Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive148

Nelufar Hedayat
Major attention needed in the 'Background' section of Nelufar Hedayat article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.116.132 (talk) 12:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * - Seems to have been resolved and a recent single addition from a New York IP has been oversighted - the user may well return - please add to your watchlist - thanks - You  really  can  19:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I just checked the article and all's quiet. No BLPN issues since the oversite of the New York IP. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Lidia Bastianich
The edits made to the Personal Life section of the Lidia Bastianich article on 18 February 2012 describe a lawsuit alleging perpetration of slavery. These allegations are unsourced and are potentially libelous. Diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lidia_Bastianich&diff=prev&oldid=477596634 chinkleDC (talk) 03:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes - I have removed them: per WP:BLP policy, you could have done the same thing yourself, but thank you for bringing it to our attention - I've watchlisted the article. As to whether this issue deserves mention in the article if properly sourced, I think we will have to see how it is reported elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It's been a few days since Andy's edit and no one has added the BLPN material back in. This BLPN request appears to have been resolved. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Glenn Spencer
Looking at the recent changes, it seems some OR, etc was removed a while ago, but it's suddenly been restored (with criticism removed). See the diff here. Clearly needs attention but I don't have time. Dougweller (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The article appears BLPN OK per Youreallycan and Collect's edits as of this edit. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Francis Muthaura
Reading this article, the language seemed too glorifying of the subject. Checking the history showed large additions in Feb 2012 by user:Pnkoroi, with the majority of the text being WP:COPYVIO from Muthaura's own website http://www.muthaura.co.ke/profile.html. I have rolled back to before this users edits, but there were some actual edits that contained updated news of Muhtauras political career and ongoing trial at the International Criminal Court, however they were unreferenced. Perhaps a more competent editor that myself can fix/update the article? regards 94.195.187.69 (talk) 00:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Any BLPN issues appear to have been resolved via edits and the article appears BLPN OK as of this edit. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Andy Byford
Please note: I was not born in Plymouth. I grew up there. Thanks. Andy Byford — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.29.129 (talk) 01:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for alerting us to this error. Since one of the sources used in the article makes clear that you grew up there, but specifically doesn't say you were born there, I have fixed this to "grew up in" instead of "was born in".


 * Incidentally, the article does not currently have a photo of you, because Wikipedia cannot use ordinary press release photos and similar. Do you own the rights to a photo of you that you would be willing to license freely? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Andy. Tell you what. If you (or someone who took photos of you) uploads a photo or three (childhood, school, present, for example) to Wikimedia Commons for use in the article, I'll rewrite the article and give it much more detail. If that sounds like it would work for you, please post my talk page. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Assuming, that is, that such material can be verified by independent reliable sources and conforms to Biographies of living persons policy. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Jesse Kalisher
This page is cribbed entirely from the subject's personal website, presumably from the subject himself: http://www.kalisher.com/about.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.211.201.140 (talk) 16:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Deleted as a copyvio.--ukexpat (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

List of California public officials charged with crimes

 * - Now nominated for deletion discussion -

I have serious problems with this--in fact, I'm kind of shocked we have this. Not "convicted," but "charged," and there's plenty who are still alive. There has been some discussion on the talk page (and a proposal to move it to that title, "convicted," making the appropriate cuts), and just about the only argument I could find there for this article is "they're public officials." That argument comes from the article's main editor, User:GeorgeLouis. I will notify them of this discussion, but I want to have this discussed here, on this board, because the article's talk page doesn't see a lot of traffic. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 02:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't know if you've seen this discussion on a similar article, result there was an Afd and bye-bye. The Interior  (Talk) 03:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I'm actually more interested in a kind of "move and trim" operation than deletion, but I'm glad to see that there's precedent. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 03:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Support at least the removal of 'charged' individuals, and moving the article to 'convicted public officials'. One is partial to the above precedent, and wonders if such lists constitute a synthesis of original research. Eh, probably no such luck.... 99.156.65.73 (talk) 03:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've just blanked the entire article - it is as gross a violation of WP:BLP as one could imagine: it provides no source other than links to our articles - and we can't cite ourself as a source. How the hell can anyone seriously think this sort of thing is acceptable? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, on further inspection, it does seem to be providing some sources - including acquittals. In any case, the whole article is a monstrous heap of policy violations. I ask all who give a damn about Wikipedia policy to ensure that the article remains blanked (as WP:BLP will require) until it is deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I have a great deal of angst at the thought that there are no sources, and I would certainly like to know what policy forbids the reporting of facts. I refer you to the pertinent comments on the Talk Page. I might add that this page has been getting more than a hundred hits every day, so it certainly has high interest. I also am offended at the use of cursing in this venue. Thank you very much. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Have you actually read WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:OR or indeed any of the numerous other Wikipedia policies this 'article' violates? As for your complaints about cursing, I'll refrain from adding the obvious response. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The traffic is pretty high (http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/List_of_California_public_officials_charged_with_crimes), but of course if there is any given item that offends WP policy, then I'm sure it can be easily corrected. Sincerely, still your pal, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * What the heck has website traffic got to do with violations of policy? WP:BLP policy is entirely clear: we don't compile lists of non-notable individuals because they are involved in crimes - and even less so when they have only been charged - or worse, when the have been acquitted? And since when is the fact that "Supervisor <-redacted, out of common decency->, indicted for rendering and collecting fraudulent claims against the county for road work on Union Avenue" of any relevance to Wikipedia, even if said supervisor hadn't been acquitted? The whole thing stinks of some sort of attempt to portray the California political system as corrupt - through original research. Maybe it is - but we don't engage in primary research ourselves to prove it - particularly if such 'proof' involves dragging those found guilty of nothing whatsoever through the mud. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

NOTE: WP:BLP policy is still violated in this article - given that the AfD is undoubtedly going to close as delete, can I ask an admin to speedy close it to prevent further violations AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I second this call. -- The Red Pen of Doom  17:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What's the emergency? The article is going to be deleted in due course, perhaps by SNOW.  Somewhere we should make it clear that lists of people accused of things is not a suitable subject for the encyclopedia.  BLP isn't chicken little.  For goodness sake, please follow process. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, what does it matter that some people who were only accused of crimes have their names drawn through the mud for a few more days while the bueuracracy runs its course. -- The Red Pen of Doom  18:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It does not much matter, the criminal accusations are a matter of public record as it is and we aren't going to diminish or enhance that either way. You've already edit warred to blank the article, and if your latest reversion sticks it isn't even an issue.  Not every BLP matter is an emergency requiring us to set off the fire sprinklers and run down the halls screaming. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ❌ BLP is not currently violated in this list as the list has been blanked. The discussion is not complete and should be allowed to continue its course. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 18:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that the article in question has been blanked and unblanked several times, the fact that at the moment BLP policy isn't being violated seems rather beside the point... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for allowing the discussion to continue. Once all of the entries were sourced, I do not believe that the list violated BLP or any other policy.  In fact, it is the repeated blanking or all or almost all of the article during the AfD that seems to be a violation of WP:DELETE.--Hjal (talk) 23:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And once again, we have evidence of a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy - that something is sourced (or at least potentially sourceable) is a necessary requirement for inclusion in an article - but it is never a sufficient one. We can, and do, exclude lots of reliably-sourced material all the time - mostly because it simply isn't encyclopaedic. Wikipedia isn't a repository for everything, and we make decisions on what we include based on a community consensus regarding what this project is supposed to be about - and judging from the AfD discussion, there seems to be little doubt that this list isn't what Wikipedia is for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Burt Bacharach
burt bacharach was not in bruce almighty as stated — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.51.201 (talk) 05:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, if he was, I can't find any evidence for it - and there was no citation in the article. I've removed it. Thanks for pointing this out. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Pierre Bonhomme
No source is listed regarding any information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter.tarnopol (talk) 15:08, 20 March 2012‎ (UTC)


 * Yep, it's terrible, but too old to BLP-PROD. I've reverted to a better version, but obviously sources need to be added. Drmies (talk) 18:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll note the subject appears to be editing this article. I don't think we need WP:COIN, but this may indicate the article needs BLP attention for a bit longer. JFHJr (㊟) 02:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've stubbed the article. I removed unsourced claims that were either questionable or of questionable significance. I also gutted the lead because most of it wasn't discussed anywhere. And left a note at talk. JFHJr (㊟) 01:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Philip Lieberman
Would anyone here have time to have a look at Philip Lieberman and help clean the article up? I came across this when considering adding a citation from one of his books to an article, and I wondered if we had an article on the author of the book I was about to cite. I wouldn't normally bring this here, but I don't have time to do this myself right now and I did notice that the most recent edit (15 March) was by an editor with a single contribution who appears to be the subject of the article (the single edit started "Please change the basic biographical material because what's presently there is incorrect )Philip Lieberman, wikipedia userID Pleiberm"), and then added other material (maybe pasted from his webpage?). It's been sitting there for five days since that edit was made, so it would be nice to get that tidied up. Carcharoth (talk) 01:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Noting here that I managed to deal with this myself. Hopefully the article is OK now. Is there a better place (like a WikiProject or noticeboard dealing with unsourced or poorly sourced BLPs, as opposed to active disputes) to go to for things like this in future? Carcharoth (talk) 06:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Gabriel Cousens, again
A question for you all: take your pick between this version and this version. Please look carefully at the sources and consider what we consider to be reliable sources for BLPs. Look at the lead and the division into sections and consider what the MOS says. Drmies (talk) 14:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've stubbed the article while this discussion is ongoing. I would like to note the possibility that there is a middle-ground approach which is neither too detailed or too short, is still balanced, and uses sources which are reliable for the specific instances of material they support. Ocaasit &#124; c 15:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, please consider WP:WEIGHT issues related to the Charles Levy incident section. Ocaasit &#124; c 15:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You're obfuscating. You keep claiming that "there is too much controversy" when I told you that I don't care about how long the controversy is. The problem with the article is not that there is too much controversy: the problem is that there is not enough material that derives from reliable sources to make a decent article long enough to suit your fancy. This version that you produced here, I'm fine with it--though I wonder why you had to choose a non-English reference whose reliability is doubtful, why you couldn't just pick this source or this source, whose authority is unquestionable. But I know why that is: you want the reference that says he is a world-famous guru, the only reference that might be reliable that says he is a world-famous guru. Not the impeccable references that suggest he might be a quack. Drmies (talk) 16:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You have very quickly turned this into a mess of accusations and bad faith. You might not know that I wrote the entire article from scratch.  I was the one who researched and wrote the full controversy section.  I also included the criticism from Sciencebasedmedicine.org.  I argued strongly for the inclusion of the controversy section, over objections from other editors as well as from Cousens' office.  So, I think you are getting off on the wrong foot here.   There decision to choose rollingstone over phoenix new times was because the content is uncontroversial, and a stub should be uncontroversial.   Would you consider trying again to discuss this civilly? Ocaasit &#124; c 17:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no desire to respond to loaded questions. BTW, Sciencebasedmedicine.org is also not a reliable source. Drmies (talk) 19:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Either the first version, the stub, or deletion. Wikipedia is not a billboard. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Carlos Cortiglia

 * - Carlos Cortiglia

BLP candidate standing for london mayor 2012 - he as yet appears not notable for his own bio - can someone have a look at the what imo is some kind of undue reporting of a complete non event - le nation a Spanish published an interview in 2003 and thelondonist interpretated the interview and accused him of fighting for Argentina and later retracted http://londonist.com/2011/09/bnp-picks-mayoral-candidate.php - apart from this there isn't even reliable reporting of the non event, and he didn't ever fight for Argentina - it seems totally undue to me - excessive quotations and asserting something unspoken? You really  can  19:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

John Demjanjuk
A discussion has broken out on the talkpage of this article if Mr. Demjanjuk should be labeled a "Nazi" in the lead (while he was never a Nazi party member) of the article (I think that is not neutral wording and/since articles about similar persons as Mr. Demjanjuk are not labeled "Nazi's" in there leads (which is very neutral)). I would like some outside comments on this. —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  22:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see he was a Nazi - he was a Ukrainian camp guard - Nazi camp guard - and would not even have been allowed into the party - however he has also recently expired and is not a living person so its a bit beyond the scope of this noticeboard. - Nazi has become a catch all meaningless word. You  really  can  22:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you're right on all counts T'oucan. And there's no Nazi like a dead Nazi, is there. But we seem to be stuck with WP:RSs. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The same RS (like BBC News) who state he was a Ukrainian camp guard also state he was a Nazi.... Nazi has become an all meaningless word indeed.... Which is worrying... —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  22:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What we see in that discussion is a desire among some editors to set aside what is in the sources about him. Ten points for guessing what weight we should give to your own opinions about what makes someone a Nazi.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I had always imagined that all the guards at the Treblinka and Sobibor wore a uniform, probably a Nazi uniform. But I guess not. Regardless, for me, he became a Nazi by association, whether he had a little cardboard membership card or not. But my personal opinions count for nothing here. And I suppose it is worrying that the word "Nazi" gets, in some way, diluted by over-use. A kind of paradox. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I was just wondering how careful an Wikipedia editor should be with the word "Nazi". But I am well aware of Ignore all rules. To be honest I am not sure if I would call him a Nazi, that depends if he liked his work (i.o.w. he had antisemitic/Nazistic views) as a guard or not (if he did like it for me he also is a Nazi by association)... But he was silent in is trail about this... So we will never know.... —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  23:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think editors should be very careful that they are summarizing sources accurately with every edit, especially with something as inflammatory as calling someone a Nazi. Why not say he was a guard at a Nazi death camp? That's accurate and it makes it clear what his affiliation was. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Tony_Savo
This entry is based on serious misrepresentations of fact and having it on Wikipedia provides a dangerous potential to legitimize and perpetuate these detrimental misrepresentations

- It links to Coalition_Fight_Music this company expelled the subject in September of 2011. The seriousness of the matter is recorded in legal action; judgment was held in favor of the party opposing the subject of this biography - "Coalition Fight Music" is a trademarked name registered to an individual not matching this entry - This entry dangerously misrepresents the subject as "CEO" in addition to other titles of authority, it also makes false claims of current involvement with company which do not exist. - Any references listed to support the facts of this entry suggesting any current relationship of the subject and "Coalition Fight Music" or "The Coalition, LLC" are the result of misrepresentations asserted by the source. - A simple check reveals that the source of information posted by the webpages (listed as references) come from "Tony Savo." The references listed for this entry are written by the subject of this entry in violation of the entire policy of Wikipedia governing accuracy of entries. The misrepresentations in the references can be easily traced back to the subject of this entry being the source of the misrepresentations. - Misrepresentations are pervasive throughout the entry, they are the focus of the entry and are in fact the basis of its creation - The misrepresentations made on this page are very serious and very damaging to a legitimate company that has taken great efforts to prevent further damage caused by dishonesty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AwayEnter (talk • contribs) 06:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This article, Tony Savo was nominated for deletion by the above editor, but they did only step one. I've completed the nomination and used the above post as a rationale. I posted this there as well: I would recommend that the nominator produce sources that contradict the facts of the article, and thus confirm that the inaccuracies noted (above) are indeed present; It is well and good to question the facts of the matter, but simply contending that they're not accurate (when they appear to be sourced) is usually not be sufficient to justify deletion. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 12:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * At least as of March 3, 2012 Savo was interviewed in a Fat Ninja Media podcast, and on March 4th he was also interviewed on the MMA2Day Show as being from Coalition Fight Music or as being CFM CEO/Producer of Coalition Fight Music.  In addition Coalition Fight Music's official website lists Savo as being a member and MMA Pundit has a March 7, 2012 announcement from Coalition Fight Music with Savo taking the lead and a photo of Savo at the recent event.    I have been unable to find any online evidence of Savo/Statecyde being sued by Coalition Fight Music/The Coalition, of Savo/Statecyde being publicly enjoined not to claim he's associated with CFM or indeed of any legal action between Savo/Statecyde and CFM. Shearonink (talk) 13:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Shooting of Trayvon Martin
No specific actions by a particular editor to report here, but as an "in the news" item with BLP concerns it probably could use some additional eyes (not to mention expansion). VQuakr (talk) 03:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * To get extra eyes on the article, perhaps post a request at Administrators' noticeboard to place the article on an admin's watch list. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that's not what AN is for. A call for eyes here is a good idea. If vandalism starts happening from multiple sources, consider asking for protection at WP:RPP. Drmies (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Drmies. I'll help watch. JFHJr (㊟) 22:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to follow up, I think relevant BLP issues at hand in any new article centered on homicide include WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP1E, WP:BLPCRIME, WP:N/CA, and WP:VICTIM/WP:PERP. Right next to these pertinent guidelines is WP:BREAKING. I trust those who volunteer at this noticeboard to know principles, look for problems when asked, and even keep an eye on things overall. While there may not yet be a particular issue stated by the OP, this noticeboard is very much a place to request a watch, and to bring up any issues the talk page doesn't resolve. I also trust the OP or any other editor will bring a more specific issue on this article if one arises. JFHJr (㊟) 05:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Karen S. Davis


I hadn't heard of Karen S. Davis until an hour or so ago when I saw the article on her linked from an article I watch. When I arrived at her article, it gave the impression of being amply sourced. Trouble is, all the claimed sources I've so far looked at or attempted to look at have fallen into one or other of the following classes:


 * impossible to find online (which itself is perfectly acceptable)
 * obscurely described (so I don't know what's meant by the reference)
 * with links to pages that don't mention Davis

I've spent enough of my time to form my own impression that this article is a confection of factual claims that, where significant, are unsourced.

