Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive150

Some watchers needed on pornstar bios!
Got your attention didn't it? Well, after posting about Mr. Deen's, ahem, acheivements above, I checked on the page creator's contributions and have removed some stuff from Deen's bio, sourced to YouTube videos of himself. On the other article personal info about the woman's weight has been changed twice today with no refs by two editors (the same person?), who also insist on putting back trivial information sourced to blogs. Would really appreciate a couple of other editors watchlisting these as I'm fairly sure this will persist. Cheers!  Captain Screebo Parley! 16:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Penny Marshall bio
you stated that she married Michael Henry in 1961 and they had a daughter Tracy together and stayed married for 2 years, but on Tracy's bio you say she was born in 1964. Is that math correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.45.96 (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Could be correct. Months aren't given, and some of the sources are books I can't verify easily. However, if Tracy was conceived in late 1963 while Marshall and Henry were still married, she could have been born in 1964.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Masood Khan
✅

I am not sure how this has gone through without being blocked but H.E. Mr. Masood Khan's introduction currently states:

"Masood Khan is a career criminal, robbing students of dignity and selling fake scholarships which are supposed to be free of charge this man belongs in prison along with his co-workers who is the current Pakistan Ambassador to China since September 2008"

Clearly this does not fit the profile of what is okay to be written on Wikipedia. Suggest that it is immediately edited to:

"Masood Khan is the current Pakistan Ambassador to China since September 2008"

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.237.253.30 (talk) 04:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * a vandal made an edit that has since been reverted by Avanu. Thanks for helping keep Wikipedia articles appropriate! -- The Red Pen of Doom  05:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Joyce Banda
I am sick and freaking tired of User:Mewulwe and his/her baseless assumptions and edit warring of of reliable sources "copying from Wikipedia". They have repeatedly removed a year/date of birth from Joyce Banda that has been sourced to RS such as BBC and a published source. Please also note that I have only re-added the YOB, not the full DOB. A quick news search of "Joyce Banda 1950" also turns up many news outlets reporting a 1950 year of birth. However, because these are quite recent, Mewulwe decides to assume that they got the YOB from Wikipedia and repeatedly remove it and "require" a pre-Wikipedia source to source it. Any thoughts? – Connormah (talk) 23:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If a reliable source says she was born in 1950 (and there is no conflict with other reliable sources), then the year should be reported in the article. Mewulwe's reasoning is their own and unsupportable without some actual evidence that the source "copied" Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I had a published source in and a BBC article in but they were both dismissed as "copying Wikipedia" - Mewulwe has once again reverted... . – Connormah (talk) 01:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I saw an article that was crearly a copy of wikipedia and I have a degree of sympathy with the users claim that the date was copied from wikipedia, There is imo that I have seen so far a reliable source for her date of birth  as for the year of birth, there doesn't appear to be anything official - I say wait for a government article to officially publish it. -  You  really  can  07:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

- is this the source? Perhaps if you present all your sources here for investigation we can have a good look at them, The user is clearly removing the date in good faith but needs to move to discussion, I have let them know about this report and asked them to comment. You really  can  07:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I am sick and tired of Connormah stalking me for months and constantly accusing me of "baselessly" removing information. If the earliest source to be found for a given information is Wikipedia itself, you need a higher standard than the usual "reliable source" to confirm it. Why would the birth date of a politician who has been active for many years suddenly crop up in various sources just after it was introduced in Wikipedia? Coincidence? We know for a fact that BBC and everyone else has copied from Wikipedia before (including hoaxes). The Historical Dictionary series routinely uses Wikipedia, often openly citing it, so it is also worthless here, since the book was written after the date was already in Wikipedia (it was added - by a one-day user - in July 2011, while the book's very article on Banda describes events of September 2011). We had the same phenomenon with Gaddafi, where many obituaries repeated an exact birth date which had been in Wikipedia at the time, even though it appears in no pre-Wikipedia sources and in fact many sources have explicitly stated that his exact birth date was not known. Mewulwe (talk) 11:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is textbook WP:OR. The fact that information present in Wikipedia might appear in a newspaper at a subsequent point in time does not mean that the newspaper got the information from Wikipedia.  If the newspaper article says that it got the information from Wikipedia, then fine; otherwise, stop speculating.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OR doesn't apply to sourcing issues. In fact, source evalution is necessarily OR. What else do you do, take their own word, "We are a reliable source"? If Wikipedia is not a reliable source, then no source which itself may use Wikipedia can be either, as far as information is concerned which has been in Wikipedia before. The burden of proof is not on the one who wants to keep information out (you don't need any source for NOT including something). You would have to prove that the sources did NOT take it from Wikipedia, when that is a reasonable possibility. In a similar case recently, someone actually wrote the BBC and they admitted using Wikipedia. Mewulwe (talk) 11:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have a concern about reliable sourcing, go to RSN. If you want to write to the source to ask whether they used Wikipedia, go ahead.  Apart from that, your speculations are just that.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, you go ahead if you want to use it. I don't have to. Nor do I need to go to RSN. Per IAR, I am not bound to overly generalized rules (like "BBC = RS") where they contradict plain common sense in a particular case. Mewulwe (talk) 12:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This is one citation http://http://www.malawivoice.com/2012/04/07/joyce-banda-sworn-in-and-puts-god-first-i-felt-presence-of-the-holy-spirit-21929/ - that has been added multiple times to cite her dob - the content is a direct copy of a previous version of the en wikipedia article - the user has a good faith concern and if users present their citations we can investigate.  You  really  can  12:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is a perfectly valid citation for her year of birth. Why is this so bloody difficult? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Because it's not "perfectly valid" at all, as the BBC is known to copy such things from Wikipedia. Mewulwe (talk) 13:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, if you have concerns about the BBC, WP:RSN is the place for you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What would I do there? I agree with the prevailing consensus that BBC is among those sources normally considered reliable, but those things are never absolute and you have to argue on substance here, not just say "BBC = RS, end of story." Mewulwe (talk) 14:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Arguing on substance is exactly what you are not doing, at least not sensibly. According to your logic, any source at all that subsequently publishes something containing a claim about her year/date of birth "could have" gotten it from Wikipedia and so can't be used.  I accept the point about a source that consists of a previous version of the Wikipedia article, but I don't accept it about the BBC.  I really don't care about whether her birth date/year is included or not; I only care about Wikipedia editors pushing stupid arguments.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Any source at all" is not my logic. What we need is either an official Malawian government source or an authentic personal site of Joyce Banda publishing the date, or a birth certificate published in a reliable source, or any source that is beyond suspicion of copying from Wikipedia; or else simply any generally reliable source dating from before July 2011. If that can't be found, all occurrences of the date must be presumed to be derived from Wikipedia. Why don't you accept it about the BBC when it has copied Wikipedia vandalism before? Mewulwe (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That question is exactly what you should raise at RSN. Go ahead, ask them: the BBC copied Wikipedia vandalism in the past, does that mean that we should not accept it as a RS anymore? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The situation is already clear. RS is not black and white. We should accept BBC in general unless we have a good reason not to. Mewulwe (talk) 18:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The "12 April 1950" date of birth appears to have been added by in July 2011 (previously it said "born 1951?"). Taking that date and running a search for "Joyce Banda 1950" through Google News (custom range 1/1/2004 to 1/7/2011) returns no news hits (all hits for "Joyce Banda" in this timeframe do not mention a year of birth). I think in this situation it is correct to leave the date of birth out and to make an assumption that any news source that has had a date since could have taken it from Wikipedia. We have to be careful about circular referencing. That said, this does not excuse edit warring on either side. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree completely. Its not like the wheels are dropping off. I am sure in the near future there will be an official biography published on the government website that will include a reliable date of birth. - It clearly seems that the primary location for her alleged date of birth has historically been unverified additions to en wikipedia.   You  really  can  13:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Concerning the date info & for that matter the numbering of Malawi Presidents, I've lost patience with Mewulwe's approach & attitude. It appears giving his reverts today on both topics, that nothing will change on those article without his stamp of approval. GoodDay (talk) 23:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I reverted since you stopped discussing and I assumed you conceded. If not, respond to my points without just repeating what you said before and which I already responded to. Mewulwe (talk) 00:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You reverted because you won't accept anything that goes against your stance. If 20 editors argued to keep the numbering or keep the birthyear & then didn't discuss it for a few hours, you'd merely 'revert' to your prefered version again - with the same annoying edit summary -. Others can decide as to how to deal with your conduct on those articles, I'm done with them articles. GoodDay (talk) 00:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I reverted because I don't accept empty handwaving or blockheaded generalization of wikirules to where they don't apply. I also don't revert unless at least some 24 hours have passed without any argument that I haven't refuted already. If only 1 editor actually argues I am happy to engage him. But since you say you are "done" I take it you finally concede the matter. Mewulwe (talk) 09:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I concede that your conduct is disruptive. GoodDay (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Howabout this CBC source? which states Banda was 61, upon becoming President. GoodDay (talk) 22:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What about it? CBC is no more immune from copying from Wikipedia than BBC. Mewulwe (talk) 00:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your incredibly stubborn attitude is disruptive. And don't cite WP:IAR as a justification for you doing whatever you please.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * When you're out of arguments, you just call your opponent "stubborn." I don't need to cite any WP:XYZ to begin with. IAR just serves as a response to mindless citations of RSN. Mewulwe (talk) 09:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I have added 1950 as the birth year citing the BBC and the CBC. There's no rational basis for keeping out the material based on Mewulwe's personal speculation.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What exactly is not rational about my speculation (which is not "personal" either, I haven't seen anyone actually making a case against, e.g. arguing that BBC would almost never copy from Wikipedia)? Mewulwe (talk) 09:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, how can you even cite the CBC for 1950? It just says she's 61. That only translates to 1950/51. Talk about no rational basis... Mewulwe (talk) 09:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Can an admin please step in and block Mewulwe for disruption at this point? --Mollskman (talk) 01:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That won't be necessary, at least not if he now accepts WP:Consensus and WP:RS are against him and stops removing it. I have left him a note pointing this out and requesting him to stop removing it, FWIW I agree with him there has been no official release of her date or year of birth or age either and its highly likely that the year being reported originated from en wikipedia, -  You  really  can  08:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Where do you see a consensus? Looks like 4-3 if we're counting "votes" which we're not supposed to. And looking at substantial discussion, it's not even a contest since the other side hasn't begun making any argument beyond "BBC is a reliable source!" Mewulwe (talk) 09:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well Nearly every Malawian national newspaper (as well as the wider African Press) wished her a happy 62nd Birthday on Thursday, some like the Malawi voice give the impression that they've spoken to Moses Kunkuyu about the birthday to receive information on how she was celebrating it.... Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 10:25, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Now there are some proper sources. I'd use this one: she "received full of pride wishes" for her birthday. See, Nomoskedasticity, they couldn't have gotten that from Wikipedia. Mewulwe (talk) 11:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest taking note of the fact that a number of other editors here perceived that you were editing disruptively. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest taking note of the fact that I don't care too much about pots calling kettles black. The only disruptive editing was that of those who reinstated potentially circular sources. Mewulwe (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * But, as it turned out, they were right! Though I do agree with you that it is quite likely that they BBC got its info from Wikipedia and it was the original poster on Wikipedia who was right. Guess we will never know. filceolaire (talk) 10:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * They were NOT right. The date was right. I never said I believed it was wrong. Had you asked me, I would have estimated it as at least 60% likely to be correct. It was simply not properly sourced. It could have been just made up by the original poster. Mewulwe (talk) 11:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible to have Mewulwe blocked or something? Despite not having a consensus to remove the numbering from Banda's infobox (or that matter from her 3 predecessors infoboxes), he continues to delete the numbering. He's already promised to continue to do so (at his talkpage). Why does that article need HIS approval, to get anything added or deleted? He continues to stonewall discussions by arguing with editors & when the discussion ends, he goes right back to reverting. Mewulwe's has got ownership issues with that & the other 3 articles. GoodDay (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest anyone interested go to Talk:Joyce Banda for the discussion there. It is not a BLP issue either way. Mewulwe (talk) 22:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Alan Davies
it says he posted a picture of him dressed as 'scouser' actually he meerly tweeted a link to a fancy dress website with a 'scouser' costume on. this is quite a different thing. one flippant and another requiring significantly more effort and needing to be more premeditated. this is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.169.158.130 (talk • contribs)
 * Thanks for letting us know. I removed that sentence. If anyone wishes to add it again, please provide a reliable source. Von Restorff (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Donald Tsang
The issue has cropped up again. Please see previous discussions listed below: Please see the BLPN link above. There was unanimity among those who commented on this page that the honorific "Sir" should not be included before the subject's name because he does not continue to use it as well as the fact that he is no longer a British subject. I am quite disappointed by Jiang's attitude throughout the debate, they have been quite obstinate with their position and have refused to accept consensus that was the result of these discussions. I request further comments on this page, and possible intervention, so that this dispute can be resolved as early as possible. Thank you. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 15:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive149
 * Wikipedia_talk:MOSBIO (permalink)
 * Talk:Donald Tsang
 * Talk:Donald Tsang/Archive 1

