyatt, who was included in this process, and was arrested over illegally purchasing information from the police. This article has also not been removed from other sources i have enquired about, although i have instinctively suggested i am not the cause of this harrassment, and i have further written proof to verify this.

This could then become a two way attack on each parties concerned as ha(d) is a sic note. I have legal implications applying to this post, and wish it to be removed immediately.

This is an attack that is permanently ongoing, with no appeal being made on my behalf, due to abuse of process. Something very fishy going on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.206.117 (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have added the article link above, if you cannot make head nor tail of this message, and I would suggest that this edit is the one referred to above. <font color="B22222">Captain <font color="DAA520">Screebo <font color="32CD32">Parley! 23:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

@80.4.206.117, I am having trouble following you, but the information you removed from the article (which has since been restored) satisfies Wikipedia's standards of relevance and reliability. If you feel strongly about the issue, you might want to e-mail the Wikimedia foundation at info-en-q@wikimedia.org. See WP:FEFS.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I am also not finding it easy to work out what the request is. However, I would suggest that it may be that the poster is a non-notable figure who has committed a relatively minor (£50 fine) criminal offence and whose identity is not of encyclopaedic interest, per WP:BLPNAME. The article could easily be edited to exclude the name. --FormerIP (talk) 02:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I's say that even if the OP isn't the 'stalker' this section doesn't belong in the article - an incident which results in a £50 fine and a restraining order seems of little significance, and citing sources to this incident inevitably raises WP:BLPNAME and similar issues. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with you Andy - very minor case of celeb stalking - unworty of reporting in her bio - You  really  can  04:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with Andy's and YRC's reasoning and Andy's removal.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Sons of Guns
I'm in the awkward position of being the lone WP:BLP reverter at Sons of Guns and don't want an edit war sanction to come down on me. I believe I come under the WP:BLP exception, but I don't want to press that. The article is about a TV show that centers around Red Jacket Firearms (RJF) and its BLP principal Will Hayden. The issue is including the description of a lawsuit, Radford v RJF and Hayden. There's no doubt the lawsuit exists; it is available on the federal court information system (PACER). I believe WP:WELLKNOWN is not met. WP:BLPPRIMARY WP:BLPREMOVE

The description of the lawsuit in the article is based on the complaint and does not have an opposing view. The proponents claim that it is well sourced, but the offered references are an internet copy of the complaint and Justia's docket report that merely reflects the existence of the lawsuit. There are no reliable independent reports about the lawsuit and that suggest that it is notable.Glrx (talk) 01:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with your reasoning and your reversion. I will watch the article so you won't be alone. --Bbb23 (talk) 02:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. User:Mlpearc has come in, too. Glrx (talk) 02:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Brenda Vaccaro
I wonder if the references are reliable to verify data. --George Ho (talk) 13:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Keith Michael Patrick O'Brien
Cardinal O'Brien's recent statement on gay marriage is being used in the article and on the talk page to label him in ways not in the sources. Anyone think I should rev/del? Dougweller (talk) 18:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep - the use of talk pages and BLPs for social agendas where the "problem" is that a church leader supports the teachings of his church should be pretty much a "D'oh" type of claim. IMHO, "O'Brien supports the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church regarding homosexuality" would be quite sufficient if, indeed, any mention is necessary. Collect (talk) 14:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Scott Spear Arrest BLP check
Just checking. Is the following addition to Julius West Middle School OK? I moved the reference from the bottom of the page to a more appropriate place. diff Wanted to make sure that the reporting of the arrest is appropriate. Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 01:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not in my opinion. There is no conviction, I don't see that the accusation warrants an entry, especially one so long. Removed for now. Kevin (talk) 02:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)