A look at its history shows that "Karen S. Davis" is the work of a close-to-SPA. The article cites a letter to the biographee (with no mention of its publication) and in other ways strongly suggests to me that it is actually an autobiography of some kind.

Time and energy willing, I could go through the rest of the links, and I suspect that if I did so I'd delete or question a lot more than the nine or so I've deleted or questioned so far. But I think I've spent more than enough of my own time on this person. Other editors here are most welcome either to continue my work or (better, of course) to demonstrate that my suspicions are unfounded and that this is a person whose significant achievements are reliably sourced. -- Hoary (talk) 04:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Cusop Dingle kindly did more work on the article, which in turn encouraged me to do more on it. As I looked further into it, my opinion of it did not improve. (Well, it has been worse. Here's how it started.) Other eyeballs would be welcome. -- Hoary (talk) 09:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hoary - Is there any particular potential Biographies of living persons violation you are concerned with? I looked at the article and my concern is with all the numerous "citations needed" tags. Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires inline citations only for any material challenged or likely to be challenged. Overuse of the "citation needed" template can give an impression that factually true statements about living person Karen S. Davis are false or that innocuous statements are instead offensive. Also, what was the basis to conclude that down stream, end of sentence reference didn't support the mid-sentence information or that a reference at the end of sentence #2 doesn't support sentence #1 and sentence #2 or that the reference at the end of sentence #3 doesn't support sentence #1, 2, and 3? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I added several of those cn tags myself, and I am concerned only that the information be verified. In this case the alternative to tagging is immediate deletion, and I am inclined to delete an awful lot of this material as unverified and promotional: if UG is concerned about the impression given, perhaps they would like to do this themselves?  I see no evidence currently that this person is notable in any way.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 09:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Our concern should be with proper sourcing. Statements that appear to individual editors as innocuous might be offensive to the BLP subject; if they are also false (i.e., not verified to be true), then they don't belong in the article.  If the person is not notable (with evidence supporting the claims that amount to notability), then the article should be deleted.  Really, UzmaGamal, this shouldn't require explanation.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This noticeboard is to address particular issues listed in Biographies of living persons. I agree that the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Header for this notice board could be improved to clarify that. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me quote WP:BLP. After markup-stripping: Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to [...] Wikipedia's three core content policies [of which the second is] Verifiability. I have so far been unable to verify almost any of the content that is specifically about her. I do understand that she has a photobook put out by a publisher of fiction, and a self-published CD, but that's about it. Perhaps you, or somebody else, can do better than I can. WP:BLP also refers the reader to Resolution:Biographies of living people, which states that articles that are overly promotional in tone [...] have no place in our projects. Generally, the Wikimedia community protects the projects well against this common problem by deleting or improving hagiographies. This article strikes me as promotional and I invite you or others either to help make it less so or to consider the alternative, more drastic solution. And you are of course free to tell me that a lack of verifiability and the promotional tone are figments of my imagination. -- Hoary (talk) 11:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite so. "Be very firm about the use of high quality sources".  Cusop Dingle (talk) 12:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have removed much unsourced material. It was a judgment call what to leave in with tags and what to out-and-out remove. If anything, I should have removed more. I suspect she's barely notable, and our article is mainly an extension of her website.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Now at AfD. Drmies (talk) 01:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Joan Ryan
It would appear that the subject of the meme has iteratively redacted information from the meme herself, in clear breach of NPOV. She is relatively unknown and has no notable events associated with her (Redacted), I am left wondering whether the meme has any inherent justification other than listing a representative, adequately done in the listings without any need for a meme. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.143.24 (talk) 16:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you call her a "meme"; nor is the slam (which I've redacted). Nothing particularly wrong with the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Mohnish Bahl (Behl)

 * - Mohnish Bahl (Behl).  Controversies

The controversies surrounding Mr. Mohnish Bahl departure from a TV series has been riddled with gossip by the television news media and carried to the newspapers. Mr. Bahl had posted problems with his back several weeks before the departure and this was confirmed by Ms. Sneha Rajani, VP of of Balaji Telefilms. Regardless of the reasons for leaving a series, libellous content and gossip should not be posted in Wikipedia under the biography of a living person. I have not seen this tab for any other artist posted on Wikipedia. I request that the tab of controversies be removed from Mr. Bahl's Wikipedia biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.111.4.51 (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I removed the controversy section - diff - edit summary, remove - facebook is not a correct reliable location to cite such titillative gossip - You  really  can  16:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The 'Controversies' section maintained a neutral POV. I had cited a news report that appeared in the Bombay Times. The section was removed by User:Youreallycan without gathering consensus for deletion of the section on the article's talk page. I strongly oppose this deletion and request that the action be rolled back and that the user post a dispute notice on the talk page. Centaur81 (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you please post the reliable citations here that you want to use to support your desired addition so that users can investigate - You  really  can  17:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-02-29/tv/31110036_1_mohnish-behl-source-romantic-scenes Centaur81 (talk) 18:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Another report which appeared in the Bombay Times print edition on 29 February 2012 of which I cannot post a link here due to technical limitations, can be found by accessing The Times of India ePaper portal http://epaper.timesofindia.com/index.asp or by researching and crosschecking the printed newspaper of 29 February 2012 which can still be easily sourced. Centaur81 (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah thanks - the unnamed sources claimed this and that next to the mature dating add doesn't set me on fire as regards quality source. - it says, "the buzz is" - what is that? Gossip, the buzzzz. As your desired addition included the facebook content - and that is not reliable, can you please post what you want to include here for users to investigate.  You  really  can  18:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Since the 'controversy' did exist, I have felt the need to mention it in the section 'Life and work'. I don't think this is as contentious as issue as is being made out to be. My views have been expressed as non-POV and neutral having cited two different reports in two independent newspapers as well as Mr. Bahl's own stated reason. Since Mr. Bahl hasn't yet been public about the real reason for his exist we assume that he quit due a bad back. This has been included by me in the new paragraph. Centaur81 (talk) 07:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I request that before the new paragraph introduced by me is deleted, a dispute/NPOV tag be added to the page or section. Let other editors check for NPOV. Centaur81 (talk) 08:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I had cited another article from the Deccan Herald http://www.deccanchronicle.com/channels/showbiz/tv-guide/mohnish-will-be-back-sony-949 which was removed by I don't know who. This can be confirmed if one checks the article's revision history around 2-3 March 2012. Centaur81 (talk) 08:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

David Daniels
I had something in there about my pen name of David Daniels. I do have copywrited books out and someone decided that I should be deleated because I am a person. EVERYONE on that listing is a person. What aren't they deleated?????

David Daniels Author), A character in three books © by Bryan Beckmann in 2011. Bryan was born in 1966 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.225.22 (talk) 22:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Removed; see Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages; hyperlinked articles are listed; where no article yet exists but notability is supported in a separate article, an entry may be added in advance. Dru of Id (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Roli Delgado - Black Belt was NOT received in Brazil
Roli Delgado told me face to face that "I called Mexico after the seminar and they told me I can have my BlackBelt". Roli is not legit, never has been. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.237.212.151 (talk) 03:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Given the almost complete lack of cited sources in the article, you could be right - but we are supposed to base articles on independent published reliable sources, rather than statements of contributors. On the other hand, without a proper source that says that he does have a black belt, we could legitimately remove it, I suppose. I think I'll need to look into this further - or find someone who knows more about the subject to. Thanks for drawing our attention to the article though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've cleaned up the article and found refs for the black belt and other facts.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 17:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Carl Gustaf Ehrnrooth
The material on Carl Gustaf Ehrnrooth page seems to be semi-slanderous or at least under-sourced Jztinfinity (talk) 00:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks to me like it was created as an attack page and I've requested speedy deletion (G10).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Angana P. Chatterji
Hi, looking for more eyes on this article, to help with tone, word choice, and citations checking. There have been a couple not-quite-civil comments in the edit summaries and discussions have been somewhat sparse, so I would be happy to have more editors help keep the space constructive. I'm hoping to find others that are familiar with Chatterji's work to help polish up the quality of the article. Pointers and suggestions welcome as well. Thank you. Torren (talk) 06:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Sumunumus




Please take a look. This article seems to be BLP, quite possibly an autobiography, of James Maurice Hurt, Jr. I recommended a move to some form of his name as title. I wrote a longer explanation of my concerns on the talkpage, but ran into "edit conflict" when waxing expansive here. The article is quite informative, if somewhat unencyclopedic, tending to laundry-list style and pamphleteering, liner-note style, but when I tried some minor copyedits a month ago, they were immediately reverted. This seems to be a case of a single author jealously guarding "their" article from anyone else's input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.178.10 (talk) 08:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This article needs serious attention. First of all, its creator, Wk36963, had redirected both their user page and their user talk page to the article and its talk page, . I've corrected that, but now find that there is a duplicate of the article at User:Sumunumus. Wk36963 stopped editing on January 3, 2012. Sumunumus registered their account the same day and with their first edit copied the article to their user page. I've tagged it for multiple issues. Its style is completely unencyclopedic. It is full of personal details which are unpublished anywhere. It has no real sources, just external links to videos and trivial mentions, although there is much better material out there to source at least some of this. Note that the YouTube uploader of the linked videos is "sumunumus". Other than that, there is no indication whatsoever as to why this article should be titled "Sumunumus". I'm going to move it to the name he is professionally known by, "James Hurt". Voceditenore (talk) 14:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think I know what happened. From this edit summary: "moved User:Wk36963 to Sumunumus: Starting a new user page", it's possible that this was inadvertantly moved into article space, i.e. Sumunumus, rather than to User:Sumunumus. - Voceditenore (talk) 14:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've proposed deletion as an entirely unsourced BLP. Verbose promotion of a non-notable individual. JFHJr (㊟) 04:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The PROD was removed by someone who found "reliable sources" that are clearly not substantially about the subject, except for an interview, which can never serve as a yardstick for notability. I removed the unsourced autobiographical drivel because it was overly promotional, quite WP:UNDUE (chronicling high school and college achievements not covered by anyone anywhere), and involved claims about living and dead third parties. This article should probably be taken to AfD, but I'd like input from other BLPN regulars before I proceed. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 23:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've nominated for deletion. JFHJr (㊟) 18:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Emily Ovenden
I have never heard of this person. I think being part of a little known group hardly qualifies. Fom what I can gather on the internet, the book mentioned was privately published.

Any opinions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.92.254 (talk) 18:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, an encyclopaedia is precisely for the things you haven't heard of ... but I think the question is Is Emily Ovenden notable? in the Wikipedia sense of notability. That would be a question to discuss on the article talk page or at Notability/Noticeboard.  You might like to consult the general notability guidelines and entertainer and creative people special guidelines first.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * To make it a little quicker, it looks like she has been in a classical music group that sold 0.5 million CDs and a rock group that is less successful but has received reasonably widespread media coverage (and has a WP article). So, she is notable, and she also avoids exclusion under WP:BAND. FormerIP (talk) 19:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

POV pushing at Jacques Cheminade
Some IPs and a SPA are pushing 2 unsourced false claims : I have added a reliable source by a specialist in French constitutional law in a peer-reviewed publication with quotes of the rulings. Neutral attention to the matter would be welcome. Thanks, &mdash;&thinsp;Racconish&thinsp;Tk 19:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Loans by private individual to candidates are admitted in French presidential campaigns (which is false); they further claim such loans should be interest free (which is precisely why loans are forbidden). See here for example.
 * An "expert" consulted by a Sunday newspaper has supported Cheminade's claims, when the reported opinion is on civil (i.e. not electoral) law and the European Court of Justice has ruled the matter is not civil.

WP:Paid Operatives & Conflict of interest editing
These two essays include claims about living persons (one of whom is a Wikipedia editor in good standing) with quite pointed language, and without reliable sourcing as required for contentious claims about any living person on any page whatsoever on Wikipedia - including userspace, projectspace and mainspace etc. The query is - are "essays" exempt from the absolute requirements of WP:BLP? If not - can s0meone please work on cleaning them up - I only marked one, but clearly most of the named living people are, in fact, living people per BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Christoher-Lee dos Santos
Hi,

I am the talent agent representing the Artist Christopher-Lee dos Santos and we have noticed the wiki page dedicated to Christopher-lee dos Santos has numerous false entries regarding our client. We as a talent agency are out to protect our artists best interests and we see that a number of incorrect additions/quotes have been placed on our artist's wiki page.

There is no proof of our client saying any of the quotes on this page and it is deformation of character.

We recommend the page be edited at once.

Thank you for your time,

SA Talent Group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SAtalentAgency (talk • contribs) 01:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Defamation," not deformation. While Dos Santos may have removed many parts of his blog since the Wiki article was created, I do have screen captures from when those statements were made and printed on his blog, so yes, there is proof of his "making those quotes."  Statements about "a very biased fan on the loose who is out to exact revenge" are just silly; revenge for what?  The article was written in a neutral tone and only includes quotes from critics and Dos Santos himself, and the page also includes quite a bit of other information about his work.  Even if those quotes from Dos Santos himself were removed, the reviews are still legitimate as are his quotes given to news sources.Bobbyandbeans (talk) 01:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Eternity (2010 South African film) has some of the same issues, and has also been created by User:Bobbyandbeans, just as Christopher-Lee Dos Santos was. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * SAtalentAgency, is DSfilms.blogspot.com Dos Santos's blog? Ian.thomson (talk) 02:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Jack Klugman
Should the below entry be added back: "In 1999, Klugman discussed undergoing surgery to correct erectile dysfunction, where he received a penile implant, with TV Guide. "I'm not ashamed of that. It's a medical thing, a surgery that is done millions of times. But there's all this humorous ridiculing and silliness that goes along with it," he said.