Richard F. Cebull
Richard F. Cebull is the judge who sent out a controversial email. Diff Dozens of news articles refer to the email, or the joke contained in the email, as racist or 'racially-charged'. However, three editors on the talk page User:Youreallycan, User:Jokestress, and an anonymous user, feel that the dozens of newspaper articles and headlines merely constitute a partisan opinion. They have not supplied any sources, reliable or otherwise, which assert an opposing view. User:Youreallycan argues that it doesn't matter how many reliable sources are supplied because "...the press is clearly opinionated and partisan...". Help please. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 19:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * A bit more detail - actually the press is less opinionated and partisan than some wikipedia users. - its not that partisan sources are important but attribution of opinion is important rather than presenting as if fact - User:Geothean's version -


 * Cebull used his official courthouse email address to forward to seven friends an email containing a racist[8][9][10][11][12] joke about President Barack Obama


 * imo presented as if fact in wiki's voice - and my version -


 * Cebull used his official courthouse email address to forward to seven friends an email containing a joke about President Barack Obama which some commentators asserted was racially charged.[8][9][10]  -  You  really  can  20:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Setting aside the obvious misunderstanding of "partisan" (none of the afore-mentioned sources are beholden to, or adherants of, a specific party), and assuming the editors instead meant to say they think the sources are "biased" in some way, it should be made clear that this is an invalid argument against the use of those sources to convey an assertion of fact. Having bias does not disqualify someone from editing Wikipedia, nor does it disqualify a source from meeting Wikipedia's reliability requirements for the assertion of fact.  The above cited news sources are not opinion or commentary pieces, and they do meet Wikipedia's WP:RS requirements.  WP:NPOV instructs us to Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion.  The "some commentators asserted was racially charged" suggested wording violates this instruction, and misleads the reader by representing the information conveyed by the sources as mere opinion -- something I'm sure the involved Wikipedia editors did not intend.


 * The issue now appears to be moot, unless we are now going to argue Cebull is biased against himself: Cebull acknowledged that the email was racist, but said he is not a racist – and that he sent along the email only because he dislikes Obama politically.  And also: “The only reason I can explain it to you is I am not a fan of our president, but this goes beyond not being a fan,” Cebull said. “ I didn’t send it as racist, although that’s what it is . I sent it out because it’s anti-Obama.”  Goethean's wording properly conveys the content of the reliable sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The alternate wording is preferable. The joke appears in the article; if you wanna get analytical about it, it's misogynist not racist, no matter how many footnotes are stacked. Fix the wording and loose the multitude of footnotes, which are a dead-tell that something dubious is being asserted as fact. I'll add that I think YRC's protestations about liberal media bias are fringe views without merit, just so you don't feel like I'm piling on here. Carrite (talk) 21:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I support YouReallyCan's alternate wording that "some commentators asserted was racially charged," and the five bare refs for the word "racist" is textbook Citation overkill which should be stripped out. This is a classic instance of editors trying to coatrack on a BLP of someone they don't like. Jokestress (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * YRC's made-up wording is not preferable. Preferable is conveying what "reliable sources for assertion of fact" convey, and leaving our own personal analysis as to the nature of the joke out of it.  As Wikipedia requires of us. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Given the above quotes, maybe it would be better than any of the other options to say something like "later acknowledged by Cebull to be racist". BLP is one thing, and it is wrong to give opinions on contentious matters in WPs voice. But it is far worse to be ambivalent in WP's voice about whether a joke placing black people on a continuum between humans and dogs is racist. Formerip (talk) 22:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is an excellent solution which I support. Jokestress (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * If prominent sources describe it as racist, then we should say it was racist. If the phrase "racially charged" is the main one sources are using, then use that.  If there is parity of use of these terms, then say something like "racist and/or racially charged".  This shouldn't be so difficult (though I see there's been another big bustup about it).  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I bowed out of this article a while ago after I got tired of the circular discussions about this single event. However, I don't have a conceptual problem with YRC's suggestion - just copy edits (and use the word racist) to: "Cebull used his court email address to forward to seven friends an email containing a joke about President Barack Obama that some commentators asserted was racist." It's a bit of a mouthful for one sentence, but ... --Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "some commentators asserted" is an astonishingly limp formulation to describe this particular state of affairs. Would you also say that some commentators assert that the world is round, or would you support for something slightly more full-throated on that one? &mdash; goethean &#2384;
 * Good points from all who have posted. My view is to use one of the versions suggested by Youreallycan or Formerip. -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 18:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a little conflation of point a with point b going on, and setting up straw men. There is unanimity that the email COULD be interpreted as racist (though a bit of a stretch, a defensible one), justifying the racist or racially-charged label. That does NOT mean that it can ONLY be considered racist. It also does not mean that Cebull INTENDED of thought of it as racist WHEN HE SENT IT. Quite the contrary, he denies this. Agreement on a, disagreement on b and c. When you say he "sent a racist email" you imply both that the email was intended as racist and can ONLY be regarded as racist. The first is denied by Cebull, and therefore needs a disclaimer to get to NPOV, the second needs something, such as a desciption of the interpretations (which would be long and cumbersome) of the text of the actual joke (so that people can make up their own minds). Probably a better wording is "Cebull used his court email address to forward to seven friends an email containing a vulgar joke about President Obama's mother that commentators later pointed out, could be considered racist".--209.6.69.227 (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't feel very strongly about this issue one way or the other, and have not edited the article. However, I have to say that, to me, "racially charged" sounds very much like a euphemism for "racist". Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 05:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Racially Charged" changes the focus from the person to the joke. The term "racist" almost universally applies to a person and their belief's.  The joke obviously has a racial element to it.  I don't think "racially charged" is disputable.  I think using the term "racist" is disputable however and unsupportable in this BLP.  As an unrelated example looking from the other side, it would be more acceptable to say in an article about admissions into college that use race as a factor is a "racially charged" isue or policy.  But it would be quite the leap to say it was "racist" especially if the article was a BLP of a college administrator that supported the policy.  The example that comes to mind is the University of Michigan law school admissions court case.  The policy is definitely "racially charged" and I think few would argue that but quite a few people would be offended if any opinion on keeping or abolishing the policy was described as "racist."  The reason is that the term "racist" reflects on the person, not the policy.  For that reason, it is NPOV to describe it as "racially charged" as there is a strong racial component to the issue but it would be improper to use the term racist.  They are not euphemisms for each other.  --DHeyward (talk) 10:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

On February 20, 2012, Cebull used his official courthouse email address to forward to seven friends an email containing a racially charged joke about President Barack Obama. is the wording I prefer per my above comment. I don't think the term "racially charged" needs a qualification as opinion as it is sourced and a major reaction to the joke was about it's racial aspects. "Racist" however is not a supportable term in this BLP. The content of the joke is included so the reader has a reference. --DHeyward (talk) 11:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

DHeyward; don't get me wrong, I think your wording is much better, HOWEVER, am amazed it hasn't been contested yet, since Goethean has endlessly pointed out that the actual word used in news reports is "racist". Yes, there is ambiguity in the joke, which stating plainly negates, and using the word "racist" implies a characteristic of the sender which is not certain. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 16:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Nazir Ahmed, Baron Ahmed
NOTE: The header and links for this post originally directed editors to an article about a different person with a similar name. oops! sorry, was on my way to bed, way too late to be still on wikipedia, my bad, thanks for fixing.  Captain Screebo Parley! 11:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi all, there is a breaking news story on the BBC, I actually went to the wiki article to read about the car crash incident and noticed that there was a huge swathe of text about this accusation, so I took the liberty of removing the whole section as it was WP:UNDUE, poorly sourced and so on. Looking at the history there has been a frenzy of IP activity on the page since early evening, nothing has actually been proved yet and so on, so more eyes over there and maybe some semi-protection for a few days if this continues? Cheers.  Captain Screebo Parley! 01:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Would really appreciate some BLPers watchlisting this as there is a lot of undue coatracking going on at the Haripur meeting section of the article. I have just had to edit it back down as there has been a ton of stuff added in again over the last 24 hours. Oh, and while we're on the subject, what's the correct policy on his name in the article? Half the article says Lord Ahmed, is that right, or is just plain old Ahmed to be preferred?  Captain Screebo Parley! 17:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

William Schnoebelen
Question: If an individual makes claims on their website, and later removes those claims, is it appropriate to use an Internet Archive citation to the old version of the page?

Context: Depending on where you stand, Schnoebelen is either a repentant ex-cultist or a charlatan. According to Schnoebelen's account, he was a member of many different religious groups (including Catholicism, LDS, Wicca, Druidism, and several different Freemasonic rites) - all of them secretly dominated by Satanism - before converting to evangelical Christianity around 1985. His main notability lies in these claims, which have been published in his own books and used by other authors (Jack Chick's "Dark Dungeons" is based on WS's allegations). There seems to be general consensus that his account of this personal history should be represented as a claim, not as fact.

The page also reports some information about his early educational history: "He has a degree in Music and Education from Loras College (1971), a Master of Theology degree from St. Francis School of Pastoral Ministry (1980), an MA in Counselling from Liberty University (1990)". This was sourced from an earlier version of his website, available in archive here, and the article currently presents it as fact.

An editor has questioned the veracity of this material (in particular, it's not clear that a "St. Francis School of Pastoral Ministry" existed at the time). The current version of the site still mentions an 1980 theology degree but doesn't name the institution. I think we're agreed that the St. Francis claim shouldn't be presented as fact, but is it acceptable to present it as a claim cited to the archived bio? Or does the newer version mean that the content should be removed? --GenericBob (talk) 08:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The website is a self-published source regardless of the version. If there is any doubt about the veracity of the degrees this person received, a secondary source is needed.  We shouldn't be stating the subject claimed X or Y based on archived versions of his website for WP:OR reasons.  If a reputable source discusses the discrepancies, then we may also, but we should leave it to the pros. I think, especially with BLPs, that its important to avoid making assertions about claims based on inaccuracies we find as editors. (Hopefully I interpreted your question correctly!)  The Interior  (Talk) 17:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear on why referring to an archived version would be considered OR, if clearly described as a claim. I agree that these degrees should not be presented as fact without confirmation from some other source. But in Schnoebelen's case, the unconfirmed claims he makes are the main reason for his notability, so I think we have to be willing to report claims here (suitably flagged as claims). Since his claims include 'secret knowledge' about the workings of the Catholic church, a theology degree at a Catholic institution is relevant to that.
 * I do agree that it'd be OR to add some sort of "but this institution doesn't seem to exist" to the article, but AFAICT nobody's suggesting that. --GenericBob (talk) 22:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess what I'm seeing as OR from your summary here is that we're looking at a primary document (a website produced by the subject) and drawing a conclusion (subject claims credentials he may not have). This is too close to investigative journalism for me. We should cite investigative journalism, not perform it.  The Interior  (Talk) 02:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * That possibility is not being stated on the page; representing something as a claim isn't an assertion that it's untrue, just a hedge against the risk that it might be. (And if we remove the claim altogether, then we're still responding to that same risk.) --GenericBob (talk) 11:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I would think that a claim that has since been removed would be like a newspaper article which has been retracted. About the only reason you would use a retracted newspaper article is if it's important that the newspaper claimed something at one time even if they are not continuing to claim it now.  Ken Arromdee (talk) 17:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

LaRouche movement
This article must conform to WP:BLP. I made some modest edits to the article - all on sound bases, and have been reverted leaving the article in a mess, as it was a COATRACK exemplar par excellance. And a place filled with rumour, anonymous allegations etc. Will others please examine the article - and note that I did indeed post on the article talk page as required. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Your "modest edits" were a 32k removal of sourced content. Discussion along the lines of "My whitewash wasn't a whitewash" is unhelpful - provide specific reasons for specific whitewashes, and trying to rally your friends to help you will hopefully backfire as people review your removal of information that is not about identifiable living persons, nor defamatory, nor unsourced. Hipocrite (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Horsefeathers. Removing anonymous allegations and the like is not a whitewash by a few miles.   And I consider Larouche to be, in fact, an "identifiable living person."  I guess you do not.  Your revert changes, for example:
 * The LaRouche movement has been accused of violence, harassment, and heckling since the 1970s.

To
 * The LaRouche movement members have had a reputation for engaging in violence, harassment, and heckling since the 1970s. While LaRouche repeatedly repudiated violence, followers were reported in the 1970s and 1980s to have been charged with possession of weapons and explosives along with a number of violent crimes, including kidnapping and assault. However there were few, if any, convictions on these charges. 

Note the "no convictions" part of what is there. And the clear inference that he "repeatedly repudiated violence" BUT "followers were charged ..." Blatant BLP violation.
 * The alleged harassing of individuals and organizations is reportedly systematic and strategic

Note the word "alleged"
 * In the 1960s and 1970s, LaRouche were accused of fomenting violence at anti-war rallies with a small band of followers\
 * In the mid-1973 the movement formed a Revolutionary Youth Movement to recruit and politicize members of street gangs in New York City and other eastern cities

Anonymous allegations R Us? You changed
 * In November 1973, the FBI issued an internal memorandum that was later released under the Freedom of Information Act. 

to
 *  November 1973, the FBI allegedly issued an internal memorandum that was later released under the Freedom of Information Act. 

Seriously -- don't you think that if a memo was released that it probably had been written? And on and on and on with the muckraking mess. Larouche may be Satan incarnate, but that does not abrogate NPOV and BLP concerns. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * From the top. Violence - who is the identifiable living person? The remainder of the accusations and allegations are sourced. The only source for the memo is the unreliable larouche organization. If you can source the memo, it's existence can go from an allegation to a fact. Hipocrite (talk) 15:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It is probably a good idea to continue this discussion at the article's talkpage. Von Restorff (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

110K here, 180K on BLP, and more than 300K in other articles - mainly repetitious. Seems a teensy bit obsessive for a minot political figure - more than Lincoln gets I suspect. But heck Hipocrite accused me of "killing" another editor (you killed your opposition), so this is par for the course . Collect (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Mostly due to the huge number of paid editors that show up to support the article, arrange offsite wikipedia lobbying forums about the article, and sockpuppet to disrupt the article, but hey, blame the ref! Hipocrite (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you intimating that any editors recently on that article are "paid" or "lobbying offsite" or "sockpuppets"? Make your claims on the proper boards, but bandying them here seems less than civil. Cheers.  I would note that so far you are upset with an edit where I removed "however" and "instead" and "amid claims of vote fraud" where there is no basis for that line in the article (LaRouche was not remotely connected to it AFAICT).       Collect (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Define "recently." Hipocrite (talk) 16:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Try last six months? Collect (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Hipocrite. Collect's 'my whitewash isn't really a whitewash' position is unpersuasive in the extreme. The above statement was sourced to reliable sources, and clearly in-line with BLP. Raul654 (talk) 16:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The "alleged" memo which was released?  Why do we need "allegedly" there?  There are images of it!  You can argue with any interpretation, but the memo exists. ,    And how is that a "whitewash"?  And so on.  Cheers.  Collect (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Images from an unreliable source are unreliable. Find a reliable source. Hipocrite (talk) 17:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The "unreliable image" is already in the article.  Do you trust the LA Times?,   NY Times? .  OTOH, if you feel the Commons image is a fake - ask to have it deleted there on that basis.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't participate much on commons, and I don't know their deletion policies, nor do I care to learn them. The memos in question are different than the memos to which you refer - neither of the images has the phrase "our man here claims Lewis has collected info against LaRouche." You seem highly uncritical when looking at sources that agree with LaRouche and highly critical of sources that disagree with him. Why is that? Hipocrite (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You appear to dislike the image. Commons has a deletion procedure. If you do not like the image, carping here does not affect Commons.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I just don't think it's reliably genuine. I don't believe that's a reason for deletion at commons. Hipocrite (talk) 18:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

If it helps, David Aaronovitch's Voodoo Histories has a chapter on the movement. 86.** IP (talk) 17:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Setting aside the minutia of each of LaRouche's bizarre claims, it is absurd to remove as much sourced material as you did(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8), claiming BLP violations. Most especially from a subject that is well known for their extreme, fringe views(a,b). This is definitely not a BLP issue. Take it to the Talk page, and don't keep removing sourced content without consensus. Dave Dial (talk) 18:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Very little was removed which is not also currently covered in multiple Wikipedia articles. How many places on Wikipedia ought each claim be placed?   BTW, contentious claims which impact a "living person" are officially "BLP issues."  Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm so confused. Now you say you didn't remove things which were covered elsewhere. Previously, you said you were removing BLP violations (this is where you report BLP violations, after all). Are you saying you believe the BLP vios are repeated elsewhere? Hipocrite (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Such exist - you were unfortunate enough to select as the first edit to be discussed on the article talk page an extraordinarily unremarkable edit. And yes - some BLP vios are repeated elsewhere, but I rely on the adage "sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof" or as others would say  "Lo alecha ham'lacha ligmor."  It is not up to us to complete the work.  Collect (talk) 19:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Ligmor" is a pretty foreign concept for Wikipedia -- it's pretty much all "alecha". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Let me point out that Collect was trying to implement the clear consensus from this RfC, the recommendations of which had been blocked by the article owner, Will Beback. Waalkes (talk) 21:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * That RFC, with no outside input, almost a year old, is depreciated. Review WP:CCC. Hipocrite (talk) 21:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Marcel Worms‎
I nominated this article for deletion under blpprod, which was removed by User:Nikkimaria on the basis that it has links to the subjects website, specifically images of what are apparently newspaper articles, although they give no indication of what newspapers they are from. I believe that this is not a basis for removing the blpprod per WP:USERG, Nikki believes WP:SELFPUB applies, so since User talk:Nikkimaria isn't getting anywhere some other opinions would be nice -- Jac 16888 Talk 21:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Do some WP:BEFORE and then send it to AfD. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec)You misunderstand my position: I argue that the blpprod should never have been added (because the article has sources, even if they're not high-quality ones). Per WP:BLPPROD, "To place a BLPPROD tag, the process requires that the article contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc.), which support any statements made about the person in the biography. Please note that this is a different criterion than is used for sources added after the placement of the tag." (my emphasis). Nikkimaria (talk) 21:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I question your interpretation of that, "in any form" refers to the way it is set in the article, not the reliablity of said source-- Jac 16888 Talk 21:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose it's a moot point, since the article had references without a reflist that I admit I didn't see, but I still believe your interpretation of blpprod to be incorrect-- Jac 16888 Talk 21:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Check past discussions regarding BLPPROD - there have previously been attempts to limit "sources" to "reliable sources", but those have been rejected. Current consensus is that any source is acceptable. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If that's the case then it is utterly ludicrous and completely undermines the entire purpose of blpprod - to ensure every blp has at least one reliable source. How would that happen if you're not allowed to blpprod if there are non-reliable sources on the article-- Jac 16888 Talk 22:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * BLP:PROD itself is completely ludicrous, it was a ridiculous solution to a ridiculous problem, thousands of biographies with no references whatsoever. So it is just a purely mechanical test, is there a source or not? It was never designed to address actual quality, either of articles or sources Franamax (talk) 23:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If the source isn't reliable, you can remove it, so why not remove it first and then use BLPPROD now that there aren't any sources? Ken Arromdee (talk) 17:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I tweaked it up a bit - I didn't add the wp:notability template - Subject seems to have some limited note - if anyone is interested to improve please do  - if not then AFD is beckoning -  You  really  can  22:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * User:Nikkimaria, an administrator, has been replacing uncited personal details and promotional content - I offered discussion but they simply replaced the content and I have been forced to give them an edit warring warning - Please replace any personal details and promotional detail but please add a specific reliable source to support it - preferably an independent one - thanks-  You  really  can  23:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've done no such thing - I quite clearly included references for the material I replaced. I also responded to your post on my talk page. Kindly retract your false accusation. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The bit about the Catalan composer Mompou gives Worms a total of 3 words in the full article ( Marcel Worms – piano) - I think that reference is insufficient to count for notability, or to justify the full claim made. Collect (talk) 12:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Alisher Usmanov
Please review the history of this article. You will see that a certain section regarding allegations by former ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, have been repeatedly removed and re-added, despite being reliably sourced. Craig Murray has never been sued for libel in connection with these allegations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clark42 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has little to no interest in whether a third party has or has not been sued in connection with allegations that he may or may not have made about the subject of an article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Properly sourced material is being repeatedly removed. I've also posted a note on the neutral point of view page. I've mentioned it here as Usmanov is a living person. The fact that Murray hasn't been sued suggests that the removed material is not libellous. Sorry I forgot to sign my post above.Clark42 (talk) 01:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a court of law, therefore we cannot help you to determine whether any given material is or is not libellous. Further, it does not follow that establishing that some material is not libellous (if you should choose to do so in a court of law) proves that the material is appropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia.