NEWSMAKERS: Pikachu – Misunderstood or Potty-Mouthed?. Hollywood.com (1999-12-31). Retrieved on 2011-07-31." --George Ho (talk) 08:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Giving things a cursory read, I don't have the impression that passage is of any enduring biographical or encyclopedic significance, though the fact seems pretty readily verifiable. The same can be said for several other passages still in in the current version. Here, the quote in particular lends to undue weight, drawing out discussion but giving no clear meaning to its inclusion. Compare the mentions of Viagra in the Bob Dole BLP for when something like this is more clearly significant (and to the point of quoting). JFHJr (㊟) 19:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * To imply, should such content be removed or left as it is? If removed, which ones? --George Ho (talk) 04:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Philip DeFranco
A couple of days ago, an anonymous editor changed the article subject's name, with a ref to a WHOIS report. Following the policies on WP:BLP, I reverted the additions, however another IP added another ref. I'm very skeptical about these edits, I would like other editor's opinions on this. --   Luke      (Talk)   01:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Considering the subject, I think the current source is alright for his name. Seems that the source is reasonably reliable, and that it's information from an interview. JFHJr (㊟) 01:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Do we have to consider the subject? The second source (whois record) should be removed as a primary source.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ha, well, sometimes a little . I was thinking that when the subject is an apparent youtube phenomenon, the bloggy section of otherwise respectable news reporting is to be expected. Simply to report his name, the source is probably acceptable. I've removed whois. JFHJr (㊟) 02:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Alternate source for name has been found, which is an article from The Baltimore Sun, which is reliable. Original whois source removed and now made redundant, so point now moot.--Alizaa2 (talk) 16:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Paula Wagner
The photo on the page is not of Paula Wagner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Polk (talk • contribs) 14:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * How do you know? I'm not good at this sort of thing, but, after all, this is Hollywood, and who knows what anyone really looks like?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I can confirm that there is an OTRS ticket that makes the editor's complaint above appear legitimate. In addition, although the appearance is similar, other images don't quite match (see this confirmed image for example). --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The image you note is the image I saw most often on the web, and it certainly looks more conservative than the image in the article, but I tried to focus on the features and couldn't be sure. Again, I'm bad at this, so I'll let others decide.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * As it's in doubt - and looking at the picture and the rest of the google returns - it does seem doubtful to me - I have removed it, better out than in unless we are certain its her. - Here is the picture at commons for users to compare with the google search returns. You really  can  21:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Back to my point about Hollywood, the key question is not whether it's her but whether it looks good. Kidding, of course, I agree with your reasoning.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have never understood why we don't seem to apply our core policy of verifiability to pictures. Here we read "Unsourced contentious material about living people must be removed immediately. This policy applies to all material in the mainspace" (my emphasis).  The picture was clearly unsourced, since this is not a reliable source, and contentious.  We do not decide by our own discussion what the truth is -- we go by what independent reliable sources say.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me to apply the policy to a challenged image, but I wouldn't want to go so far as to insist on inline sources for all images (I interpret policy to require sources for all assertions in all articles, not just "challenged" assertions).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't require that images come from reliable sources in the first place (WP:IUP), so it makes no sense to require that they carry a citation. The origin of any image is specified on the file page. FormerIP (talk) 22:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Just because IUP doesn't list "reliable source" as a requirement doesn't necessarily mean the encylopedia doesn't require verifiability of anything in an article. The absence of such a requirement in IUP can't trump the statements in the verifiability policy. In practice, of course, we don't "cite" images in articles, but I could easily see someone saying we should. This is all somewhat abstract because the image has been challenged and removed, and we're really just discussing Cusop Dingle's point in a broader sense.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not just that the policy doesn't explicitly require an RS, it's that it explicitly permits use of images that are not from an RS. The vast majority of our images are user-created or found, appropriately licensed, on the Internet (most usually from Flickr or something else that is not an RS). If there is an error in the description of any of those images, it can only realistically be dealt with by someone noticing it. FormerIP (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * appears to confirm it - it links back to Luke Ford (see the youtube link at the bottom) suggesting he is reliable for the claim that this is Paula Wagner. I would say like Bbb23 facially these are the same person ( a little weight difference, eyebrows shaped, hair styled differently) but eyes, nose, mouth and bne structure areidentical. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 00:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The image is disputed here and there is a valid OTRS ticket confirming the disputed nature of the image. If Luke Ford misidentified the subject we should not replicate the error here. Under WP:BLP this is enough to remove the image until it can be confirmed as a true representation of the subject. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  00:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm comforted to know, that per Stuart, my visual abilities aren't as bad as I thought they were. However, I agree with Ponyo that we must err on the side of caution.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

There's no way it's her. There's a few other pictures of the mystery woman here. Google for images of Wagner or flick between this picture of Wagner taken a week prior to ours and this one. Case closed, IMO. FormerIP (talk) 01:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh, All in the Family; you're not supposed to add IMO after "case closed" - they're mutually exclusive. :-) Wagner was honored at the same event as the mystery woman. Sure wouuld be nice if there were captions on that website for the mystery woman. Didn't they know we would have this issue?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Stifle yourself! I think you mean Till Death Us Do Part, not that I get the reference you are making.
 * I guess it would be all round marvellous if we could actually identify our mystery woman and put the picture on her article, but I'm not sure I fancy our chances. FormerIP (talk) 02:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Archie used to say case closed . Then, when Edith got more assertive in the show, she started using the phrase to Archie, as did Gloria. I've never seen Till Death Us Do Part.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose "case closed" is probably an Americanisation of "stands to reason, dunnit?", which is what Alf Garnett used to say. FormerIP (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * - Yes, it's clearly not her - I have nominated the picture for deletion discussion at Commons - Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Paula_Wagner.JPG - You  really  can  07:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Apparently the former image has now been removed from the German Wiki as well. I'm glad to see that we have a photo of the right person now. Lithoderm 03:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Ronjohn and LoLa Monroe
Just came across this, Ron has been repeatedly adding to the Lola page that she was previously a stripper, his only references being to himself, and a rather questionable youtube video of somebody who is not the subject and which itself makes note of the inaccuracies within the interview. This has apparently going on for a long time:, , , , , and a bit of edit warring the last few days. I would appreciate it if someone could deal with Ron, who doesn't seem to get it--Jac 16888 Talk 00:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've reverted his latest restoration of the material and left a warning on his Talk page. In addition to violating BLP, he's close to violating WP:3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Since he has been restoring this content for over 3 years now, don't think 3RR really comes into it. And you have been reverted rather quickly by an anon --Jac <font color="Green">16888 Talk 00:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't fret too much, it was just as quickly reverted by yet another editor who watches this page. It'll sort itself out.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * How shocking, the IP was actually Ron, who forgot to log back in before coming to rant on my talk page . I would block this guy myself if I wasn't technically involved, would someone else please do the honours--<font color="Blue">Jac <font color="Green">16888 Talk 00:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

(←) This BLP's sourcing looks in poor shape at the moment. There two references are to www.lolamonroe.com and to sandrarosenews.blogspot.co.uk. The first of these redirects to Miss V Inc, a PR company; the second is a personal blog. Neither looks like a reliable source. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The citation to the blogspot source itself was a gross BLP violation, so I removed it (WP:BLPSPS, WP:NPOV, WP:RS). On a cursory search for references, I quickly found that swaths of the prose were actually WP:COPYVIOs. I retained some information that seemed supported in somewhat reliable sources. The magazine I found, Up and Coming, is blatantly promotional and not acceptable for any claims of significance or notability, but is probably alright to source info on the subject's early life. That said, the bigger claims are still entirely unsourced. JFHJr (㊟) 17:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Ken Behring
I just added a reference about a charitable donation that Ken Behring made, after I had noticed an inept addition by an IP editor. In reviewing the article, I am of the opinion that the "Controversies" section may give undue weight to criticism of Behring. Sexual harassment charges were settled out of court, and I think that there is too much attention devoted to criticism of his big game hunting. I would be grateful if other editors would take a look. I am a big fan of the Blackhawk Museum he founded, which displays his donated collection of classic cars, so perhaps I am not neutral on the matter.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  19:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Jonathan Parisen
The personal information section of the article on Jonathan Parisen is full of errors and false information. Parisen was never charged with being intoxicated and he was never given a test to prove whether or not he was in fact intoxicated. Parisen was not on a New York City Subway when the said event took place, it happened on Staten Island which doesn't have a subway. Steven Santiago was nowhere nearParisen when he was hit by the train and it is thought that he was looking to see if his train was coming when he was hit by a train coming in the oppsite direction. Santiago who was given a blood test at the hospital was intoxicated at the time of the event which likely caused his being hit by the train. It is rather disturbing to me that the NY Post is being used as a reference for this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.177.152 (talk) 01:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Jim Hawkins
The subject of the article Jim Hawkins (radio presenter) is very unhappy about it. If you're logged into Facebook, look here - he considers it the work of stalkers and is readying to "name and shame". The page's original creator flagged it on my talk page for attention. No actual details of the problematic content as yet, but certainly a serious once-over won't hurt - David Gerard (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been keeping an eye on this article for several years after previous complaints, and a few years ago did a full review of the article content (including verifiability etc). I think it is compliant. But it would be very good if somebody else could check again. I did try to work with subject to clarify the errors he felt it contained, but no information was ever forthcoming.
 * For years, the subject has been complaining about the article, errors, privacy intrusions etc, and in fact I recently realized that Jimbo himself courtesy blanked the talkpage back in 2006 for these exact reasons.
 * I would agree that the behaviour of one editor on this article has been problematic over a long period of time, and also that it could be considered bullying and harassment. I expressed my concerns in this recent thread on ANI . I think a topic ban might be in order, but I guess this is not the place for that.
 * At the same thread at ANI, other editors questioned whether we should go to AFD again. Hawkins' notability is not totally clear given the paucity of independent sources (he works for the BBC, so those aren't independent), coupled with the subject's longstanding objections to its existence. I am inclined to think that this may be the course to take at this point.--Slp1 (talk) 12:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Articles for Deletion is the way to go. Just leave the man in peace now, for Christ's sake. -- J N  466  20:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A few experienced users that have watched the issue unfold have said clearly they don't give a damn about the subjects wishes and that they assert the subject is just upset because they wouldn't let him add what he wanted and that they will support the articles existence till the cows come home - no matter what limited notability the subject has. (I added a bit of poetic license)- I supported deletion then, "Hes a radio host in the afternoon on such a station - yes, everyone that needs to know that already knows it. The loss to the educational mission of the project through the deletion of this bio would be zero.", and I support it now. The deletion discussion from over two years ago is quite revealing - 2009 AFD - The subject is talking on twitter and on his radio show about how the wikipedia article has detrimentally affected his health ... You  really  can  21:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Can somebody explain - just explain - if anybody did anything wrong about this article other than adding the month and day of a birthday based on a Twitter post and in apparent contradiction to one of the miscellaneous terms of WP:BLP? Some people make it sound like we had some kind of bully mob on the loose at Wikipedia, not one guy adding a couple of bytes of possibly truthful information.  What's the truth? Wnt (talk) 01:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you have it right; the only issue is that a possibly correct birthday was inserted and the subject does not want that in there. Talk about a tempest in a teapot. Binksternet (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Now at - Articles_for_deletion/Jim_Hawkins_(radio_presenter)

Eduardo Maruri
Eduardo Maruri's article has 2 defamatory articles I would hope to be removed. Since they are biased opinions of an angry soccer club fan. Strictly the onse that talk about Eduardo's Barcelona Sporting Club Presidency and Accused Of Corruption.

I tried editing but seem to be having trouble with the "edit summary" I give. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrechi (talk • contribs) 16:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The sections are adequately sourced, and Wikipedia is not censored. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * - I made a few removals and improvements. - You  really  can  17:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Chris Butler (private investigator)
I am the Carl Marino that is referenced in the article. Someone continues to change the article, writing libellous material about me. It is probably one of the "PI Moms" that were scorned when they lost their show. They also knew about the illegal activity, but did not come forward to report it as I did. I did not threaten, sabotage, or anything that they keep listing. I also did not, and have not lied about anything from the beginning and the DOJ and FBI stand by me and my actions. I would appreciate it if these people were not allowed to write damaging lies about me. Thanks.

Carl Marino — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.117.147.52 (talk) 20:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The article cites a large number of news sources for that section. Please demonstrate either that the article does not reflect those sources, or ask those news sources (of which we have no control) for retractions.  Ian.thomson (talk) 20:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've just read the current sources and I do not believe that the material being removed by 67.117.147.52 (talk) is supported by the references cited. The Dr. Phil ref does support the on-air badmouthing by Dr. Phil (which comes across as self-serving, to me) and an SF Chronicle story focusing on Marino questions his motives to some degree and mentions his desire to be on the TV show, but does not support the charges in the article.  All of this material has been added by User Kidrage01, who has made no other edits on WP. Finally, the lengthy information about Marino is WP:UNDUE in Butler's article.  If this content could be defended, most of it should be in it's own article on Marino, or all of it should be in an article about the corruption case and related people. BTW, I'm not a regular participant here and I have not previously seen or edited the Butler article. Hope I'm not raising extraneous issues.--Hjal (talk) 23:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not at all, your interpretation of the situation and investigations of the citations in comparison with the content is top notch, well done and welcome. All of User:Kidrage01's additions Special:Contributions/Kidrage01 need further investigation as they are clearly a single purpose conflicted user. You  really  can  08:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have removed further chunks of material about Marino as unsourced or, worse, not verified by the alleged references. This last is most disturbing.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Darrell Issa
This page has been subject to numerous unfair subjects being inserted. Due to Issa's necessarily antagonistic role as Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, he is the target of numerous left wing organizations and smear attempts, and many of these are showing up on his wikipedia page, a standard not likewise seen on similar Democratic congress member's pages.

The content does not meet the standards of an encyclopedia. Unfounded allegations being made by left wing organizations against a right wing politician do not amount to legitimate controversy unless seriously addressed by congress or law enforcement. Many of these sections link to left wing websites like the Huffington Post, or show no resolution, only that allegations were made. That's a pretty weak standard.

The three biggest offenders, full of only unsubstantiated allegations and absolutely no real action by a member of congress or the Office of Congressional Ethics: Industry insiders on his oversight team Letter to businesses Office of Congressional Ethics complaint

These are just open smear attempts, some even accusing him of enriching himself by favorably intervening on behalf of companies which the article itself states several paragraphs above that he divested himself from entirely upon election to congress. There needs to be a higher standard.