 * If there are issues with edit-warring, then WP:3RR, or places near there, may be useful. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Demiurge1000. I should have been more clear. Usmanov's lawyers threatened Murray and his blog-host with libel under UK law. Murray re-hosted his blog outside the UK. As Murray, a UK resident, was never sued for libel, despite directly challenging Usmanov to do so, the threats were presumably an attempt to silence him. Now it appears that someone has been repeatedly removing record of the dispute from Wikipedia.

The primary rule of BoLP is that articles must not include libellous content, so it seemed appropriate to post a notice here, where more experienced editors familiar with BoLP and libel issues would see it.Clark42 (talk) 02:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I have no problems with your mentioning the dispute here, as (apart from anything else) it may assist in drawing the attention of additional neutral editors to keep an eye on (or deal with problems in) the article.


 * We should be careful of making any assumptions about Usmanov's intentions, nor about exactly who is editing the article.


 * I personally would not agree with the statement that the "primary rule" of Wikipedia's policy on BLPs is that they must not include libellous content, although others might. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Demiurge1000, as a novice editor I am hesitant to add an NPOV tag to the article, and anyway, I don't know how to. I'll post some diffs on the NPOV noticeboard; so far, my notice hasn't attracted any attention from other editors. I think someone more experienced than me should look at this. Could you alert someone, or suggest someone I could alert please? Clark42 (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I've added a npov template and briefly described the situation on the article talk page. You really should participate on the article talk page to describe in detail what you think should go in the article, and what the sources for it are. (I realise that it's not very inviting to "participate" when the talk page has been ignored for years, and the problematic editing is by IPs!) I do think that disputes between bloggers and lawyers tend to be less-than-ideal material for Wikipedia to cover in a BLP article, unless such disputes really are (as you suggest) extensively documented in independent reliable sources in a context where the BLP subject is central to them. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Bobby Jindal
The subject's legal name is Piyush Jindal, but he is usually known by his self selected nickname Bobby. When the full name was removed from the opening sentence I reverted based on WP:FULLNAME and contributed to the discussion on the talk page. Another editor then reverted back. To my mind this is an uncontroversial MOS issue, but would appreciate some more opinions since I don't want to revert again, but don't want the article to fail to reflect the MOS either. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Was he legally elected with the name "Bobby" on the ballot? Did the ballot say "Piyush"?  If so, that is his "legal name."  It is sufficient that a "birth name" be in the body of the article - but silly to insist on it as being the name in the lede. Collect (talk) 12:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you just make this stuff up? WP:FULLNAME states that his full name should be in the lede. Review Jimmy Carter. Hipocrite (talk) 12:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Further, if your made-up "appears on ballot" criteria holds, you need "scare" quotes around "Bobby," as there were "scare" quotes on the ballots. Hipocrite (talk) 12:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not on all it appears -- might you link to a ballot with the quotes? I consider my position per to be a rational position. Do you demur?  Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I do not. If I link to a ballot with quotes, will you put "scare" quotes in his name? Hipocrite (talk) 12:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If his name was legally changed or it is unclear what the legal status is, I think it would be best to use Jimi Hendrix style with both name and "born as" name in the lede. If his legal name is Piyush, then it should be listed Jimmy Carter style in the lede.  The article title and all references to him should be "Bobby Jindal" since that is his commonly used name.  I only see Piyush being relevant in the lede and the section where they describe his nickname.  This shouldn't be used as a springboard to astroturf WP with Piyush and I don't see that happening.    --DHeyward (talk) 12:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * indicates that he has not changed his name. -- The Red Pen of Doom  12:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I rather think the current compromise is valid then. Collect (talk) 13:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * the current language (Bobby Jindal (born as Piyush Jindal)") suggests that he HAS changed his name. Rather than any "scare" quotes, I would suggest "Piyush Jindal, better known as Bobby Jindal " where we do not imply that he has changed his name.-- The Red Pen of Doom  13:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Which appears to be against the consensus on the article talk page. As long as "Piyush" was in the lede, I rather thought this was solved - but now it is an absolute must from your point of view?  I think I hear an RfC coming.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Andre Sogliuzzo
Someone has added Jose as my middle name. It is not, and never has been Jose. Please remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andresogliuzzo (talk • contribs)


 * Removed - edited a bit - removed uncited details - please cite and replace if possible - You  really  can  16:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Allen Boothroyd
This BLP had one source included when I stumbled across it, and was already (correctly) tagged for refimprove. However, the only source is a dead link (now labelled as such), but what is the correct course of action to take from here? The article makes only vague claims to notability at best, but I am unsure whether to A) remove the source and tag as BLP unreferenced, B) tag for notability or C) take to AfD. I'd value your input. Thanks. --sparkl!sm hey! 15:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:DEADLINK ("Do not delete factual information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer."). My suggestion, if you feel like doing the work, is researching Boothroyd to see if you believe he's notable. If you don't, AfD the article. If you do, then add some refs to support the article and improve it.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll see if I can find anything on him that would meet the inclusion criteria. --sparkl!sm hey! 15:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Oxy20 (talk) 22:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The article contains biographical information on living people (marriages, remarriages etc)
 * Article is translation from Ukrainian from http://www.ivasyuk.org.ua/names.php?l=uk&p=darka_slavko
 * The ownership of the website where the original article resides is unclear, there is no author information for the original article. So it can not be considered a reliable source.
 * There appears no reliable coverage in other sources that would enable to verify many of the facts of the article.
 * The creator is a Ukrainian bureaucrat so better not to delete anything before discussion.
 * Article is also proposed for deletion.

Robert Henry Brom
the section about spirituality and media, is quite libelous, and unsourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.129.196.16 (talk) 23:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I have no idea whether it is libelous, but it is disputed, and it is indeed unsourced, so I have removed it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Sergei Kostitsyn
The section entitled 'off the ice' contains info about Kostitsyn, his brother and another player having been investigated for wrongdoing. They have been, for quite a while now, exonerated but this material remains (as it does in the articles about the other two players). Should this be removed? I think so, but I want to be sure first. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I neglected to point out the other players, sorry Andrei Kostitsyn and Roman Hamrlik. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Having only looked at the Sergei Kostitsyn article so far, I would say that the whole of the material about the investigation should be removed, particularly if, as seems to be the case, they were never even arrested. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Campaign_for_"santorum"_neologism
2 editors have removed an Image of Santorum next to his remarks in this article citing BLP. I think this is use of BLP as an excuse for censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 (talk • contribs)