This clearly violates having a neutral point of view and verifiability if the allegations themselves have never come close to being verified and come from extremely poor sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.179.70 (talk) 00:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, its absolutely a smear attack written with biased partisan sources. En Wikipedia has a serious problem in the American political biographical sector with all its articles and neutrality. A majority of the long term experienced editors here are liberals and democrats so neutrality is sadly viewed through their eyes. I doubt if it will be possible to remove the partisan content, best of luck to anyone that tries, you will have to watch out for the wiki ban-hammer or be prepared to spend months and months, likely to no avail, talking it through with them on the talkpage. -  You  really  can  07:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that the IP was justified in removing the material twice (and reverted by two editors)? That the Watchdog Institute, now the Investigative Newsource is not a reliable source that can be used? Dougweller (talk) 08:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't look at the edit history just the current article and a few of the citations - however any editor is justified in a good faith attempt to make an article more neutral and less of a partisan attack, so if thats what the IP was doing then yes. I did warn him in regard to repeated reverting in regards to watch out for the ban-hammer. As for Investigative Newsource, its the first time I have seen it, it doesn't seem to be used much here? search returns and the watchdog-org redirect is only used in this single biography on en wikipedia - search returns - You really  can  08:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The included claims relating to other living people are, however, contrary to WP:BLP (persons "associated" with a named person do not equal a reason to post that innuendo about the named person in other articles absent actual RS strong sources for the claims). Collect (talk) 19:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Vijay Kumar Singh
I am concerned about yet another "breaking news" Indian corruption scandal that may end up swamping a BLP. I would appreciate some thoughts regarding the coverage of both the date of birth and bribery allegation sections of this article. The d.o.b. one is now a past event & hopefully we can thus get a useful consensus regarding the level of detail etc. I'll note this thread on the article talk page but, honestly, discussing this sort of thing there will not achieve much, in my experience. - Sitush (talk) 13:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I was the person who suggested Sitush to start a thread here, as I think that the dispute about the General's date of birth should be extensively shortened because, as it is now, it is a clear violation of WP:UNDUE. And I'd also like to see the bribe offer section entirely removed; Wikipedia should not be used to spread gossips of juicy scandals and, what's more, the General's involvement in the issue is only tangential.  Salvio  Let's talk about it! 13:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Salvio regarding the d.o.b. section. I am not sure that Singh's role in the bribery issue is tangential - he is the person alleging that he was offered a bribe. Nonetheless, I'd like to see it kept under control. Right now, it could probably be reduced to a single paragraph rather than the rolling news story that it is. - Sitush (talk) 13:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I also agree the DOB section is WP:UNDUE and needs to be summarized. Editors have taken 5 of 20 sources and used them to create a section that is 50% or more of the article. As well, I don't like rolling news stories. There is no harm in having one or two sentences but anything more while the story is still developing is a misuse of the encyclopedia IMHO.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 23:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Jack MacLellan
The article name "Jack MacLellan" should be spelled "Jack Maclellan". No capitalization of the L in Maclellan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.143.135 (talk) 20:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * From a quick check on Google, it seems to be written both ways - though the "Maclellan" version seems more common. Ideally, a source that indicated which way he writes it himself would help. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

April Fools DYKs
April_Fool's_Main_Page/Did_You_Know

Several of these involve jokes based around living people. Zhirinovsky's ass may be the worst (a reference to a Russian politician's donkey; the same word is not used for "donkey" and "buttocks" in Russian) but there are others; one idea is to suggest that a living person "blows up animals" while omitting the information that the hook is actually referring to balloons.

Can this ever be appropriate, sense of humor or not? Ken Arromdee (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Jacob Lurie
✅

Someone is repeatedly adding defamatory material (of a personal nature) to this page. I've removed it three times, but they persist. Can they be blocked? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jacob_Lurie&diff=484246404&oldid=484065603 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.71.210 (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The content has been removed, notices about our content policies placed on many of the user pages and the article has also been semi protected so that people who have not created an account cannot edit it. (Unfortunately, that also means that during the duration of the protection, you will not be able to edit the article directely either, unless you create an account.) -- The Red Pen of Doom  22:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Scott Lively
In this edit a living person is being characterized as "trying to harm ... people." This is a serious accusation. Do we need multiple sources as required by WP:WELLKNOWN? – Lionel (talk) 02:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

List of biggest box office bombs
Hello! I've been trying to remove claims about living people, but I am being reverted by a new user whose main contributions have been to this List of biggest box office bombs. My problem is that the content of the list is not well-defined, so anyone can add any movie to the list if they think it's a bomb and it lost money. To claims like "Eddie Murphy had the biggest contributions to film losses" are completely subjective (not to mention unsourced). But I haven't been able to remove it dispite talk page discussions (see also the discussion at WikiProject Films). Tell me if I'm out of line here; thanks for any comments, or help. Mlm42 (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The article does not claim that Eddie Murphy had the biggest contribution to film losses than any other actor or person in his entire career. It presents that in this specific list Eddie Murphy appears in more bombs than any other actor, and as a result his contribution in total film losses of the movies found in this list only, is the biggest one. It is just statistical information about the list. Clicklander (talk) 18:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Nonetheless, it is an assertion about a living person, capable of being read as a criticism of him. WP:BLP mandates that any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source.  This material has been challenged, and hence must be sourced.  If it is unsourceable, as seems likely here, then it must be taken out.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

For once again, there is no critisism of this or any other person in the article! It is pure statistical data. No source is needed for something is in fact already obvious from the list.Clicklander (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Why do you say that "no source is needed"? WP:BLP is a policy which explicitly states that it must be explicitly attributed.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Because the source is the list itself.Clicklander (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * A Wikipedia article is not a reliable published source: see the sections WP:SPS and WP:CIRCULAR in Verifiability. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course it isn´t. But this has nothing to do with statistics. Statistics are summarizing and analyzing what you see on the list. No other additional input is added.Clicklander (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Then they are original research and synthesis. None of this provides any reason to escape the requirements of policy that these statements must be explicitly attributed.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Cusop that the statistics prose is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The analysis itself must be sourced, and because it is apparently drawn from the user-made chart, I highly doubt any such source exists. It doesn't matter that the user-made chart has sourced entries; the use of that sample is WP:SYNTH. If anyone has ever published findings on box office bombs in a reliable source — and I suspect several probably exist — those could perhaps support prose along these lines, but probably not what's currently written. JFHJr (㊟) 20:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess in order to be synthesis it has to come to some conclusions. I do not see any conclusion here. This section presents nothing more than statistical numbers.Clicklander (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a never-before-published analysis of a data set created on Wikipedia. The statistics and discussion are WP:OR. "Conclusions" are irrelevant. JFHJr (㊟) 20:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't get it. How something can be called "research" with no conclusion??Clicklander (talk) 21:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * And I think the rest of us are puzzled by your continuing to maintain that this material is somehow exempt from the policy requirement "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source". Are you saying that this is not material?  Or that it has not been challenged?  Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I think I am clear to what I am saying. I never said anything about exemptions. Any information on Wikipedia must have reliable source. If “Statistics” do not have reliable source that means that the list itself does not have reliable source either. Statistics are nothing more than interpretation.Clicklander (talk) 12:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * On-wiki interpretation is exactly what's prohibited. That section should be removed. Replace it only with sourced content as to any prose including scope, method, and topic. JFHJr (㊟) 02:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Reese Witherspoon
Someone is asserting that Reese Witherspoon is a descendant of John Witherspoon, signer of the Declaration of Independence. I have repeatedly edited this assertion to something more factual. I do not know who keeps changing the edits. Reese may be related to John Witherspoon the Signer, but she is definitely not a descendant of John, The Signer. What is the difference? To be a descendant, she would be a great(n) granddaughter of the Signer. I have worked with her father to establish the link and he has not or cannot. While it is possible that the two lines of Witherspoons may descend from some common ancestor, this has not been documented. There are two schools of thought about John the Signer being a descendant of John Knox, the reformer. Some Scottish genealogist say yes, others say no. But again, not a documented genealogical fact. As a Witherspoon the Signer descendant, I do have a comprehensive genealogy of his descendants. And I was raised with the John Knox story. I also know that there were several John Witherspoons in the Revolutionary War, and I do suspect that Reese could possibly tie to one of these patriots. But she is categorically not a descendant of John Witherspoon the Signer.

How do we clean up this error in a living persons bio? And ensure it does not sneak in again.

Regards, Jim Alexander, Wiki editor, and Registrar-General, The Society of the Descendants of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Signersbuff (talk • contribs) 00:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for posting here. I've noted that the claim you've referenced has been disputed. I've checked what's available among the sources in question, and I've rectified the article prose according to my understanding of the source itself: the subject claims this descent, but no reliable third party has published anything on her genealogy besides her own claim. I've no doubt the subject believes it, but the sources are reporting her statements about herself. Meanwhile, what you've brought here is original research, as well founded as it might be. It's not enough to do away with any claims altogether, but your challenge alone is enough to merit revision. If you want, feel free to follow up here or on the article talk page. Happy editing! JFHJr (㊟) 04:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * A book published in 1877 cannot possibly support a claim about the ancestry of someone born in 1976. I have removed the assertion that she is a descendant of John Knox.  She may or may not believe that, but we should not report anything unless and until a reliable source becomes available.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * A book published in 1877 could certainly support a claim of ancestry of someone born in 1976, if other sources can be used to trace back far enough to the people covered in the 1877 book. "Book says X was descended from Y. Other sources say Z is descended from X. WP:CALC Z is descended from Y". Gaijin42 (talk) 16:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Marwan Parham
Dear Whom Ever It May Concern,

The information in the biography of MARWAN PARHAM is incorrect on many levels. I am the Managing Director of his company Bliss Inc Entertainment and his personal Manager for his professional DJ career, Marwan AKA DJ Bliss. I am also the creator of his Official Website www.djbliss.com.

We would like to request for this page to be removed and would like to create his page as authorized by Marwan Parham.

Kind Regards,

Tanya Julz Ivin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.97.61.26 (talk) 09:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Daniel Kahneman
in the wikipedia article / page for daniel kahneman, under the personal life heading, dr. kahneman is erroneously described as being married to Anne Treisman. because i know the kahneman family personally - kahneman's son lives in my apartment building and is a close friend of mine - and i take care of the kahnemans' computer & IT needs in tel aviv (where mrs. kahneman - her name is irah - and their son, michael both reside), i can assure you that she is not anne treisman. additionally, whoever thought that kahneman is married to anne treisman, apparently also wrote the wikipedia article / page for her as well, because it once again incorrectly lists her as being married to kahneman. i believe the author may have been confused because kahneman & treisman have worked together and are both princeton faculty members. kahneman's wife, irah, is not a professor and lives here in tel aviv not far from where i reside. please rectify this error as expeditiously as possible as this seems somewhat disrespectful to his actual wife, and i feel that daniel & irah deserve better, more accurate treatment - not to mention your readers.

if you are still not convinced of the error, please see this publication by kahneman, which he dedicated to his wife irah, his son, michael, and his daughter lenore.

http://www.princeton.edu/~kahneman/docs/attention_and_effort/Attention_lo_quality.pdf

thanks very much beau schutz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.186.13.185 (talk) 14:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Unsourced, so removed. Please feel free to do this yourself next time.  But thanks for letting us know in any event.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have re-added it with a reference: Daniel Kahneman's Autobiography on nobelprize.org. Anne Treisman is his second wife. In his Nobel Prize autobiography Kahneman writes about both his first wife, Irah, and about Treisman whom he met in 1965 and married 12 years later. Voceditenore (talk) 15:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you sure the information is current? I take the point that Irah was his first wife -- I'm only wondering whether there have been any changes since 2002.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * According to this Treisman and Kahneman were still married in September 2011 (7 months ago). I'm not sure, how much recent it needs to be. Voceditenore (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me -- certainly better than a source 10 years old. thanks, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note also the Acknowledgements page of his 2011 book, Thinking, Fast and Slow. Voceditenore (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Trayvon Martin

 * -Trayvon Martin, Marijuanna

Im sure many of you are aware of the Trayvon Martin shooting, and its ongoing news story. For several days the article has included that Trayvon was at his fathers house while on suspension from school, which a coulple of (now known to be false) reasons. Today, his parents announced that the reason was a bag containing pot residue. This has been exceptionally widely reported in the media, in relation to the shooting. Some editors (and one admin) have removed this well sourced information, claiming BLP/BDP. BLP itself obviously does not apply as trayvon is dead. BDP I believe does not apply, as the information is exceptionally notable and been reported by practically every RS on the planet, and was originally released by his parents, so the "affects living relatives" portion should not be in force either. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * A few relevant links for reference:


 * WP:RPP (request for unprotection of the article)
 * WP:AN (self-report of Drmies's use of the admin tools)
 * Relevant section on Drmies's talk page
 * VQuakr (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Just one of the many news sources reporting on this : "Trayvon Martin was in Sanford the night he was shot to death because he had been suspended from school, and his father wanted to spend time with him" http://miami.cbslocal.com/2012/03/26/pot-blamed-for-trayvon-martins-suspension/  Gaijin42 (talk) 21:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * BDP clearly does apply; if there was no source for this information, for example, we would absolutely not include it because content related to BLP's (in this case relatives of the deceased) must adhere to WP:BLP. However, I agree with Gaijin that this content is verifiable. The subject matter also does not constitute original research, provided no speculation about a connection between the suspension and shooting incident is included in the article (none was there as of the most recent edit war). That leaves whether it is neutral to include this information (and by extension editorially favorable to do so but that isn't really within the scope of BLPN). To me this content does appear neutral as well, as it relates to the events that occurred in the days before these two people crossed paths. It is critical that no speculation about direct causality between the suspension and the shooting be included in the article per WP:NOR, and as a topic only tangentially related to the subject of the article this probably only rates the ~2 sentences that were already in the article prior to the removal. Thoughts? VQuakr (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am absolutely ok with avoiding causality as I dont believe it is needed, but if other editors disagree, wouldnt the above quote make it acceptable since the SYNTH/OR was being done by RS? Gaijin42 (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am absolutely ok with avoiding causality as I dont believe it is needed, but if other editors disagree, wouldnt the above quote make it acceptable since the SYNTH/OR was being done by RS? Gaijin42 (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Well sufficient RS sources, and since the source is the family itself, I suspect that it is past the "contentious claim" standard as well. The article contains claims about Zimmermen which have less obvious relevance than these about Trayvon. Collect (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Gaijin, in the article you link to above, the parents express anger that the information about the suspension was made public. What is the basis for your statement that the info was leaked by the family? VQuakr (talk) 21:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I may have misread that the information was _initially_ released by the family. Certainly it could have been leaked from some other source. However, the family has now confirmed it, as per paragraph 2 of that source "Ryan Julison, a spokesperson for Treyvon’s family, confirmed reports that surfaced Monday blaming the suspension on a plastic baggie found in Trayvon’s bookbag.", Once acknowledged by the family, I dont think BDP can apply, although I will admit it is not as clear-cut as it would be if they were the initial source. We have a very cler standard for disparaging information appearing in BLP, about notability and reliability, and this is WAY beyond meeting those standards. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The confirmation by the family covers the verifiability aspect of the BLP requirement, but everything at WP:BLP still applies (maybe we are using differing connotations of the word "apply")? The aspect of this discussion that is borderline is whether inclusion of this content is neutral, in that it might represent overcoverage since no reliable source has indicated that drugs were a factor in Martin's behavior that night but only were a factor in his presence. VQuakr (talk) 21:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We are using different meanings of apply. Of course the standard (BDP) is applicable, I mean to say none of its clauses are activated in such a way that the information should be prevented. Regarding the undueness, I think there are three facets 1) It is (coincidental) causality as to why he was in sanford. 2) martin was being presented as squaky clean no issues - while certainly not derving being shot, killed (or imo even arrested - LEGALIZE!!!) it does round out the bio of martin and make him into a "normal" kid instead of the hypothetical angel some would portray. 3) Zimmerman mentioned "on drugs" in his call. hopefully we get a toxicology/autopsy which gives us the truth regarding if he was on drugs at the time, but an accusation was made, and there is some level of evidence that trayvon used drugs at least casually. I DO NOT THINK any of the above arguments should actually be made in the article, as they are entirely OR/SYNTH, but we should provide the facts to the reader and allow them to do their own OR/SYNTH. (although point #1 was explicitly made in the linked ref, so should be ok imo). Gaijin42 (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Zimmerman mentioned "on drugs" in his call. hopefully we get a toxicology/autopsy which gives us the truth regarding if he was on drugs at the time, but an accusation was made, and there is some level of evidence that trayvon used drugs at least casually. I DO NOT THINK any of the above arguments should actually be made in the article, as they are entirely OR/SYNTH, but we should provide the facts to the reader and allow them to do their own OR/SYNTH. (although point #1 was explicitly made in the linked ref, so should be ok imo); there is no rush - wait for the tox screen, and the inquest results. Without the context you are using Synth to provide editorial support for the content, which is equally not allowed :) --Errant (chat!) 00:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything wrong with including this in the article. BLP doesn't apply as the subject is deceased.  As for BDP, it does say "However, material about dead people that has implications for their living relatives and friends, particularly in the case of recent deaths, is covered by this policy."  However, since the family has publicly confirmed this, that makes BDP moot.  And unfortunately, it appears than an admin is abusing their tools to win a content dispute he's directly involved in.[]  This probably needs to go to ANI.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Drmies self-reported himself to AN, which I think is exceptionally straightforward and honorable for him to do, and I think any potential abuse can be ignored in light of the minorness. I do think his action should be reversed, and moved back to semi-protection, but I dont think any further action needs to be taken against drmies. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I didn't realize that he self-reported himself. Thanks for the update.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Throwing my comment in; Drmies acted out of concern for policy rather then taking other worse actions. The fact he used his tools only allowed for discussion and sources, additional arguements and questions of whether not it should be included to be properly made. It clearly was not a selfish act to try and win a content dispute; I don't think any of us would claim it either. I've been a neutral supporter of both sides and certain materials have been turning up that outright attacked Martin. I believe that the fact which was so such a widely reported matter should be included. It establishes the background events which lead up to the fatal shooting. ChrisGualtieri (talk)

I commented on the talk page but: Just my thoughts so far. --Errant (chat!) 00:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason for suspension is trivial detail - but because it is an illegal thing the media love it. It has no relevance for us though, following good editorial judgement and the standard approach.
 * To address a point directly; martin was being presented as squaky clean no issues - while certainly not derving being shot, killed (or imo even arrested - LEGALIZE!!!) it does round out the bio of martin and make him into a "normal" kid instead of the hypothetical angel some would portray - this is not the correct way to attempt this. I agree, the media will portray Martin as squeaky clean, they always done in news stories like this. It is the reason why newspapers are generally poor sources on controversial and divisive issues. The correct way is to cut through the bullshit and report the specific facts of the case, with good editorial judgement. If the article portrays Martin in a non-neutral light, then that is an issue to fix through rework, not faux-"balancing" with bad stuff :)
 * The Zimmerman history needs to be culled on BLP grounds - per our standard approach of not reporting charges that do not result in convictions unless distinctly notable in their own right. This is the more urgent issue at this time.
 * The article is a disaster zone of weaselly wording and soapboxing. Case in point, which caused Tracy Martin to further question why Zimmerman was not arrested after shooting and killing an unarmed teenager with no criminal history. I haven't dug into the contribution history yet, but some individuals might need gentle reminders of our basic policy.


 * re zimmerman - I would normally agree with you, but here I think the "squeaky" issue is even stronger. Zimmermans "squeaky clean record" was specifically cited by the police as one of the reasons he was not arrested. As the police have themselves been accused of racism or other bad handling of the case, this is directly relevant to the ongoing controversy. For both martin and zimmerman, its not like either of them were notable in any way to go find unrelated sources. We only know this information because it was reported directly in the context of the case. Yes, if it bleeds it leads, and the media sucks, but if we second guess them to this degree, we should pretty much delete every BLP article out there that is at all controversial. These facts are a major part of the controversy and attention being generated by the media and publicGaijin42 (talk) 01:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The way I would handle that is find sources that say that exact thing, and note it within that section. I wouldn't go into detail though; just a sentence or two referring to past incidents/charges for... whatever. In terms of the rest of your comment; resist the temptation to use biographical detail dug up by the papers, it is not usually of tremendous relevant to the event (as we are not writing a biography). Realistically it would be better to work the biographical material into the event prose - this can be done with a deft hand, and usually makes the unrelated detail more apparent. It's good practice to assume their past life is distinctly irrelevant, unless tied directly to the event by the media - and then it can be recorded in that specific context. --Errant (chat!) 01:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Gaijin42 (talk) 01:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/17/us/justice-department-investigation-is-sought-in-florida-teenagers-shooting-death.html
 * http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/south/view/20120324trayvon_martin_cases_myths_half_truths/srvc=home&position=recent
 * http://www.adn.com/2012/03/24/2388488/myths-half-truths-about-the-trayvon.html
 * http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/21/2706876/sanford-commission-votes-no-confidence.html


 * Most of Errant's points are correct, though I see minor mention that your post on the other page made some errors. He was suspended for possession and his father wanted to spend some time with him because of it. He doesn't live with his father, he was visiting and was not familiar face in the neighborhood. While the cause and effect matter are weak, the situation could just be resolved by removing everything not related to the case; including Zimmerman's 2005 arrest and dropping of charges. Getting rid of the bios would go a long way to making sure that we have no need for the suspension reason of pot. Its just easier, cleaner and further away from the media firestorm. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, yes that is the correct approach --Errant (chat!) 07:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with placing the information about why he was suspended in the article for the reasons explained by others above. Also, it appears that RS are beginning to report other pejorative information about the kid, including that his Facebook picture is rather more menacing than the picture his family released, comments on his Facebook and Twitter accounts appear to implicate him in drug possession and possible drug dealing, as well as involvement in other violent incidents.  I believe all of this is relevant for the article. Cla68 (talk) 06:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't record pejorative information (although the word doesn't mean what you appear to think it means). We do record negative information. But not that, certainly not from news sources, who are of proven tenuous reliability during high profile incidents such as these. "Menacing" pics? Man... --Errant (chat!) 07:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

So...... what?
Is there a concensus here or not. I've made a proposal Talk:Shooting of Trayvon Martin, can people make their opinions known there, so we can decide if something needs to be done. Should I move the whole thing here? Or is this article just going to stay on ice for 2 days? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

On removing biographies
I think there is 0 chance this will be successful, and predict the article will have to be semi-permanently fully protected to enforce this. bio information on both participants is everywhere in the media, and in the public consciousness, and is (in my opinion) a deeply integral part of the event and controversy. I personally think the info is valuable, in fact essential to understanding what happened and what peoples motivations/actions may have been - but will abide by the consensus - but the legions of people who come to this article and (don't) see information that is missing will add it all back in. If established editors do it, we can at least have some semblance of balance, NPOV, etc. vs the unwashed masses that will literally destroy this article. All of this information is exceptionally well sourced with coverage from every major news outlet. And you are fooling yourself if you think books, documentaries, dramas, etc are not going to be made about this. (And btw, if "dont use the news" is the standard, about 90% of all event/bio/pop pages should be deleted) BLP and BDP are surpassed by a ridiculous margin. We can have an article that boils down to the essential facts. "George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin." There, that is the entire article. Everything else is about the people, the events leading up to the shooting, etcGaijin42 (talk) 13:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 *  And you are fooling yourself if you think books, documentaries, dramas, etc are not going to be made about this.; I don't mean to be too critical. But if I had a penny for every person that said this every time a media storm gets covered on Wikipedia. For kicks I usually keep track of some of the larger ones - and so far only one (of, say, 10 or so) has actually resulted in "books, documentaries, dramas" - and that was mostly because it came up again and again in the media for several years. I very much doubt this one will join it. You might be taking my advice above to the extreme (if "dont use the news" is the standard, about 90% of all event/bio/pop pages should be deleted); what I usually suggest is critical thinking, careful coverage and a healthy dose of common sense/skepticism when using media sources during a press barrage. --Errant (chat!) 22:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Other suspensions
NYTimes reports Trayvon was also suspended previously for truancy and graffitti and was found with jewelry and a screwdriver. Would this also be appropriate in the article? Cla68 (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No. But I doubt you care much given the way you just re-inserted the previously rejected material on spurious grounds, rather than contribute to the talk page discussion that is trying to figure out how to work the material in appropriately. I recommend reflection on the critical analysis of source material. --Errant (chat!) 23:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Errant, personalizing a debate isn't very helpful. One of the reasons the regulars at this board have as much credibility as they do, is because they maintain an objective distance and I appreciate their opinions. Cla68 (talk) 23:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, the "do not personalize" misdirection. Snore. Brusqe, certainly. My advice is the usual, that I give to those who (objectively?) are struggling with BLP matters - especially those related to current events. Above you suggested we should post pejorative information about individuals - a troubling stance. And now you have been underhand about restoring the material. This board deals tangentially with behavioural issues; and one piece of advice most commonly given is engage on the talk page. I reiterate that advice. --Errant (chat!) 23:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Errant, please don't try to discourage me or anyone else from asking for advice at this board. Cla68 (talk) 00:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was just being grumpy because it was late. But in all seriousness; I think you need to engage in much more depth on the talk page. Sure, solicit input here, but getting a consensus here and then imposing it on the article is only going to cause strife. --Errant (chat!) 09:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's well-sourced and relevent to the article, but you should also include the family's statements that they are trying to tarnish Martin's reputation. Remember, we don't take sides, but we do cover them if we can cite reliable sources.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, well-sourced and relevant. The relevance is essentially that if Martin was smoking marijuana and possessed stolen items -> then he was a "criminal" -> then his account of the altercation might not have been credible and he might have attacked Zimmerman -> then maybe Zimmerman could claim a self-defense shooting.  That is a convoluted chain of logic and the relevance is low, but the sources believe it is relevant and so do I.  We must remember that BLP applies directly where Zimmerman is concerned - if we take out exculpatory evidence and present this as definitely unjustifiable we're violating that policy. Wnt (talk) 21:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Family confirmed suspensions as not media rumors: Although some might wish the suspensions noted with just a few phrases, the family replies which confirm the 3 suspensions did occur, is needed in the article to defuse notions of invented claims. The recent suspension explains why the 17-year-old was in central Florida on a school night, rather than at his home in Miami Gardens (in far south Florida) preparing to attend class the next morning. The prior 2 suspensions explain why the recent suspension was a 10-day suspension. Plus, the mention that other students were involved in the suspension shows that Martin was not "singularly unusual" in being suspended. Hence, there is a lot of text, likely notable, due to coverage in whole reports by both The Miami Herald and The New York Times (27 March 2012, not just a single fringe source). Both reports were complete, so there is not even the need for Wikipedians to combine multiple sources to cite the 3 suspensions, and the confirmation by the parents. Another clear connection to the article is the revelation of school police searching Martin's backpack containing a "large screwdriver" and "12 items of women's jewely" (with "wedding rings") which he said "were not his" in his backpack, then photographed to notify the city police. Such details are not "fringe" or wp:UNDUE as they tie into the incident's themes of drug-use (marijuana) & burglary and police suspicions, as obvious connections for a news story. In general, Wikipedia should only censor non-neutral POV conclusions (such as "gansta lifestyle" or "potential drug dealer"), but allow statements of fact, such as detection of marijuana residue or possession of some unnamed person's jewelry and wedding rings, without concluding: "drug dealer paid with stolen jewelry" (which would be a POV-conclusion). Beware users wanting to remove text as "undue" when it is merely "un-positive" toward one side. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Nick Adams (theatre actor)
Is http://instinctmagazine.com/blogs/blog/instinct-cover-guy-nick-adams-discriminated-against a reliable source for making the specific WP:BLP contentious claim
 * He is openly gay.

My reading of that blog from "Instinct magazine" fails to make that statement, as it only states he has a "boyfriend" which, as far as I can tell, is not sufficient to aver "openly gay." Collect (talk) 14:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Really? The fact that he titled the post "Turtle Gay", mentions his boyfriend, and compares himself against other people in the area who are straight? And was on the cover of a gay magazine?Gaijin42 (talk) 15:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Saying that someone is "openly gay" is only "contentious" when the person is not in fact openly gay. I'm fully on board with the notion that we wouldn't describe someone like Ted Haggard as openly gay.  But it really isn't necessary to "protect" someone like Nick Adams.  Q for Collect: is it "contentious" to say that someone is "openly straight"?  (Oh, sure, there's no need to in most cases because being straight is "normal" and therefore assumed -- though that point reinforces the point of asking my question.)  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * All the discussions on BLP have reached a conclusion that sexual orientation is not a matter of surmise by non-RS sources, no matter how certain one is that he is "openly gay."
 * Note specifically:
 * 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.
 * Which clearly applies here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no "surmise" here. Adams identifies himself as gay in the blog post in question. Let's end this charade about how naming out gay people as gay on Wikipedia is the worst thing ever. (Incidentally, Nomoskedasticity, Haggard is out as bi.) –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I find no such comment in the blog. Nor is the blog even written by Adams.  BLPCAT is policy.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The blog http://thenickadams.blogspot.com/2009/07/turtle-gay.html, linked to from http://www.nickadams.biz/ which IS nick adams self identified blog and biz sites, containing all of his contact information included the lines "They screwed with the wrong gay. ", "looked at my boyfriend then smirked" "then watched a group of straight guys" and named the post "Turtle Gay"

NA: Absolutely, I think that’s why I was so excited to find the arts community because I felt like I could be myself and what I was good at was celebrated. At school, kids would make fun of me for doing shows, so I’d try to keep that a secret, but being gay was a whole different thing."
 * http://micahjesse.com/interviews/spotlight-nick-adams-queen-of-broadway-micah-jesse-interview/ "Did you struggle with that? Were you picked on?

http://greginhollywood.com/nick-adams-talks-to-advocatecom-about-nyc-club-gay-snub-and-using-the-internet-to-spread-the-word-9218 "“It’s been tough times for [the gay community], and I think people are more sensitive now to little things like this that, in 2009, are just unacceptable. And especially with the help of the Internet — we’re a strong community, we have a lot of pride, and I think it’s beautiful to see people I don’t know back me up on this and say, ‘We shouldn’t have to deal with this.’”"