 * Comment - The image was removed by the first editor citing BLP, again added by the IP above, then removed by me as well. I have asked the IP to develop consensus to add the material and explain how it does not violate BLP on images. "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light." He has not yet attempted to do either on the article Talkpage. -- Avanu (talk) 02:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Is this "out of context"? There seems to be consensus to include the image. Are you going to delete Obama's picture from Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories? Von Restorff (talk) 02:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Could you help me find where this consensus is at? I don't see any reference to it in your remark. -- Avanu (talk) 03:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem mate! You'll find an old discussion here and a bit more at the bottom of the talkpage. I am still reading through all the archives, hopefully I'll find more stuff. Von Restorff (talk) 03:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * As I previously explained to the IP editor, that is not consensus to ADD this image. It is consensus to not remove ALL images. Please read it carefully, and keep in mind that consensus is not static nor perpetual (read WP:CONSENSUS for more). -- Avanu (talk) 03:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So, if I disagree with someone in the future, I should not only require that they get consensus before they can include anything I disagree with but also that they get consensus for not removing it? I think I misunderstand you. Von Restorff (talk) 03:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:BRD. Editor X included images (a Bold move). User Delicious Carbuncle wrote: "I would have simply removed them, but given the current scrutiny on this article it seems best to discuss first" (Revert). The (proposed) revert has been Discussed. The majority of people not only disagreed with the proposed removal of the images but also expressed their opinions why they should be included "The images are free use, and directly relevant to the article in the subsections in which they are discussed" - "Fair use images of the two key figures discussed in the article is a no-brainer." - "Both Santorum and Savage are directly related to the topic of this article, so it is reasonable that their images would be included as part of the article." - "fair use images relevant to the subject topic" . Von Restorff (talk) 03:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Adding the photo is further misuse of Wikipedia to attack a politician. Yes, we know some people deserve to be attacked, but that is not the role of Wikipedia, and there is zero encyclopedic benefit from associating Santorum's picture with the attack on him. Johnuniq (talk) 04:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Zero encyclopedic benefit from using a relevant picture on an article? Interesting. You would've had a point if the image was in a infobox in the top-right corner but the image is used in a section that describes views expressed by Rick Santorum. Von Restorff (talk) 04:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * No sensible ground has been presented for refusing to allow the image in the article. Just saying "WP:BLP" is not a valid basis for removing it, so long as the existence of the article is allowed by that policy. Removing the photo from the article makes about as much sense as removing all mention of his name from the article. Edison (talk) 04:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe those who wish to remove this image should reread this sentence (emphasis mine): "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light". Using an image of the current pope on the article Hitlerjugend is an example of using an image out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light; even though he was a member. Nota bene: membership was required by law for all 14-year-old German boys after December 1939. In this case the image is not used out of context, and the views expressed by Rick Santorum are reliably sourced as far as I can tell (USA Today). Von Restorff (talk) 04:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That article is not about the views of Santorum. It is about one persons attempt to smear another person.  Arzel (talk) 04:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I would use the words "annoy" or "piss off" instead of "smear", but other than that we agree. But that section of that article is about the views expressed by Rick Santorum. Von Restorff (talk) 05:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * From what I can find in the archives via a simple search for the word "image" in the archive search at the talk of the talk page, the most recent discussion appears to be in archive 8 where consensus appeared to be for removal (the above linked discussion to include it was back in archive 2). Granted though, I haven't searched the archives in any detail - this is just a simple word search within the talk archives. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that concensus only exist if you ignore those who voiced their opinion in archive 2 and on the current talkpage, and that seems kind of unfair. Von Restorff (talk) 04:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Lets just ask user Tarc, he has read all 11 archives. Von Restorff (talk) 04:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If a new consensus discussion exists - then yes, the earlier consensus discussion would be overridden. Consensus can change.  That said - I have no idea if later consensus discussions exist where consensus changed back, and my interest in editing Wikipedia lies elsewhere so I don't intend to dig any deeper into the archives at this time. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Even if you start a new discussion a couple of minutes after the last one ended? Von Restorff (talk) 04:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Guys, listen; Consensus isn't something that is firm and well defined. It's an agreement, is all. The fact that this discussion exists means that there probably isn't consensus here (which, with both the on-Wikipedia and US political ramifications involved with this subject shouldn't really be surprising). Just discuss the issue rationally and don't worry about "consensus". You'll all know it when you see it (and if there's a loan wolf out there who simply will not change his position, then that can be dealt with separately). @Von Restorff, since there was previous discussion and the image was specifically removed, I'd say that it's up to you to justify re-adding it. That's not to say that the image is absolutely not allowed, but read through the past discussions and come up with a logical rational for including the image, which everyone can then discuss. This isn't a competition. — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 04:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually its not "there was previous discussion and the image was specifically removed" but more like "there was previous discussion and the consensus was to not remove the images". Consensus can change, but so far the "why not include the images?"-side has the advantage as far as I can tell. But I am still reading. Von Restorff (talk) 05:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the initial consensus was to leave the images, and a later consensus was to remove them. A new discussion now can determine if consensus has changed again. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * According to Talk:Campaign_for_"santorum"_neologism/Renaming_summary that is not true. Von Restorff (talk) 05:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Which again points to the older consensus in archive 2 - and was only changed to point to that archive 2 discussion within the past five hours. The newer consensus in archive 8 is the most recent consensus discussion that has been identified thus far.  The best way to proceed would be to determine on the article talk page to see if consensus has changed back to including the images. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * (edit ocnflict) Von Restorff: The two discussions identified so far took place two months apart - so not sure what you mean by a couple minutes. As a general guideline - if a discussion has just been closed, it can be viewed as disruptive to immediately bring up the same issue again - and even if time passes, the same person restarting the same discussion repeatedly after closure of a prior discussion could be viewed as disruptive beating of a dead horse.  That said, the discussion from archive 8 is around nine months old, so the concern of "a couple of minutes after the last one ended" wouldn't apply to starting a new consensus discussion now (unless there's a much newer one that my simple search mentioned above didn't turn up). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * ...not "santorum" again! — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 04:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * @Ohms - yeah i know :( - @Von Restorff - what you are doing now by re-adding the image after 2 editors have removed it and asked for consensus is called edit warring and potentially tendentious editing. Please revert yourself and remove the image for now. I'm not going to re-add it and get into the edit war as well. This advice goes for the IP editor as well. You are supposed to attempt for consensus first at the article Talk page and that has somewhat been circumvented by coming here.  That's called forum shopping. It isn't a good practice. I'd rather this get solved by mutual discussion and agreement than escalation. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 04:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please no spamming Avanu. You are supposed to show the consensus you claim to have on your side. Please show me a link. Von Restorff (talk) 04:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As Barek says above, and I said earlier in this thread, "Consensus can change". An editor added this photo, another editor felt it was inappropriate. The first editor re-added it, and I agreed with the editor who believed it was inappropriate. Since that time, it has gone back and forth several times. Since BLP holds us duty-bound to remove contentious material, the picture should stay out until such time as a consensus develops to include it, OR you provide a rock solid reason how this is not "disparaging" in any way. Keep in mind, consensus can break down at any time.  It is CLEAR from the reverts and re-adds that there is NOT consensus at this time to add the photo.  I'm not going to edit war, and I've not reported edit warring yet, because I'd prefer we work on the Article Talk page and reach a consensus.  Bringing it here was a first step to making it more difficult to reach consensus because there are now two conversations over the same topic at the same time, and as such, comments might need to be repeated for both audiences in order for people to stay on the same page. Please, let's just get back to a focused discussion and move forward. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 05:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

If no-one reverts this edit we are done here I guess. Von Restorff (talk) 06:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Even after that removal there is still room in the article for the photos of Savage and Santorum, both. I disagree with DHeyward's removal of both. Savage's photo should be replaced and Santorum's photo should be repositioned at the section "Santorum's request for intervention by Google". Binksternet (talk) 08:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Rick Santorum has no direct connection to the neologism - inclusion of his image is against WP:BLP. Dan Savage's pic can be there as he has a direct connection to the neologism campaign. Images not of value to the article do not belong in the article. Collect (talk) 11:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You wrote: "inclusion of his image is against WP:BLP". Which sentence in WP:BLP forbids us to use this image? Please quote it. Von Restorff (talk) 12:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Try:
 * Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects
 * This article is about the neologism and the campaign, and is not about Rick Santorum, much as some folks seem to try.
 * Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased or malicious content
 * The "neologism" is specifically aimed to be "malicious."
 * Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light
 * Connecting a person;s image with a term designed to abase the person fits that description. In short - at least three ways in which the image in a page about a campaign for a neologism violates WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, all three (That's Numberwang!) are incorrect. The first two sentences you quote are highly irrelevant in a discussion about whether to include an image in this article or not, but please keep them in mind while editing the article. Are you claiming the image of the person is used OUT OF CONTEXT? If not you'll need to try to find another policy to support your pov. Von Restorff (talk) 14:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * All Collect's points are excellent policy driven reasons to exclude a picture of R Santorum. Its not his POV, he is a tight interpreter of wiki policy and doesn't edit from any POV - wiki policy is his pov - "neologism" is specifically aimed to be "malicious. - Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light You  really  can  14:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I can grow wings and fly like a bird. I can grow wings and fly like a bird. Repeating something does not make it true. Are you claiming the image of the person was used out of context? Von Restorff (talk) 14:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC) p.s. Please read WP:NPOV for information about what a POV is.


 * If you want to grow wings you would then be able to fly away. - I recognize a POV when I see one without rereading any wiki policies.  You  really  can  15:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL. That statement is contradicted by your failure to recognize a POV as a POV above. Are you claiming the image of the person was used out of context? Von Restorff (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL indeed - The article is already a WP:Shame on en wikipedia without partisan opponents of the subject using it to demean him even more. You really  can  15:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we agree the current article is far from perfect. I spent much of my time on Wikipedia undoing the work of partisan opponents and supporters of subjects. The defenders of the truth don't like me. Von Restorff (talk) 15:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not governed by the WP:TRUTH, it relies on WP:V and WP:NPOV. As for "partisanship" a partial list of BLPs I edited is on my userpage.  Kndly peruse it.    Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL, that is my line. A full list of the BLPs you edited is on your contributionpage BTW. Von Restorff (talk) 19:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * As I've said on the article talk page, there's no way to get a pic of Santorum into this article without an RfC. Assertions about earlier consensus will do nothing to deter those who are intent on removing it.  The only way to avoid an edit war is to do an RfC.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that it's out of context and undue weight and definite BLP issue to include photos. In fact, the amount of linking to this one campaign from every article seems to be a clear BLP issue.  It's out of context in the sense that the picture of Rick Santrum on this page is no more relevant than pictures of anyone else who commented on the neoligism.  Nor are Rick Santorum's comments that precipated the NY Times opinion piece particularly relevant in this article as they are covered in broader articles and can be linked to.  ONEWAY and BLP should apply here.  Jon Stewarts picture doesn't need to be included.  The caller from Savage's show doesn't need his picture here.  Neither would it be particularly relevant to have Savage's picture or anyone else's.  It's an association that doesn't need to be made through pictures or words to a living person since whether intended or not, it's disparaging.  This article is not a WP:COATRACK to hang Rick Santorm  on.  --DHeyward (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Undue weight has nothing to do with it. I do wonder why you believe it to be "out of context" considering the context is an attack on Rick Santorum, please explain. WP:BLP does not say anything against using images in this situation. Von Restorff (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The BLP page concerns itself mostly with the written word, because that is what 99% of Wikipedia is. BUT there is an image-related section, I quoted it to you, and you yourself just said the context here is an attack on Rick Santorum. Since you don't think WP:BLP applies, consider WP:BLP, as well as the WP:NPOV policy. Look, this is a campaign that focuses on attacking Rick Santorum, we don't have to give more attention than we already are to this, and we certainly don't need to put a picture of Rick Santorum in this ESPECIALLY at the top in a prominent position. -- Avanu (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * We have more common ground than you expect. The act of turning someone's name into the name of something disgusting or a dirty word/swearword is obviously annoying to that person, certainly if that person is a politician. The intent was probably to piss Rick Santorum off, and it worked. But TBQH I do not understand why an image is so much worse than his name appearing in the text. He is in the text of the article anyway. Saying the image suddenly makes it personal while the text does not makes no sense to me, because the whole idea is basically a personal attack (in Wikipedia jargon). Von Restorff (talk) 22:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not covered as an attack on Rick Santorm in WP as this would violate WP:ATTACK and WP:COATRACK.  It's covered as a notable event. As an event, it has very little to do with the political candidate.  Adding a picture would turn the coverage of the event into coverage (attack) of a person and that is not acceptable.  This article is specifically about the event and it is not a WP:COATRACK to hang the views of Rick Santorm on.  --DHeyward (talk) 20:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As an event, Santorum making "Anti -Gay " remarcks, Savage redefining Santorum's name, and his reaction to that, has very little to do with Santorum the political candidate? Adding a picture changes what, exactly?213.87.130.54 (talk) 18:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "As an event, it has very little to do with the political candidate" - huh? The whole Savage site started because of political comments a politician made while in political office. It resurfaced as a BIG DEAL because the person was running for a major political office and in todays world when people look up political candidates, they do it on the web where this website stayed as one of the top hits and the continued coverage of the name/website was due entirely to its potential embarrassing effects on the political candidate. I am completely baffled as to how you can make that statement as the basis of any logical argument. -- The Red Pen of Doom  18:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Bill Slavick
User:Needsmoreritalin has started an edit war at Bill Slavick over the inclusion of accusations he documented by filming a YouTube video he has posted as "proof" of his accusations. This is the YouTube video. The user has violated both BLP and 3RR. Request help dealing with the editor and keeping the content off of the page without better documentation and significant rewording.--TM 02:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Namiba has perpetuated an edit war at Bill Slavick and has not been objective in this violation report. The video contains a direct quote of the subject, in his own voice, in an excerpt from a commercial that he ran on Portland, Maine's Air America Station (870 The Voice) in 2007 where the subject of the article states "The UN gave most of Palestine to the 30% Jewish Minority, the Israelis took 23% more. 750,000 ETHNICALLY CLEANSED Palestinians Lost Everything." No accusations were made. The citation supported an edit to the article that stated "Mr. Slavick has organized several protests in Portland's Monument Square that blame Israel for the plight of the Palestinians including one on the 40th anniversary of the Six Day War. In a commercial he ran during his campaign for US Senate he referred to what the Israeli's actions during the Six Day War and the Yom Kippur War as ethnic cleansing the Palestinians." Needsmoreritalin (talk) 03:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * note - User:Needsmoreritalin has been blocked - You  really  can  13:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Chambao
The article in question is not a biography of an individual but the history of a band. It reads like a record company or fan club press press release, not a encyclopedia entry. I personally don't think notability is an issue, they're internationally known if in small circles, but the article is in violation of WP:SELFPUB and probably others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.72.244.157 (talk) 02:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The article tone is definitely promotional. I added an advert tag to the article. Also, the only references mentioned are the band's self-published sites, websites, facebook, twitter. I looked for an appropriate tag to flag this problem but did not find one, maybe an AfD. The band might be notable but the article does not establish that because there are no reliable secondary sources referenced. I need to research this a bit more.Coaster92 (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, just checked the article and the promo has been deleted and a notability tag added.Coaster92 (talk) 19:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's because the article was stubbed. However, what you were looking for before was primary sources. That's still valid, so I added it.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know about the tag, Bbb23. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coaster92 (talk • contribs) 05:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Tapan Raychaudhuri
There are defamatory and libelous sentences in this article [section, end, Political Views}concerning Deep Kanta Lahiri Choudhury. I think the entire article should be blocked especially since it concerns living people and is an undisguised attack on them.