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/01/12/Nick_Adams_Likes_Ryan_Reynolds_Abs/ "Nick Adams, the out Broadway star who's as well known "


 * http://bestgaynewyork.com/2009/07/30/broadway-darling-nick-adams-boycotts-the-anito-gay--turtle-bay-grill-and-lounge.aspx
 * http://www.playbill.com/playblog/2011/02/will-swenson-nick-adams-tony-sheldon-and-priscilla-cast-say-it-gets-better-video/
 * http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/10/30/Priscilla_Cast_It_Gets_Better/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaijin42 (Gaijin42) 22:41, 29 March 2012‎ (UTC)


 * Adams has stated his sexual orientation on his blog (which BLP explicitly permits as a source), in an It Gets Better video which covers both the primary and secondary bases because it was covered by the Advocate, in interview after interview. There is no special secret clause of WP:BLP that says "ignore everything else written here if you really really want to censor someone's sexual orientation." –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes: BLP policy doesn't justify 'censoring' someone's sexual orientation - but neither does it justify turning Wikipedia into a database of sexuality (or ethnicity, or anything else). As it happens, I think in this case there is sufficient sourced material to justify a comment about Adams' sexuality in his bio (and I've edited the article accordingly) - but this doesn't mean that there is any automatic requirement to include any 'reliably sourced' sexual orientation in biographies. In some cases, it is none of our business. If we chose to make it our business, we are obliged (per common decency) to explain why. An article that states that "X is openly gay" (in an isolated paragraph) is about as encyclopaedic as a shopping list, or a betting slip... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually we almost always include information on people's sexual orientation in their biographies, even when it's totally irrelevant. It's just that people forget that heterosexuality is also a sexual orientation. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Really? As far as I can recall, I've only ever seen one article (Karl Marx) that actually stated that the subject was heterosexual, Or are you suggesting (per your edit summary ) that only heterosexuals engage in male-female marriage? Whatever - you seem to be under the misapprehension that there are only 'homosexuals' and 'heterosexuals' in the world, and that everyone is one or the other. Please take your dubious compartmentalisation of sexualities elsewhere... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't posture; it isn't cute and it doesn't make you look smarter. Ms. BLP's personal life may indeed be irrelevant, but it's very stupid to claim that it's relevant when she has a boyfriend and not when she has a girlfriend. Since there's a tacit if not stated consensus that the former gets included (to choose three other actors at random, why the hell should I care about Jewel Staite's, Laura Linney's, or Glenn Close's male partners?), it is logical to include the latter as well. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 06:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Please note the lengthy discussions about BLPCAT where the idea that a person's surmised "sexual oritentation" belongs in a BLP was thoroughy dismissed as improper. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 'Surmised'? "I thought I would check it out along with my boy friend... They screwed with the wrong gay". This thread gets weirder by the minute... AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh boy, let's not turn this discussion into a battlefield, shall we? Look, this was reported in WP:3RRN and resulted as no action and requested for page protection. Maybe we shall take a six to twelve hour cool down before another reply. --George Ho (talk) 06:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

@Roscelese : Very view bios say "openly straight" or "hetrosexual". They do mention significant others, or spouses. It is my impression that BLPCAT would not prevent inclusion of any homosexual relationship being listed as a spouse or significant other, assuming such information can be reliably sourced. (Possible BLP objections for those where such a revelation would be particularly scandalous, or especially if the SO is low-profile - which clearly does not apply in this case) However a more explicit identification as "gay/homosexual" requires the self-identification, and some level of significance to the subjects identity/notability. In this case, that is clearly satisfied by Nick's repeated and very visible advocacy, and a major portion of his fame coming from being involved in gay oriented/themed entertainment. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

In general, a man could have a boyfriend, but classify himself as a bisexual, or perceive himself as a male-to-female transsexual etc. The evidence described above sounds like a good argument for gay per se, but if there's any residual doubt, just say what the source says. If it says he has a boyfriend, say he has a boyfriend. The data for Wikipedia articles can be fragile, the less jostled the more likely to come out intact. Wnt (talk) 03:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Marty Morrissey
This page regarding an Irish TV/Radio journalist is the subject of repeated alterations. I believe that accounts may be being set up just to amend this page. Not sure where this is coming from, probably an Irish forum like Boards.ie

I can't sit here making changes all day, I'll check back later. Is there any way to lock a page like this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ByrneD (talk • contribs) 16:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * There are currently no glaring problems with this BLP; you've reverted the vandalism. The same vandal appears to have vandalized other BLPs; these were also corrected through normal editing. If you think this article is of particular concern, you might consider requesting semi-protection at WP:RPP (protection from IPs and/or new accounts). BLPN is not the correct forum. Bear in mind that if a protection request at RPP is successful, you will be unable to edit the article as well, since you have a very limited editing history. In the meantime, I'll be happy to watch for further vandalism. JFHJr (㊟) 23:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

AJ McCarron
Please correct the following

The name is listed as A.J. and it is AJ McCarron with no "dots" in his name. Also, his place of birth is Biloxi Mississippi not Mobile Alabama. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.69.211 (talk) 12:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * His rolltide.com bio has it with periods, as does AOL, although not rivals.com or Mobile Press-Register. It isn't initials, so our use of them isn't necessary. His hometown is listed various places as Mobile, which people may have presumed was birthplace, but Biloxi isn't in any of the included references. Dru of Id (talk) 12:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Kevin Federline
The article about Kevin Federline should be removed immediately because someone has maliciously edited it to claim a lot of nasty and completely untrue things about him. Go to the page and read the opening paragraph; that will tell you all you need to know. You should remove it before you get sued.


 * Thanks - this was blatant vandalism, which I've reverted. Sadly, it seems to have been in this state for almost a day, which is unusual - most vandalism gets dealt with much quicker. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Vaali poet
This article is a total lie .... Infact apart from his parents name none of it is true .... please delete the post and do not allow this bugger to post any other article .... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.178.204.164 (talk) 20:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've removed a fair amount of unsourced content that involved self serving claims and claims about third parties. Lots of the filmography seems to check out, and I'm not in a position to delve into each entry to verify. Please feel free to remove those entries that you feel comfortable challenging, since none of them is actually sourced. JFHJr (㊟) 00:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Renuka Chowdary
Article has been tagged for neutrality since Dec 2010. There is a Controversy section where I've just removed some copyvio, and what seems to me to be poor sources ( link to google search, feminazisofindia.wordpress.com !) and coatracking. There are other claims which are unsourced and maybe undue, please could an established editor take a look at this article. regards 94.195.187.69 (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes there was quite a bit of POV pushing and misrepresentation of sources, which I have fixed. It still needs more sources but at least now it honestly reps the existing sources and is neutrally worded.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 19:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Chris Tomlin
Someone recently posted an article on wikipedia on a christian music artist by the name of Chris Tomlin. In this post these people made the claim that he was arrested and convicted on sexual assault charges. I did research and checked, and these accusations are completely false and unfounded. These claims are both demeaning to this man's character, but also to all who profess to the same faith he does. Please follow this advice and check up on these claims and remove them immediately.

Thank you for you time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.8.17.183 (talk) 02:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I have deleted this blatand BLP violation. There were two references listed with the content, which were completely unrelated to the content itself. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting us know. I too found and removed related content. Don't be afraid to remove such content yourself if you have good reason. <font face="Tahoma">NTox · talk 03:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Depuffed a bit as well. Collect (talk) 12:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Stuart Hanlon
This article reads like a resume and should be reviewed for neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reedolly (talk • contribs) 06:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Depuffed a bit. Wikipedia ought not be an advertising medium. Collect (talk) 12:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Good work Collect. It seems there is also some coatrack info and undue weight in the article. I'm going to post some suggestions on the talk page. Cheers! --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 17:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Zhirinovsky's ass
This is an intentional double-entendre and in my view beneath this project. See Template:Did you know nominations/Zhirinovsky's ass, User_talk:Jimbo_Wales.

The article was twice moved to Zhirinovsky's donkey; each time, the move was reverted by. Are we really now stooping so low as to want to put blatant BLP violations like this on this project's front page? After we've just had a DYK fiasco? There is an RfC about the rename on the article's talk page, but in my view it should be moved to Zhirinovsky's donkey right now under BLP policy. -- J N  466  00:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree, and I think blocks need to be considered if people (no names) are going to continue being disruptive over the article name. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 00:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The name is fairly trivial (FWIW it doesn't seem to be a BLP problem to me, the point is it's supposed to be a declaiming statement, from Zhirinovsky himself, about Russian politics - so his name is hardly at risk). The actual problem is that the article is written like a joke, and probably presents something of a BLP concern for Proshka. Instead of arguing about the move perhaps efforts would be better devoted to bringing to content more in line with our practices... ? --Errant (chat!) 00:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Suggest curtail RM and admin move to WP default donkey Judging by the Russian text which clearly says donkey (which is how Wikipedia describes wikt:donkey), and the mischievous/malicious/non-WP:RS content of the only English source for "ass" in the article, this does a little look to me as a gaming the system to demand a RM. It would do no harm for the move to happen, rather than drag out. Imagine if this was "Obama's ass." We'd move it presto wouldn't we? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In regard to the comment below that the "sources (!) use both "donkey" and "ass"" let's be clear that in Russian there is no pun whatsoever between wikt:donkey and wikt:buttocks. Yes the chap is a fool, publicist, and back in January did in fact (unrelated to the donkey) bare part of his rump for a nurse Жириновский оголил свой зад. Фото, but neither WP:BLP nor WP:DYK exist for editors to claim innocence but restore and insist on an edit for a childish double entendre when non-involved native English-speaker editors have made it clear that the double entendre is not wanted. Someone please put WP first on this. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Move to Proshka. If the article is about the donkey, then it goes under the name of the donkey.  If it's about the person and his election campaign it goes under the person.  The current title is clearly a BLP violation, and the article itself is WP:UNDUE.  In fact the whole thing is a BLP mess.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 06:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed - the whole thing is a disgusting POV use of the project in violation of BLP and NPOV, all disguised under the false claim of an April fool joke - all the involved users should be blocked indefinitely. En Wikipedia has zero need of such contributors, they are detrimental to the projects neutral encyclopedic reporting goals. - You  really  can  07:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Guys, the question of the name of the article aside (the sources use both "donkey" and "ass"), some of you apparently simply do not understand what you talk about. Such is the reality of Russian politics, or at least the reality of one Russian politician - Zhirinovsky. This article is about yet another brilliant performance by a political clown, which Zhirinovsky is (everyone in Russia knows that, including Zhirinovsky himself - he produces political scandals every other day and is a star on talk shows and comedy shows; and reliable sources confirm that). With this donkey add and its subsequent discussion he tried to produce as much controversy and fun as possible, and there is no point in reducing it under the pretense of BLP. Zhirinovsky would be happy in getting more attention, and really, tell me, is it normal that a top-level politician swaps ass in the election ad, claims it is a symbol of the country and then discusses it on official TV debates and comedy shows, producing a (very notable) scandal in the media (on the top of multiple scandals he produced in the past)? You could not describe what has been intended to be a joke and controversy concealing the fact that it is a joke and controversy. Grey  Hood   Talk  09:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The only English-language source using "Ass" that you have been able to provide is an English text on a Russian website, written by someone with a less than perfect command of English. The New York Times says donkey. -- J N  466  12:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If Zhirinovsky's campaigns are notorious then, assuming they are noticed by independent reliable sources, we can look forward to an article under a title such as "Political campaigns of ...". Mr Zhirinovsky may or may not be notorious for jokes, but this is an encyclopaedia, not a jokebook.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Per the NY Times, we should use 'donkey'.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 23:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I have been following this from afar and would like to say that Greyhood's and Russavia's so-called attempts to reliably document internet memes, Polandball et al., and insert this "so-and-so's ass" tripe into serious article space are just a mockery of the project, all the while trying to plead "good faith" and "reliable sources". I don't care who or what their backgrounds are, or who they are affiliated with, this reminds me of another bunch of lolz jokerz who tried to wiki-argue their way around policy. Not saying that they are as organized as GNAA, but the intention, IMHO, is the same, to ridicule Wikipedia and be able to post what they like by consistently quoting wiki-whatever, also known as wikilawyering or gaming the system. FWIW. <font color="B22222">Captain <font color="DAA520">Screebo  <font color="32CD32">Parley! 15:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure BLPN is the best place for this discussion, but I agree, and direct people to this statement which suggests that there is more to come. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Good catch, which just goes to show that there is a serious attempt to pervert deviate Wikipedia's purpose, probably more suitable for an Administrator's noticeboard, given the repetitive nature of the disruption? <font color="B22222">Captain <font color="DAA520">Screebo <font color="32CD32">Parley! 16:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Peter Reynolds (Politician)


I am a close friend and associate of Peter Reynolds'. The content I see and the link I forwarded to him are not the same. One states he is the leader of CLEAR, and the link I forwarded to him states that he is self-appointed and is libelous slander. I have requested a new password and requested permission to edit, but I do not recall my password and am still awaiting a response with a new link to reset my password. I can absolutely state that the link I sent him is filled with false, slanderous information. He is indeed the leader of CLEAR, and has been subject to "infighting" and endless attacks in the UK. I live in the US, and am a very close friend and associate/assistant. Please assist me immediately in rectifying this misinformation. Mr. Reynolds will validate that he has authorized me to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.255.239.151 (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi. This article has recently been the subject of vandalism, so you probably encountered it at an inopportune moment. Please note, though, that it is not considered OK on Wikipedia to delete the contents of an article, as you did twice earlier today, without the agreement of other community members. If articles are not in a good state, they should be improved using what is there as a starting point. Because this article is a biography, its information should be cited to reliable sources. This is not the case at the moment, so if you wanted to go through the process to get it deleted you may well be successful: WP:AfD. Thanks. FormerIP (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Michel Aoun
Dear Madam or Sir, General Michel Aoun is a Lebanese political leader. He is mentioned on a page on Facebook: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Aoun His page still carries the following paragraph inviting people to edit it: This biographical article needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful. (December 2011) This is used by some vicious political opponents to defame and libel General Michel Aoun. I have just made the necessary correction to restore the page to its original version. Could you kindly review the page as I just corrected it, and remove the invitation to edit it further? You may want to compare the English version to the French or Arabic ones. Thanking you in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.187.93.254 (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your concern, but according to the standards and policies of the English Wikipedia, the article is completely lacking in sources for several sections. This is not acceptable and the notice at the top of the page is entirely appropriate.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 19:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Lubert Stryer
This biography has recently been extensively revised and documented. What is the procedure for removing the old box stating "This biographical article needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources...." ?

Thucyx (talk) 05:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The only reference which appears to support the biographic details is his Stanford University faculty profile, so the tag should probably remain for now. Dru of Id (talk) 05:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree the tag should remain; in fact, I'm starting to see the need for a multiple issues tag. Several citations apparently added to support prose do not in fact support the puffiest claims made. The article looks like it's got a large dose of improper synthesis of sources, original research, and good old fashioned fake cites. The contributions of the editors in question should be scrutinized. If anyone wants to find an old version that, though unsourced, does not have deceptive citations, I think that roll back would be appropriate. JFHJr (㊟) 23:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request needs scrutiny, may need redacting
Could an admin oversight the 13:09 request? Dru of Id (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Which request? Daniel Case (talk) 16:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of Touré's surname in his article
Since the matter of whether to include Touré's surname has come up again, can interested parties voice their opinions here? If you're new to this matter, and not familiar with the arguments for and against doing so, you can read them just above that section, or click here. The discussion is of considerable length, but not too long to get a gist of the primary arguments for and against. I really appreciate it. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Ameriie
I was wondering if other editors could weigh in on a situation at the article. For a while an IP user has been repeatedly changing her birth date without providing reliable sources (e.g. ) & contrary to sources already in the article, and blanking the "Personal life" section (e.g. ).

Now there is a user calling themselves &mdash;incidentally the name of Ameriie's management company&mdash;purporting to represent the singer officially & making the exact same edits to her birth date and personal life details, e.g.. Just now I've found that this user has emailed me privately to say that they "will not allow incorrect information [...] to stay on my clients [sic] page", and much to my surprise the email seems legit.

I'm not sure how to proceed in this instance so I'd appreciate any & all input from users more experienced in dealing with these matters than me. Thanks. Extraordinary Machine (talk) 00:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The e-mail should have been sent to WP:OTRS; in the meantime, the content in question is adequately supported by one of the better reliable sources currently in the article. Other prose that was removed doesn't appear to be sourced to exceptionally reliable sources, but then again most of the article is similarly sourced. A reliable source to support the management company's claims would be appropriate; IMDB is not one of those. JFHJr (㊟) 02:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh - repeated insertion of a "mug shot"
has the edit summary:
 * Whitewash won't wash. Obviously not a BLP violation. Do you also intend to remove the text it illustrates?)

In restoring a mugshot of a public figure, labeled as "booking photo" (it used to be labelled "mug shot"). I suggest WP:MUG, part of WP:BLP policy, applies -- that is, there is no value to the image other than to show that it is a "mug shot." There are many images of Limbaugh available, and the rationale that this "mug shot" must be here to prevent a "whitewash" shows fairly clear the intent of any editor who insists on having a "mug shot" in a BLP. I suggest that WP:MUG be enforced here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The image itself doesn't appear to be offensive. Without the caption one might think it was taken at a social event. It's a head shot and he's wearing street clothes, he's smiling and relaxed. There isn't any police or arrest paraphernalia in the photo. It doesn't in anyway illustrate his arrest or the content in the Prescription Drug Addiction section of his BLP. I don't see how it helps the reader or enhances the article. It's only value in the article appears to be in giving extra weight to the information about his arrest. PS--The photo is currently being used on nine different Wiki sites. Out of the eight I could Google translate, two of them label the photo as an arrest photo, while the other six use it with the simple caption: Rush Limbaugh.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 17:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Even if the photo doesn't look like a mug shot, it's being labelled as one, thus the same effect. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't enhance the readers understanding and it violates WP:MUG.– Lionel (talk) 10:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:MUG: "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. This is particularly important for police booking photographs (mugshots), or situations where the subject was not expecting to be photographed." Would you point out the violation(s)?. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm missing something, I agree with Collect, Keithbob, Niteshift36 and Lionel that this image is inappropriate. It doesn't add anything to the article and seems only being used to extra weight to the arrest.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I also, unless I am missing something - there is zero additional value to the reader from the picture - it adds nothing at all that is supported in the text of the article and the continued placement of the pic in the article is nothing more than a simple partisan attack deemed by his opponents to add weight to the negative aspects of his arrest.  You  really  can  14:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

"the continued placement of the pic in the article is nothing more than a simple partisan attack deemed by his opponents to add weight to the negative aspects of his arrest." I'm not familiar with the history of this argument, but is that your subjective opinion or has it actually been stated by his opponents? I don't care one way or another about the image; I was honestly seeking information about how its inclusion violated policy. The argument also could be made (and I'm not making it) that his appearance indicates that he honestly didn't believe he had violated any laws, based on the same subjective projection. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you miss the "whitewash won't wash" edit summary used by one of the inserting editors? I think that shows there was a specific rationale, other than just giving an image of the living person, involved in the insertion. Collect (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * On the one hand, we shouldn't be using mugshots for the reasons stated by Collect above. On the other hand, there is no way in the world I would have known that that is a mugshot.  I wish my christmas photos would come out so nice.LedRush (talk) 02:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

jill kenton
would it be possible to remove the warning tags on the article on Jill Kenton? I think mostly the article is within the strictures of the biographies of living persons - it was sourced mainly from information directly from her (she asked me to edit her article for her, as she has no experience of doing this) and is as neutral as possible; almost all the references to her are confirmed through third-party sites. PeterPwarne (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Er, that's actually the problem. The article has no references, and that may be grounds for deletion soon. The external links are her family business, her official site, her employer, a BBC article, and a YouTube video. See No original research. Dru of Id (talk) 19:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPPRODed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Abi Titmuss
I am having a difficult time convincing an editor that navel-gazing negative gossip such as this, sourced to the The Mirror, is not appropriate content for a BLP. Unfortunately they are edit warring to restore the BLP-violating material despite my multiple requests to get consensus that it is appropriate content. The content has been removed on BLP grounds by both myself and another editor, yet it continues to be restored by Shylocksboy. Since they have chosen not to reach out to get the consensus required to include such information, I have begun the discussion. Additional input welcome please!. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 20:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hang on a cotton-picking moment! How the hell am I edit warring? If a story makes a national newspaper site, the national news and three pages on Digital Spy as well as numerous other sites how is that regarded as "navel-gazing negative gossip"? It was one of the most interesting things about Celebrity Love Island. Sanctimonious little prigs like you are one of the reasons why people get pissed off with wikipedia and leave. Look at how many edits I have done to the site - ALL I would argue correct. Get consensus you say - no sod has bothered to respond so just leave the article as it was.--Shylock&#39;s Boy (talk) 01:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please attempt a bit more civility. I am in agreement that your addition was extremely poor, we do not repeat attak insults that just serve to insult the subject and chat threads as you were inserting are never reliable sources here, You do also appear to have been edit warring rather than discussing. i Also had a look at a few of your other recent additions to blp articles and had to revert a couple - I suggest you read wp:rs and wp:blp and take them onboard. You really  can  01:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The user is following a similar pattern on the Anthony Head blp with a poorly cited and unsupported as if fact claim that the subject hides a claimed deformity in promo pictures diffs- You  really  can  01:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

William Levy (actor)


I have had enough with, who insists that William Levy Gutiérrez (source) was born "William Gutiérrez Levy". OK, yes, he admitted that his mother's last name is "Levy" (WP:ELNEVER violation), but that doesn't mean that his second last name is "Levy", that is WP:OR. Legally, he can have both last names from her mother--for those who don't know it, Spanish-speaking countries use two last names, one from the father, and one from the mother (Spanish naming customs). 108 insists on continuing with this nonsense, even when I already told him that he has two children Kailey Alexandra Levy Gutiérrez and Christopher Alexander Levy Gutiérrez; if he were born Gutiérrez Levy they would be named Kailey Alexandra Gutiérrez Gutiérrez and Christopher Alexander Gutiérrez Gutiérrez, which is not the case, and that there are many sources backing him as William Levy Gutiérrez, and very few (or none as William Gutiérrez Levy). 108 claims that esmas.com is not "God", but is a site affiliated to Televisa, the company in which he worked for many years. Also, he called me corrupt. So, please can somebody help me or at least explain to him in simple English that he is violating the BLP policy with WP:OR. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  02:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

John David Carson
One source says that he is dead, but I am not sure if that is reliable. If unreliable, then he might be possibly alive. --George Ho (talk) 03:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * wow, how could you question the credibility of that source? lol-- The Red Pen of Doom  04:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see the source citing an obituary of this person. Also, it was published in December, not October. --George Ho (talk) 04:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Melvins
A bot report at UAA led me to this ongoing edit war and possible sockpuppetry going on for several days (actually, heating up; it's gone on for almost a month) without anyone else apparently noticing. Since it involves a band with living members I think this is the best forum to start in.

On Melvins,, an account opened several weeks ago that has primarily edited only that article, has suddenly gotten very active in the last week or so, repeatedly adding this negative material (earliest, unsourced version). I checked the sources and, as noted by a reverting anon, one of them is indeed a private message board. The YouTube video may well be legitimately posted, but the other link doesn't look good either. So, the controversial statements are not reliably sourced.

Legitmang has stayed under the 3RR radar, never doing this more than twice in a given 24-hour period. This, to me, suggests someone with previous Wikipedia experience.

The reverting accounts also seem to be working together to avoid the radar:


 * (the one that set off the UAA bot)
 * (the one that set off the UAA bot)
 * (the one that set off the UAA bot)
 * (the one that set off the UAA bot)

IPs  and  also seem to be involved.

For starters I have full-protected the article for a week. Any suggestions for further action? (SPI seems likely). Daniel Case (talk) 05:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * First, BLP issues. The prose in diff you've provided violates BLP because 1) one source is a self-published source (even though it's attributed to a news source, angelfire is not an acceptable reproduction); 2) the second source is a private message board; 3) the prose itself contained puffery and editorializing; and 4) the prose itself puts undue weight on the topic, which is likely of little to no enduring or encyclopedic biographical significance. Second, it looks to me like you've fully protected the article to preempt a single editor, whereas other problematic edits by WP:SPA could be prevented with a semi-protect. I think it's a good candidate for semi-protect and WP:SPI. The autoconfirmed user should be warned using appropriate escalating templates, blocked if necessary, and/or reported at WP:ANI. JFHJr (㊟) 23:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I went with full protect to a) minimize the likelihood of any other edits in the meantime and b) protect against sleeper socks. I'll go back to semi for a longer period. Daniel Case (talk) 02:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I was about to but maybe not. The edit warring has apparently moved to the article talk page. Sigh... Daniel Case (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Pro-life feminism


This article labels Breda O'Brien as an "Irish abortion opponent" using a cite by Laury Oaks. Only problem is that the cite is unavailable for under $36, and a free article by the same author does not make the same specific characterisation. I have asked without success for anyone to furnish the text of the cite to determine if it is being properly used, to no avail. Meanwhile, one of the edit warriors is saying that the article is under 1RR (though he fails to warn his compatriot who is at 3RR <g>) meaning that the characterisation of a living person as being "abortion opponent" and not as a "pro-life feminist" remains. Last I checked, the term "abortion opponent" can be considered a contentious claim which requires actual verifiable reliable sourcing. Edit summaries, alas, make a claim No basis for argument as Collect has not read the cited source which means that making a source unverifiable makes it a stronger source than one which can be verified <g>, and on the talk page oh yeah, I'd forgot you're one of those people who waves the BLP flag to cover up POV-pushing) which is exactly the sort of anti-WP:BLP attitude which causes so many problems on Wikipedia.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not involved on that article, but allow me to correct a misimpression: the source is not "unverifiable" (anyway it's content that has to be verifiable, not sources). Please have a look at WP:SOURCEACCESS.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Practice in the past has been that a person using a source be prepared to give the wording in that source, Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you asked WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request? Have you checked Inter Library Loan? Hipocrite (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC) Alternatively, have you asked on the article talk page? Hipocrite (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I checked online - and decided $36 was a lot. I asked repeatedly for thpse using the "source" to furnish quotes thereform - but so far they seem quite loath to do so.  This would not be a problem except that we have found people making claims in the past for sources, which were not in them.  All I ask is that the material be furnished - a simple matter if the source's exact wording corresponds with the claims made for it.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So, in summary, your answer is "no?" Please ask at WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request, go to the library, or ask for a copy of the source on the talk page. Hipocrite (talk) 19:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with others that you should ask at WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request. But if no one can come up with a source, I say you probably should remove or rephrase it.
 * BTW, the citation template has a place where you can give the exact quote from the citing article. Had the original author filled this part in, we could see if the source actually backs the article content.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * From what I read here, there is a source. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * My understanding of BLP is that you would have to remove this claim until someone actually gets the source and verifies that it is correctly used. Certainly it is best practice to try and get the book from inter-library loan or whatever, but BLP policy is quite protective adn conservative, and the safest answer is to leave it out until someone gets the source.LedRush (talk) 19:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You're not understanding. Collect's problem is not that no-one has the source -- Collect's problem is that (s)he can't get the source for free.  Again, see WP:SOURCEACCESS. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope, I understand. I think BLP concerns, especially on a topic as heated as this one, are more important.LedRush (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the article talk page, it appears many people have the source. Collect dosen't appear to have asked any of them for it yet. Hipocrite (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * As Nomoskedasticity points out, it is not necessary for every user to be able to access a source in order to use it. Binksternet, Sonicyouth86, and I all have it. However, accessibility isn't the problem: Collect has found another article by the same author with similar content, and this article also characterizes O'Brien as an abortion rights opponent whose arguments are characteristic of abortion opponents, not "Irish women" as a class. Collect is, as usual, waving the BLP banner as a coverup for POV-pushing and, in this case, flagrantly misrepresenting sources. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This sort of personal attack on another editor's conduct and motivation is not a useful part of the BLP discussion and Roscelese should consider striking it. Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Can someone with access to the source please post the relevent passage here? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Roscelese, if you have it, please post the relevant passage here, and we can end this thing. Easy peasy.LedRush (talk) 20:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please refer to my quotes here from both the source Collect can't access and the one zie linked, or let me know if you'd like more/a copy-paste. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That link appears to point to a section quoting from "Antiabortion positions and young women's life plans in contemporary Ireland", Social Science & Medicine 56. I believe the request is for an excerpt from "'Pro-Woman, Pro-Life'? The Emergence of Pro-Life Feminism in Irish Anti-Abortion Discourses and Practices". Irish Journal of Feminist Studies 4.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The more extensive quoting in the second comment is from "Antiabortion positions," but the first comment is quoting "'Pro-Woman, Pro-Life'?" Let me know if there are more quotes from it that you would like (the content is substantially similar). –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe that the source in dispute (the $36 question) is "'Pro-Woman, Pro-Life' ...". It would be helpful to have a verbatim quote of the sentence about Breda O'Brien and enough of the context to support the disputed wording of the article namely Oaks notes that while Irish abortion opponents such as Breda O'Brien, founder of Feminists for Life Ireland, valorize child-bearing and are critical of the notion that women have "a 'right' to an identity beyond motherhood", some offer feminist-inspired arguments that women's contributions to society are not limited to such functions.  Thanks in advance,  Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Doot doot dooo.... "Anti-abortion activists are poised to address this very problem. Writing in the Irish Family, Breda O'Brien (etc.)" Earlier in the section, we have "Pro-life advocates in Ireland and elsewhere are turning the conversation toward focusing on women's experiences of unplanned pregnancy and away from convincing women that life begins at conception...The arguments voices at the '5000 Too Many' conference and distributed through ongoing public campaigns by anti-abortion organisations hinge on the creation of a 'caring' society, one that validates and supports motherhood. This reassessment, in part, is due to the frustration felt by anti-abortion advocates who realise that their legal efforts have not curtailed the number of Irish women seeking abortions abroad. Indeed, transnational anti-abortion activists are explicitly reacting to what feminist researchers have noted since the 1980s in the US..." –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a little disappointing that we do not have a complete sentence quoted about Breda O'Brien -- in particular the throwaway "(etc)" does not really help us understand how to describe her in this article. In particular while Oaks is quoted as describing her as "antiabortion advocate" in "Antiabortion positions", and that would indeed support a description of her as abortion opponent, I still see nothing that supports the assertion that she is critical of the notion that women have "a 'right' to an identity beyond motherhood" as opposed to being one of those who offer feminist-inspired arguments that women's contributions to society are not limited to such functions.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I elided that part because the content dispute is over whether her position ought to be described as representative of "Irish anti-abortion advocates" or "Irish women," rather than whether the summary of her position is correct, but it goes "...Breda O'Brien advocates 'normalising' pregnancy and raising the social value of mothering such that it becomes as highly valued as a high-powered career: 'We have trained our young people to think of success in terms of a comfortable lifestyle and lucrative careers. We go on about the Celtic Tiger so much that they think it is their right.' [Breda O'Brien, 'Women, Work and Childrearing', Irish Family, October 2, 1998, pp. 8-9.] While O'Brien is critical of the 'right' to an identity beyond motherhood which young women feel, she voices a feminist-based acknowledgment of the risk of embracing motherhood as women's main contribution to society: 'One of the catchcries of the women's movement is that biology is not destiny. Of course women's value is not defined by childbearing and childrearing, but it remains fact that women highly value both of these activities.'[ibid.] In response to what she feels to be excessive feminist attention to the negative aspects of childbearing and rearing, O'Brien writes: 'The whole notion of abortion as central to feminism is based on the idea that women will never be equal to men until a woman can be as free from the consequences of unplanned pregnancy as a man is. The odd thing about this position is that a central capability of women is seen as a handicap to overcome, not a difference to be celebrated...Feminism must reevaluate its whole attitude to motherhood and reproduction.' [Breda O'Brien, 'Empty Rhetoric: A Feminist Enquiry into Abortion Advocay and the "Choice" Ethic', in A. Kennedy, op. cit., pp. 29, 36.] But, importantly, recent feminist reassessments of motherhood and reproduction have not inevitably led to anti-abortion advocacy, as O'Brien implies they would." –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, folks -- no longer a BLP issue (if it ever was). I'm glad it came here, though -- another chance to reiterate that the best sources (academic journals and books) are to be preferred even if some will whine that they can't access them for free. There's no way we're going to denigrate their use here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It's also rather rich of Collect to call Binksternet and myself "edit warriors," when zie is the only one who has violated 1RR on the article - hir claim that Bink or I have done so is plainly false and made in bad faith. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Even the source Collect was drawing from characterizes O'Brien as an anti-abortion activist, so Collect was edit warring to try to present O'Brien as generally representing all Irish women. Binksternet (talk) 21:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