If Wikipedia's policy will allow them to reveal the name of the author, we can proceed with legal action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.105.153 (talk) 07:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi - Please avoid mention of legal action on wiki as it is a blockable offence, see WP:NLT. I have removed the offending text , some or all of which appears to have been added by User:117.239.120.194 - I have left them a note and a link to this discussion asking them to comment. I have also watchlisted the article and will keep my eye on it - if there are repeat problems I will request WP:Semi protection of the biography. The article needs inline sources added throughout if any users are knowledgeable in Indian political bios. This is how the section was prior to the IP address adding the contensious uncited, section diff , I removed the lot for fear of replacing a possible copyrightr violation/cut and copy paste from a copyrighted source. You  really  can  09:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC).

Steve Hilton
I posted on the talk page a few days ago but no one seems to have taken notice. Very minor issue.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed - speculation - and undue - its not happening and was never likely to either. - removed - You  really  can  10:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Also sources were slightly misused in the BLP - now fixed. Collect (talk) 12:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Max Bygraves personal life
Somebody has recently entered specific information about Max Bygraves, my father,. This is my fathers private address and I think it's inclusion may be an infringement of his privacy and might also cause security problems, given his past international celebrity status. I would respectfully ask for these very personal details to be removed. Also, regarding his parentage of three boys and three girls. The only children recognised ,in law, are those born within the marriage to my mother, who recently passed away. We are Anthony, Maxine and Christine. I would also like this sibling information to be clearly stated.i.e. as 1 boy and 2 girls Many thanks.

Anthony Bygraves — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony bygraves (talk • contribs) 14:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Another editor removed the odd, unsourced section. I've edited the Personal life section to have less information about all of Bygraves's children as it's unnecessary (The Daily Mail source is, as usual, tabloidy in its reporting).--Bbb23 (talk) 14:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Lyndon LaRouche
Is removing a use of the word "cult" an "aggressive edit" on that BLP? shows the edit. shows ''But if you want to make aggressive edits and then revert repeatedly to defend them without substantial talk page engagement in an article covered by sanctions, please feel free to continue. ''

Query: Is describing a living person as head of a "cult" a "contentious claim", requiring solid factual sourcing? Is it just clearly an opinion, only requiring that we find someone who has called the living person head of a "cult"?

I would suggest that this is the tip of the iceberg on this BLP, and the instant reaction to even removing "cult" might indicate an ownership issue as well as a BLP issue, but this noticeboard is only for the BLP issues. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The aggressive edit referred to is, which includes ALL CAPS and is the reversion of a discussion tag. A living person is not described as a head of a cult. Rather, sourced allegations that a movement is a cult are included in the article. The article states "Commentators for The Washington Post and The New York Times ... have characterized his movement as a 'cult'," with sources ("Two articles in The Times this week by Howard Blum and Paul Montgomery make clear that his party is a cult worth watching closely,"), ("he LaRouche organization has "taken on the characteristics more of a political cult than a political party," said a March report by Information Digest, a biweekly publication written by journalist John Rees. LaRouche's followers have "afforded him blind obedience," wrote Rees, a longtime specialist in LaRouche.") Hipocrite (talk) 14:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Further, how can I own an article that I've made 5 edits to? Hipocrite (talk) 14:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

You also referred to removal of a "pov" tag where the person inserting it did not follow the clear rules described for that tag as "aggressive". The fact is that the entire Larouche are has become a bloated mess amounting to well over 300K AFAICT, including massive "allegations" sections. Heck, the BLP before I edited it asserted that "Quakers" were not "Protestants"! which apparently was a horrendously aggressive edit. LaRouche might be "Satan incarnate", but I do not see that such would be an exception to Wikipedia policies being followed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Your aggressive series of edits was removing, without discussion, 32kb from an article, and then revert warring to keep it out. You alledge that I did not "follow the clear rules described for that tag." Which rules, exactly, do you allege I did not follow? All policies are being followed - you can engage in discussion on the talk page, proposing edits in evaluable chunks. Hipocrite (talk) 14:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 1. The edits totalled that much but no edit was nearly that big. Most were well under 5K in size - not 32K in size.   2,  The talk page showed discussions making the bloat very clear.   MUCH discussion as a matter of fact.  3. You now present a "compromise" using the non-WP:CONSENSUS-compliant ultimatum  My attempted compromise lede is a "take it or leave it" offer  which I find quite possibly not in accord with Wikipedia policies or guidelines.  Cheers.  And please avoid obscene acronyms in edit summaries - it demeans you. Collect (talk) 16:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "You alledge that I did not "follow the clear rules described for that tag." Which rules, exactly, do you allege I did not follow?" Hipocrite (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you stop WP:Battle for even one second? You  really  can  17:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Stars shining Number, number one, number two, number three, Oh, my! By'm Bye, By'm Bye, Oh, my! By'm Bye. Hipocrite (talk) 17:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * @Hipocrite - you expose youself. only -  You  really  can  17:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * When this wiki was born, anti Larouche users came en masse from other sites to the project, many of them are now blocked/restricted - sadly that original bias remains, although in lesser authority than previously - all users that are uninvolved are encouraged to join in and finally report about the group neutrally. - You  really  can  17:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be awesome, if it were even remotely true. It is, of course, not. Hipocrite (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Its well known - the same anti Scientologists came at the same time, many of them fit into both categories.- Every word you say is a reflection of WP:BATTLEGROUND you appear to have no idea about neutrality and working together to attain WP:NPOV - There is absolutely no point in joining in any discussion you are involved in - I suggest this to anyone considering any content discussion with User:Hipocrite - don't bother, you will be wasting your valuable free time completely without any encyclopedic benefit. -  You  really  can  18:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

diane rehm
According to Diane Rehm herself at the Foremother Awards of 2010, her father was Lebanese and her mother Egyptian. They did not allow her to pursue a higher education. It says that both parents were Turkish in the Wikipedia article. The title of the Youtube video I saw her making her speech is "Diane Rehm- 2010 Foremother Awards (4)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.171.254.33 (talk) 04:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I found Diane's book, Finding My Voice, online at google books. She says both her parents were originally from Turkey. Her mother moved to Egypt for a time until she left for the US with her father. The part of the book I was able to preview does not mention a Lebanese father and Egyptian mother. I watched the youtube video. Diane says her father came to the US from Beruit, her mother from Egypt. She mentions in her book that other family members left Turkey for the US, travelling via Beruit. Per her book, it looks like it is correct that both of her parents were actually from Turkey originally.Coaster92 (talk) 05:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Bo Lozoff

 * Previous BLPN post


 * Related ANI discussion

There's been a reversion at this article that poses WP:BLP problems; Youreallycan had fixed them previously. There's also discussion at talk, which is a good sign. But I think input and edits from other BLPN folks on the following would be helpful:

The subject is at most of marginal notability: reliable third party coverage of his accomplishments is scant if it exists at all. Local independent media have provided some coverage, but much of it is reporting on a scandal. The scandal itself apparently contributes to his notability, but continuing coverage in reliable sources appears not to have been forthcoming (cf. WP:BLP1E). Apparently no criminal charges were filed, and never any conviction (cf. WP:BLPCRIME). The accusations are salacious and appear twice in the article (cf. WP:UNDUE). Otherwise, this subject's works are mostly covered in self-publications or publications by related parties (cf. WP:RS, WP:BLPSPS).

I've removed the section dedicated to the allegations, already mentioned in the article. The article could still use whatever eyes and edits anyone can lend. JFHJr (㊟) 22:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I have no idea if the incidents are related (the editors involved in both are the same), but be aware that there is an ANI about this article nearing end of life . Dennis Brown   (talk)  23:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * At this point, it looks like Truthcon is just going to repeat claims regardless of what's said. I'll gladly wait for more editors to chime in, but I think that editor's actions are disruptive. JFHJr (㊟) 23:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * To chime in, as per WP:BOLD, I made the reversion referred to above, providing my reasons for doing so on the article talk page. A consensus version addressing JFHJr's concerns about WP:WEIGHT is in the works. I do not agree that the article subject is of marginal notability, being an author and prison worker whose books and projects have had documented social impact. I do agree that while User:Truthcon's editing style has definitely improved since a year ago, the edit warring needs to stop. --Floorsheim (talk) 00:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have already commented on the Talk page about Floorsheim's suggested wording of the allegations material. I have also stated that I don't think I or anyone else needs to accord Truthcon good faith based on his history. I'll assume without knowing that he has "improved" but I am just looking at his recent edits, and they are disruptive. He reverted three of my edits without explanation even though the bases of my edits were explained. I don't see his edits adding anything to the article or contributing in any constructive way to the project as a whole (after all, he doesn't edit anything else).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The edits in question have continued. I've reverted twice recently, and will revert once more because I think the issues have been clearly explained to Truthcon, who doesn't seem to be listening. I'll revert again to the last encyclopedic version of the article and step back, but Truthcon apparently needs further attention. JFHJr (㊟) 19:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Truthcon is getting attention at WP:ANI and at WP:3RRNB. My assumption is a block will be forthcoming, and the only question is its length.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Length: indefinite.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Lee Iacocca
The article shows a Pinto, a low point for the subject,and not one Picture of a Mustang, which he was directly involved with and is to this day in production and one of the most Iconic cars ever built. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gebeoh (talk • contribs) 14:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So what? Our article says: "Iacocca was also the 'moving force,' as one court put it, behind the Ford Pinto."  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Ryan Murray
The picture shown, I believe, is a picture of Brendan Gallagher, a member of the same Team Canada at the 2012 World Juniors. You probably want to change the picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.25.255 (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, its not a quality picture but it looks like the person to me - see pic - looking around a bit more there does appear some disputable verification - see Brendan Gallagher picture - I will remove it for the time being, till resolved- if in doubt keep it out - You  really  can  17:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Kim Seung-ok
Mistake in the biography of Kim Seung-ok: You said "in 1979 he quit writing fiction" but I'm just reading his book "60 nyon dae sik" printed in 1986... Have a good day — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.68.20.81 (talk)
 * I can't find much on the book. All I find are French translations with a French title of A la façon des années soixante. I know what the French means, but a Google translate of the original Korean to English comes up with no translation at all. Was the book published in 1986 (as opposed to printed)? And when it was actually written, which is what matters in terms of the assertion in our article.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Clayton McDonald
To whom it may concern,

In the introduction to the biography of Welsh soccer player "Clayton McDonald", there is a reference to his acquittal of rape. At the end of the first paragraph there is a distasteful, offensive and disrespectful comment. He ... [was] charged with rape in August 2011, and faced trial for the alleged offence in April 2012. He was innocent because Clayton McDonald, he shags who he wants!

Please ensure that it is moved as soon as possible.

Kind regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.162.130 (talk) 15:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not there now, probably removed as vandalism.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

O'Neil De Noux
So I saw this article had masses of information (non-neutrally written) which appeared to be based on a single primary source. I tagged it, and was planning to clean up then have a look for sources myself. I checked the primary source, thinking I could cut down all the information on the subject's background to bare facts, using that as a source, then realised that the subject's website here actually says "For a more detailed biography, click the red apple" with a link to the Wikipedia page itself. This means that a) all that information was unsourced and b) it was probably written by someone connected to the subject, for the subject. I have removed a lot of it and left notes on the talk page as I was doing so. I think the remaining section about the author's career should perhaps also be cut. I'm far from a BLP expert and would appreciate some others taking a look to make sure I'm doing the right thing, and giving a hand if possible. Thanks. Ooh Bunnies! Leave a message 18:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've not yet left a message for the user that actually wrote all the content, but I'm planning to. Ooh Bunnies! Leave a message 18:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've gutted the article based on the two references. There's no need to retain all that unsourced material. What is relevant can be reinserted once sources are found. In particular, that amazingly long bibliography shouldn't be there, not to mention assertions about other awards and his personal life.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Ravi Belegare
Doesn't establish notability and more reliable references needed. recommend for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bharathiya (talk • contribs) 10:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * At first glance and with a quick Google news search the subject appears to not to be notable but its hard to tell as all the sources are in German or Hindi. According to a Google translation of his web site he has written many books and received several awards. . World Cat verifies he has written a number of books.  Thoughts? -- — Keithbob •  Talk  • 18:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ed. of a mjor newspaper in notable, if Hai Bangalore is a major newspaper. But if it doubt, we could simply redirect to the article on the publication.  DGG ( talk ) 19:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please make note about Hai Bangalore in our own Wiki Article: "In 2003, its coverage accounted for 13 of the 46 complaints investigated by a Press Council of India inquiry into defamatory and damaging journalism in the southern states of India" - In that case, is it anywhere worthwhile for academic purposes? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 19:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC).
 * I've removed some unsourced content and editorializing. The article is a stub, and there are no further glaring WP:BLP issues. Notability concerns are best discussed on the article talk or at WP:AfD. JFHJr (㊟) 21:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Gianna Jessen
Since I don't often deal with BLP cases, I'd be grateful if someone with current expertise could cast their eye over Articles_for_deletion/Gianna_Jessen_(2nd_nomination) to see if my opinion on the sourcing of the article is way off base, or whether User:Newmanoconnor would benefit from a little advice about his, what seems to me to be rather ...unique, interpretation of policy. This is my latest version of the article before his removal of content. Thanks! —S MALL JIM   13:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've edited the article to restore it to your version minus the recording artist material. The only source for the singing is Amazon, and that isn't sufficient to confer that kind of label on her. We would need secondary sources commenting on her singing. Newman's addition of a COI tag was wholly unjustified. His making the Obama sentence more prominent was WP:UNDUE. His removal of the documentary was also unjustified - nothing wrong with the source.


 * I've only glanced at the AfD, but Newman's interpretation of notability is way off base. I doubt he would benefit from any more advice, though, as many have already given it to him, and it hasn't penetrated.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to look into this, Bbb23. No problem with the removal of the recording artist details - they were in the article before I started work on it and Amazon was the only ref I could find. —S MALL  JIM   22:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not making anymore changes to the article anytime soon. I am going to ask someone else to remove the Fictional Film you called a documentary,it's source is a Christian blog "TheBlaze.com". not sure how you even feel justified arguing that as a reliable source. I do wish you had not removed the language about her claim, the way it's currently written gives undo credence to a story we do not know is true. i don't recall what i changed about the Obama statement, i wasnt trying to change it to be more prominent, the wording seemed to be a little POV i was trying to change that, but considering the source and the context,maybe it wasn't.


 * I'd love it if you would explain how I'm so far off base,point by point, instead of making generalized statements. not one of your comments addresses the issues I raised in my last comment on the AfD talk page. I completely disagree about the COI tag, I didn't add it because of Smalljim, if you look through the history of the article, particularly before my contribs, it seems completely justified. I may add it back if the article survives AfD which it certainly will if the four current votes are all that remains, unless I'm 100% correct in some admin's mind, which honestly I'd question that admins neutrality...Newmanoconnor (talk) 02:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Asking someone else to make a change to an article is not a good practice unless there's a specific reason why you can't make the change. I shouldn't have called October Baby a documentary in my comment - it's properly called a film in the article. Which editor has a confict?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Real-life superhero
Real-life superhero mentions names or links to mentions of names of people who don't seem to have any significant coverage. Eg, a link to The Ron & Fez Show on Sirius XM, etc. Dougweller (talk) 07:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Linda Webb
Poorly cited and reads like an advertisement — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.123.32 (talk) 22:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Trimmed 30 percent promotional uncited - needs additional investigation - the lede seems to contain uncited and promotional details/claims -  You  really  can  23:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Ron Sakolsky
Good People,

I am Ron Sakolsky, and I think my Wikipedia listing is in need of a major overhaul. This is due to the fact that since this listing was originally created, I have 3 new books out that are unlisted, there are magazines for which I'm listed as a contributor that no longer exist, and I now have an overall focus to my writing that is not reflected in the listing as it presently exists. Below I have included for your consideration a new version of the listing which is built on the old one but addresses the above issues. THANKS, Ron

Ron Sakolsky is a writer whose focus is on the intersection between anarchy and surrealism, exploring such subjects as radical history, art, music, and pirate radio. He contributes essays, criticism, reviews, poetry, and short stories to various anarchist publications including Fifth Estate, Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed, Modern Slavery, Social Anarchism, and EnDehors, and to surrealist publications such as the Surrealist Research & Development Monograph Series, Brummes Blondes, Patricide and Hydrolith. He also edits his own anarcho-surrealist zine,The Oystercatcher, which comes out annually on May Day. He is known for broadcasting and authoring books and internet texts about pirate and community radio, which have been a significant contribution to the pirate radio and micro-broadcasting movement. For more than twenty years he taught at the University of Illinois at Springfield, previously known as Sangamon State University (SSU), originally attracted by the innovative and radical courses made available in the interdisciplinary Studies in Social Change and Justice and the Social Order programs. In 1995, he was one of two faculty members arrested while distributing leaflets objecting to the destruction of campus autonomy and the busting of the faculty union as a result of the takeover of SSU by the University of Illinois in a corporate restructuring of higher education.[1}

References Changes The 3 new books not listed are: Swift Winds (2009) No ISBN Islands of Resistance: Pirate Radio in Canada (ed) ISBN 978-1-55420-050-4 Scratching The Tiger's Belly (2012) No ISBN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.38.41.78 (talk) 21:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know anything about Sakolsky, and can't comment on factual accuracy, but this seems like a fairly modest change to existing content in the article. I've copied it to Talk:Ron Sakolsky in case more knowledgeable editors want to comment. --GenericBob (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The article, as it currently stands, is almost unsourced (the source for the arrest, which is the only source, is self-published). I don't see any sources for these changes (other than the ISBNs for the existence of two of the books).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Bebo Moroni
I'm an inclusionist by nature, however after reading Bebo Moroni (which is little more than an unsupported, fleshed-out résumé), even I'm starting to waver. I made a few small changes, however I'm at a loss to find supporting references to reliable sources for the information in the article. I'm keen to discover how editors here would proceed with the article. Thanks in advance for any help that can be provided. GFHandel &#9836; 22:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've removed everything in the article except the sourced claim that he is senior editor of an audio magazine. The article was recently created and should not start out as a long, unsourced biography.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I was contemplating (but wasn't brave enough to perform) the same edit you just made. I will adjust some templates based on your edit. Thank you for your help. GFHandel &#9836; 22:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem, always happy to help any editor whose handle is Handel.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Caste-related violence in India
Our Caste-related violence in India article seems to be poorly sourced, highly subjective, and to almost certainly contain multiple WP:BLP violations. While there may be something worth rescuing, I'm almost tempted to blank the lot - but perhaps another person can take a look, and advise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * All I did was remove a few unsourced sections. Going through the entire article to make sure each assertion is source-compliant and, even if sourced, satisfies policy would be quite an undertaking.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Andy for putting it up here. Thanks Bbb for corrections. It looks better. But as Sitush was saying in the other page, I was wondering even such a page is required. What do you guys say ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Almithra (talk • contribs) 09:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The topic is likely to be encyclopedic. However, if you don't think it is, take a read through WP:BEFORE and then consider if you want to nominate it for discussion at WP:AFD. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Arun Agrawal
Hello,