A person who htis 3RR in an article - and is not warned - is rather more an "edit warrior" than a person who is told a non-existent 1RR rule applies to the article. The source still has not been provided, which I questioned. And "proof by assertion" is not really a valid means of satisfying WP:BLP. The person is living, hence WP:BLP applies. 22:39 31 March,  16:44 1 Apr,  18:20 2 April all by Roscolese, and the intervening revert by Binksternet  15:02 2 Apr. Note the first two are within 24 hours - thus "violated 1RR" on its face (although there is no notice at all that the article is a 1RR article other than the assertion by Binksternet who says any editor can impose that rule. Cheers.  So much for the assertions of innocence by them. And the edit I sought was to identify the person as a woman -- which I really did not think was contentious.  No rational person could read the edit as saying "O'Brien represents all Irish women" with a straight face.  But since you think you have no need to even make a shadow of effort to show what the original source says, I think your status as opposing WP:BLP is clear. Collect (talk) 23:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Assuming there is still a serious content issue here, as opposed to just gamesmanship, could someone please articulate exactly which article content is disputed? Is it the description of O'Brien as an "Irish abortion opponent"? Or the material about her views on motherhood? Or something else? MastCell Talk 00:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This tempest is no bigger than a teapot. Collect has a problem with the following:
 * "Oaks notes that while Irish abortion opponents such as Breda O'Brien, founder of Feminists for Life Ireland, valorize child-bearing..."
 * Collect prefers this wording:
 * "Oaks notes that while Irish women such as Breda O'Brien, founder of Feminists for Life Ireland, valorize child-bearing..."
 * Collect's preferred wording sets all Irish women into the category of people who valorize child bearing. Roscelese's wording hews closely to the source by saying that Irish abortion opponents valorize child bearing. This latter is what the source represents. The fact that Collect wants this kind of change is, perhaps, gamesmanship as you put it, or a substantial misinterpretation of every available source on the matter, not just works by Laury Oaks. Binksternet (talk) 00:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

(←) Thanks to Roscelese for providing a suitable extract from the source. However, it seems to me that it does not support the description of Breda O'Brien as one of those who are critical of the notion that women have "a 'right' to an identity beyond motherhood" but indeed to put her in the group who offer feminist-inspired arguments that women's contributions to society are not limited to such functions. Cusop Dingle (talk) 13:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought that Breda was uncontentiously a woman, but apparently some think that the neutral word is somehow impllying that every Irish woman must hold the same opinion! LOL!  And still the original source wording has never been provided anywhere for me to read or for any Wikipedia editor to verify.  Cheers -- but it would be nice if straw arguemnts of risable value were not presented here, when my only concern is with the absolute requirement for unquestionable sourcing for claims about living people.  Collect (talk) 12:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not enough that I went to the trouble of typing out lengthy excerpts from the source? Are you such a special snowflake that you need me to e-mail the excerpts to you personally? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please note that heavy elisions do not impress me, nor does your namecalling (snowflake?) impress anyone at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I.e. a nice "overuse" of a source to state what is not explicit in the source per WP:BLP when all is said and done. Thanks. Collect (talk) 18:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the source is saying she fits in to both groups. Specifically is critical of any 'right' to an identity beyond motherhood and does consider motherhood should generally be seen as a woman's main (but not sole) contribution to society even if it carries some risks. Nil Einne (talk) 15:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the bit about being critical of the right to an identity beyond motherhood is pretty much a direct quote from the source about O'Brien (and perhaps should be changed or put in quote marks for that reason). Perhaps we could say "while Irish abortion opponents ..., some, like Breda O'Brien, also ..." - do you think that'd work? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I would support that. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I can confirm that on page 84 of the article "'Pro-Woman, Pro-Life' The Emergence of Pro-Life Feminism in Irish Anti-Abortion Discourses and Practices" Ms. Oaks writes: "O'Brien is critical of the notion that women have "a 'right' to an identity beyond motherhood". @Roscelese: I stayed very close to the source per WP:INTEXT. So the fact that it's almost a direct quote isn't a problem because I began the sentence with "Oaks notes that..." So in my opinion no quotation marks are necessary. Sorry I'm so late for Collect's party. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Refocus
The question is "Is "O'Brien is an abortion opponent" sourced to reliable sources?" Let's ignore the other jibber-jabber. It appears to me from the posted excerpts that the answer is "yes."

The other questions, "Was Collect's action of redescribing O'Brien as a "Woman," a violation of NPOV?", or "Was Collect's 3 reverts in a row edit warring?" or "Does Collect have a history of pushing a far-right POV through selective BLP enforcement?" are not appropriate for this board. If anyone wishes to raise an RFC about Collect's conduct, I will certify it. Now move on. Answer "Is "O'Brien is an abortion opponent" sourced to reliable sources?" Hipocrite (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

David Lisak at False accusation of rape
User:Godspiral, a single-purpose account devoted to using Wikipedia to inflate statistics of false rape reports, is repeatedly inserting his own personal criticism of a study by psychologist David Lisak. I've warned him several times that this sort of unsourced analysis violates WP:NPOV and WP:OR, particularly with regard to living people, but he continues to add it. I've already reverted this content three times so I'm erring on the side of caution and not reverting again, but I'd like someone else to look at Godspiral's edits and confirm that unsourced criticism of this kind, especially of a living person, is not allowed under WP policy. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I skimmed through the referenced work and can find nothing to support the critique in the article where Godspiral claims it is. I've deleted it. An admin may want to go further. Bielle (talk) 04:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh
Does it violate BLP to describe this individual as antifeminist, sourced to Men & Masculinities (ABC-CLIO), Postmodern Texts and Emotional Audiences (Purdue University Press), American Culture in the 1990s (Edinburgh University Press), Listening In (University of Minnesota Press), ..., ...? User:Arzel claims that it's a BLP violation, but I pointed out that BLP specifically and repeatedly talks about unsourced or poorly sourced information about living people, not any information about living people with which a user may personally disagree, and that these academic sources (in addition to the news and mass-market sources also available) are thus more than adequate. Arzel prefers "critic of feminism," which does not seem to appear in any sources. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all - such a description is almost certainly an opinion and, as such, citable only as the opinion of the person holding it. Second - your first source ("The Piano ...") is an opinion piece in the first place, and only makes the claim as a parenthetical aside - not a specific claim of the author. The second source makes a parenthetical assertion about a "typical anti-feminist tirade" which is clearly "opinion" and also clearly not a specific claim about Limbaugh. The third source is even more clearly an opinion piece - calling Limbaugh a "male hysteric" which I doubt would pass muster as a claim in any BLP. Thus we have clearly opinion pieces being cited as though they were facts - which is contrary to WP:BLP ab initio.  Just as we can not call Limbaugh an "obnoxious bigot" just because someone in Worcester called him one . Collect (talk) 14:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Please look at the sources again and then retract your false claim that they are opinion pieces. It's really not very collegial to waste people's time by making these sorts of claims. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Please retract your "false claim" that I did not read the "sources."  If one can not note that they are stating opinion and not fact there is little reason for this noticeboard to exist.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * When "opinions" are stated by academic source after academic source after academic source (after news source after mass-market source), we commonly treat them as "facts." Unless it's also "just an opinion" that, I don't know, Barack Obama is liberal. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Obama called his mom an "unreconstructed liberal" (in "The Audacity of Hope") but has not self-identified as "liberal." With his sometimes contradictory stances, I suspect that the simple term would vastly over-simplify his positions.  I fully think he viewed "Obamacare" as a pragmatic solution to the medical cost problem, rather than as an ideological solution thereto. Collect (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You could use your "academic source" to say "Limbaugh is a 'male hysteric'" - which I quite suggest is not a "fact" but an "opinion." Or the Worcester Telegram to say "Limbaugh is 'an obnoxious bigot'".  I suggest others can see that such are "opinions" and only "opinions."  BTW, arguing with bearers of bad news does not improve the news they brought <g>. Collect (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds like the words of a great sage are pertinent here: "Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man". All joking aside, there is a preponderance of reliable sources which indicate that Limbaugh is, and considers himself to be, an antifeminist. We do have him to thank for the term Feminazi after all. a13ean (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Your mind is made up <g> - but that is not the purpose of this noticeboard. The aim here is to follow WP:BLP to the letter.  IIRC "feminazi" is an "extreme or militant feminist" per Merriam-Webster.  Opposing "extreme feminism" is not precisely the same as "antifeminist."   Use of the term antedates Limbaugh per  4 July 1989 in LA Times. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I fear you have misunderstood my comment. I could care less about the article and have never edited it, but I do believe that there are sufficient reliable sources to merit a mention in his BLP.  I similarly did not claim that he coined the term, but without his popularization of it, it wouldn't be notable.  a13ean (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Bill Ayers has been described as a Terrorist by many many reliable sources. Do we label him as such in his article?  No.  Assume a different deragatory straw man term and see if you feel differently.  "Rush Limbaugh, a noted drug abuser, said....."  I think it is clear that this is a BLP violation.  Arzel (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Our article doesn't call Bill Ayers a "terrorist", but it does correctly state (in the lead) that he founded a "communist revolutionary organization that conducted a campaign of bombing public buildings". By way of analogy, it seems reasonable to detail the antifeminist positions Limbaugh has taken over the years&mdash;most recently, his stated belief that women interested in insurance coverage of contraception are "sluts" and "prostitutes" who should be compelled to submit footage of their sexual encounters to him as the price of access to contraception. But it's probably unnecessary to use the term "antifeminist" directly, as that would be inflammatory and a matter of "opinion". MastCell Talk 21:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, Just the facts ma'am. Lets just stick to the facts.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not a BLP violation. Funny thing about these discussions -- some people conjure up "BLP violations" out of their own worries that a term like "anti-feminist" is negative, when in all likelihood Limbaugh himself would consider "anti-feminist" a badge of pride.  In any event, if the academic studies in question are not merely voicing an opinion but have some sort of systematic approach to descriptive labels of this sort, then it's perfectly fine to note their use of the term.  If it's merely a gratuitous label, then perhaps not -- so it's a matter of assessing how the judgement is being made in their work.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Its absolutely going to be undue as suggested in the lede as desired by User:Binksternet - diff - especially as its a political position and the articles a biography. Its aggressive labeling in the lede. Whenever you see cite farms like this, Limbaugh is considered as an antifeminist[44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51] - with opinions presented as if fact you know theres a POV attempting to be asserted. All such attempts as this, to present opinions as if facts and in an undue opinionated partisan way are the worst kind of violations of WP:BLP - and WP:NPOV - This comment, in all likelihood Limbaugh himself would consider "anti-feminist" a badge of pride. from User:Nomoskedasticity is imo a violation of BLP even on a talkpage.  You  really  can  17:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Good thing it's just your opinion, then. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Utter nonsense, he is quite clearly an antifeminist and proud of it. No need to mention the word in the lead we can just note that he has criticized feminism and the women's movement in general. In the article body it is a nobrainer to include it. Perhaps even note that he has been frequently been referred to as a misogynist. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Again - please consider removing your interpretation of the subjects opinions against BLPtalk - He holds views strongly supported in the conservative movement such as ....bla bla is the position to report. You  really  can  21:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have considered it as much as I am going to.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Rob, why do you try to prove a negative point by linking to a calm and considered talk page entry from me? You say, "as desired by" me but then you ignore the fact that I proposed putting "antifeminist" in the lead section while developing same in the article body. You then point to Paintedxbird's eight citations in a row as an example of "a POV attempting to be asserted" but I see this instance as the opposite: an easily supported statement that has been opposed by entrenched reactionaries, and in response the "farm" of citations is inserted by Paintedxbird to show how out of touch are the reactionaries. Binksternet (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Congrats on making a post which quite proves YRC's point. I would commend you to read WP:NPOV and also WP:TRUTH at this point.  And try a glance at WP:PIECE while you are at it. Cheers and have a cup of tea.  And refrain from refactoring words of others, and when they complain - follow the advice to undo your refactoring. Collect (talk) 23:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Your logic escapes me. Ciao. Binksternet (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * +1. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Collect and Youreallycan in that it violates BLP to use the term 'antifeminist' in the article to label Rush Limbaugh. Rather than forcing one opinion conclusion or another on the Wikipedia article reader, the article needs to be an WP:NPOV account of Limbaugh's life that allows the reader draw their own conclusions, such as whether Limbaugh is hostile to sexual equality or to the advocacy of women's rights. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Undue weight for that to be a primary descriptor, as Limbaugh is a lot of things. Further, although there is no doubt that he is against feminism, it is a matter of opinion to say whether he is for or against women, or for or against equal rights for women, or whether feminism is the same as equal rights for women.  If I read that he was an antifeminist I would take that literally, that he is against feminists, which is no doubt true.  He calls them Nazis.  But others read that to mean that he is against the underlying goal of feminists to bring about better conditions for women, which is a different thing.  Those are all political / personal positions.  - Wikidemon (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

A single editor appears to be editing the BLP to increase the weight of controversy sections increasing a negative POV of the subject. This is not keeping with WP:CRIT; additionally the edits have added unnecessary multiple or lengthy quotes, which is not keeping with WP:QUOTEFARM. Assistance and additional opinions are requested, as the editor is not responding significantly on the talk page. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * RightCow removed all quotes, partial or full, in which Rush called Ms Fluke a "slut" or a "prostitute". This act of POV is made even more damning in light of the whitewashing of the defamations by saying Limbaugh's was only being "contentious". The reader would have no idea of why there was any outrage at all. Others may well ask: Who is axe grinding? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

BLP check request
I am proposing that the article Rush Limbaugh – Sandra Fluke controversy be checked against WP:BLP & WP:NPOV. Please see the discussion I have started here. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit summaries such as:
 * contentious" is not supported or used by source, but "branding" as a slut is - his apoology is fairly described and the full quote adds nothing, the shamlessness of the defamation can only be understood by a full quote

Appear to validate that a real problem exists. Editors are not supposed to seek to emphasize "shamlessness" in any article, much less in any WP:BLP compliant article. Please folks - check out some of the more incredible edit summaries there <g>. Collect (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Classic ad hominem attack. No issue is made of the RS's, instead the editor's motives are objected to. Only the edits can be called POV, and I haven't seen that argument yet. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Showing the content of edit summaries is not an "ad hom" attack - it is a fact often used in Wikipedia discussions. If you do not wish to show POV in edit summaries, the best practice is to write edit summaries which do not show a POV.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised to hear the suggestion that POV is banned from edit summaries, and curious to know what backs this strange fancy. And since POV applies to edits only, what edits (NOT edit summaries or Talk postings) are at issue. Let's get to the point. Shall we? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 23:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)