I would like to report changes that have been done in Arun Agrawal's biography, by people who do not know him and are trying to ruin his image.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.175.91.166 (talk) 22:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Jesus H... Yep, that one needs some attention, of several different types.  I'll do it tomorrow unless someone else gets there first.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have reverted to an earlier compliant version, reverting vandalism by two anonymous editors will watch the page and report if repeat infraction for blocking.XcommR (talk) 07:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And I've tried to turn it into something resembling an encyclopedia article -- a task at which the UMich students who created the page failed miserably. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it certainly needed attention will also have a little look.XcommR (talk) 06:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Hot Problems
Can we get some page watchers on this article? The article is beset by vandals. A couple diffs of the crap that had to be removed from it by an IP and me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I fixed a lot of problems here.. When I last looked at the article just yesterday, it seemed fine but we've had dozens of edits since then.  I'm logging off of Wikipedia soon.  Someone else has to look after it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Brian Coleman
This BLP seems to have become a magnet for negativity. I've removed some unsourced bits from the lead, but I'd be grateful for others to look through the rest of it. --Dweller (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Ian Gawler article
For some months there has been an ongoing attempt by a number of editors (mostly SPAs and others who may, I suspect, be sockpuppets) to edit the article on Ian Gawler in ways - both for and and against Gawler - which are clearly contrary to the BLP policies. Going by their user names, one of these editors appears to be the personal and business partner of Ian Gawler's former wife (Grace Gawler) and another appears to be the mother of Ian Gawler's current wife. I have tried to keep the article as neutral as possible - in a custodian rather than ownership manner - but it is tiresome having to so often have to keep doing so. I will appreciate it if some other editors and administrators could keep an eye on the article and to act as appropriate regarding the problematic editors. Thanks! Afterwriting (talk) 11:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Happy to put it on my watchlist. I am familiar with the subject but don't believe it is a material wp:COI and certainly have no agenda other than ensuring compliance with wp:BLP policies.XcommR (talk) 04:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Alvin Chea
I've tried to tidy some of the Alvin Chea article, however a fan (or similar) continues to add copious amounts of unreferenced information. Would it be possible for someone to please have a look at how much of the article should remain (based on available sources)? Thanks in advance for any help that can be provided. GFHandel &#9836; 05:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Help! GFHandel &#9836; 23:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've reverted the material (ridiculous). I've also left a warning on the newly registered WP:SPA's Talk page. Not sure if he's also using an IP address to accomplish the same thing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've now stubbed the article as lacking any reliable secondary sources.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that seems about right. I predict terrible vengeance from the fan editor involved. Thanks for you help again. GFHandel &#9836; 00:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but the main offender and their sock puppets have been blocked per this report. I'll continue to watch the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Nury Flores
Editor continues to insert blog and forum sources, I've notified twice on talk and warned about 3RR, inserted again. I noticed somewhere that XLinkBot used to automatically revert the source she's adding, but no longer does. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

IP page protection needed
on Dima Orsho. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The place to go for that is WP:RPP. However, you'll never get it after only two incidents of vandalism by the same IP. Cluebot left a warning after the first. You should have left a second warning after the second (I've done it for you). Here's a handy guide for warning messages (use them prudently, though).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Bbb23, I came here because I thought there was a lower threshold for IP page protection for BLPs and 2 instances of IP vandalism-attacks of this sort on a BLP would qualify? I can't remember where I saw it discussed. Was it a motion never adopted? Or maybe I misunderstood. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There would indeed be a lower threshold, but where it's two edits by the same IP, then if the edits are egregious enough the response would be to block the IP concerned. If they then come back on a different IP to do the same or similar things, semi-protection would be the way forwards. Of course, watchlisting the page is a good idea, because otherwise maybe no-one would notice that they do come back on a different IP :)


 * You might get semi-protection in the current situation, but it would be unlikely. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Brian Liddy
Minor issue with your article on Brian regarding his age. I knew Brian very well, went to school with him in both Junior High School and High School. He graduated with me as part of the class of 1979 from Conard High School, West Hardford CT. He was probably born in 1961, not 1965. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.66.55 (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed it - it appears uncited. Users informed and local may well find a WP:RS and replace a date of birth. -  You  really  can  21:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Isaias Afewerki
It is stated that the President of Eritrea, Isaias Afewerki, has died on April 23, 2012 and the source is Assena.com which is a known goverment opposition support web site that usually publishes false stories regarding Eritrea and its president, Isais Afewerki. Furthermore this news has not been confirmed by the state of Eritrea, The UN, or by any reputible news source. Seeing as how the death of any head of state may encourage conflict and outrage both domestically and abroad i would see it wise that your editors remove such statements until they can be verified. It only makes your website seem just as fraudulent as Assena.com.

Thank You, Eritrea Mehary — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.203.31 (talk) 00:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Another editor removed the death report.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Chris Kenny (journalist)
all incorrect — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.120.18.132 (talk) 04:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the vandalism. Dru of Id (talk) 08:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Kevin Kiely
The wikipedia entry for Northern Ireland writer Kevin Kiely born 1953 SEE www.KevinKiely.com pertains to the Politician of the same name Kevin Kiely...can this be rectified...THANKS  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctordarrenwelkinn (talk • contribs) 21:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Kevin Kiely (writer) can be used for an artice on writer Kevin Kiely, who is mentioned a few times within Wikipedia. There also is Kevin Kiely (musician) and Kevin Kiely (actor). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks like he shared a third place prize. I don't think that's quite to the point of WP:ANYBIO and I'm not finding any indication of WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR, especially in third party sources. A stand-alone article doesn't seem to be warranted, so it may be best just to remove the redlinks. JFHJr (㊟) 04:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Paul Kelly (musician)
Hi, some more opinions on this would be appreciated. There has been a bit of back-and-forth over this article regarding putting an end date on a relationship. Now naturally new sources might cite that a couple is together but unless both partners are quite famous (not the case here), a break-up is not going to be big news. (In fact their relationship was reported as a detail in a bio newspaper article, not exactly headline news by itself.) So it seems to me that saying their relationship exists from 2001-present and the onus is on someone to prove otherwise, is kind of backwards. Surely we can verify that their relationship was from 2001-2007 (when the newspaper article was written) rather than "present". Isn't THAT the part that's original research/unverified, rather than stating that the relationship is finite?

At any rate I would have thought the "presumption in favour of privacy" would really trump "original research". (See Talk:Paul_Kelly_(musician))

--pfctdayelise (talk) 14:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

K. A. Laity
I would contest whether this article on writer K. A. Laity meets notability standards. In a recent online interview (http://lverawrites.wordpress.com/2012/04/24/an-interview-with-the-awesome-k-a-laity/) the subject refers to this Wikipedia article with the response "LOL, I think one of my friends started that. I suspect no one else has looked at it. I should make my students update it."

The subject is referred to as an "award winning author", yet the citation link refers to an award from the Fulbright educational sponsorship programme — there is no indication that the subject has actually won an award for any of her writing. The only other citation in the article links to an expired web page.

Furthermore, looking at the revision history on this page, it would appear that a number of the edits were carried out by the subject herself (user name was "Katewombat", which matches the name of K. A. Laity's own blog: http://katewombat.blogspot.co.uk/).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.67.19 (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Borderline case; more likely to make a case as an academic than as a fictionist. --165.189.32.4 (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I've tagged for notability. After a BLP-related cleanup, there's little indication. JFHJr (㊟) 02:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Hal Turner
I've written a couple of times now about a problem with Hal Turner's entry. It misstates things about his relationship with Sean Hannity. His article says:

"Turner claims he established a friendship with Sean Hannity, on whose program he was a frequent presence.[4] However, when confronted by the New Black Panther Party's Malik Zulu Shabazz in 2008 about his association with Turner (in light of Hannity's scrutiny of Barack Obama's association with Jeremiah Wright), Hannity at first denied knowing Turner, then said he had banned Turner from his radio program. Turner subsequently posted this response on his website: "I was quite disappointed when Sean Hannity at first tried to say he didn't know me. In fact, Sean does know me and we were quite friendly a few years ago."[6][7]"

In two entries on the Turner's talk page I mentioned the problems. Basically, though, this page ignores Hannity's response to Turner's statement. It points out that much of Turner's statement talks about getting to know Hannity from WABC starting in at least 1993 when Hannity wasn't even hired there until December 1996. If you read Turner's account, that really undermines what he says, and "his memories," such as that he was invited to the TV set in 1997 after years of slowly getting to know Hannity, and his three year old son acted up there. Either he didn't get to know Hannity for years beforehand, then, or he went to the studio some years after 1997, and his son would have been much older than 3. And he also claimed that he left before the show because he didn't want his son's noise being broadcast live. Would the show really have let them stay on the actual set and do that? Or did he just not want to talk about the subjects of the show that night, which should be unforgettable to him, because he wasn't there? Turner did reply to Hannity's remark, saying that the events were 10 years before, so he "forgot," but his account was "completely truthful"? It doesn't sound like it. Ten years when you're talking about such basic facts isn't a long time at all.

One other thing, too. The article makes it seem like Hannity definitely remembered Turner and then lied about knowing him. If you look at what's said, though (as Huffington Post reported it), Hannity was asking the guest about Obama when suddenly the guest asked if he should be judged by his association with Hal Turner. What the exchange seems to show is that Hannity just didn't place the man immediately because the guest unexpectedly turned the tables and gave him nothing but a name at first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.110.23.249 (talk) 02:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC) ‎

This is a paragraph I'd like to submit on the disputed association between Turner and Hannity. Some changes do seem necessary because Turner's claims are clearly far from "completely true," as he claims.

Turner claims he established a friendship with Sean Hannity, on whose WABC radio program he had once been a frequent presence. In 2008, while Hannity and Malik Zulu Shabazz of the New Black Panther party were debating Barack Obama's association with Jeremiah Wright, Shabazz asked him if he should "be judged by (his) promotion and association with Hal Turner". Hannity began to say that he didn't know Turner, but then said he had banned him from his radio program. Turner subsequently described their association on his website, and on what Hannity said, he wrote: "I was quite disappointed when Sean Hannity at first tried to say he didn't know me. In fact, Sean does know me and we were quite friendly a few years ago." In response, Phil Boyce, Program Director of WABC, disputed Turner's account, which claimed that he and Hannity were on friendly terms in 1993, three years before Hannity was actually hired at WABC.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/23/sean-hannity-confronted-o_n_92961.html

Seito Sakakibara
Should his name be included? Von Restorff (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It would help if you could clarify the nature of the dispute, if there is one -- or at least lay out the reasons for exclusion or inclusion. If the point is simply that naming him goes against Japanese law, then in my opinion that's not a sufficient reason to exclude his name from this article, particularly if he is already named in reliable sources in a way that would support inclusion of it here.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is I don't know anything about this. I am unable to read Japanese, I never heard of this person before, and the only information about the dispute I have is what can be found on the article's talkpage. I cannot judge the reliability of the source that includes the name; I can't even confirm the name is actually in the source referenced. Von Restorff (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Might be worth getting a Japanese speaker involved - Japanese-speaking Wikipedian category. The Interior  (Talk) 18:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I speak it, but I don't think that's essential in this case. The Japanese media exclude, by law in most instances, the names of minors who are victims and perpetrators of crime, the latter of whom go on to be released as adults. Such is the case here; the subject is technically "Shōnen A." This can make reliable sourcing on a name relatively problematic, though a quick search produces the alleged true name of the perpetrator in ample volume in entirely unreliable sources. On the other hand, the victims' names have been released by their families (for example, Jun's name from Jun – sore kara 『淳 それから』 by Mamoru Hase and Shin'ichirō Honda, Shinchosha, 2005. ISBN 4-10-426502-0). The notable event is probably best moved to Kobe child murders or somesuch anyway, and tweaked to focus on the WP:1E and not the person. That's a drastic move, so I'll wait for input. JFHJr (㊟) 22:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've moved and re-written accordingly. JFHJr (㊟) 23:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Khurshid Ahmad
Controversy section is mildly libelous, not referenced, and has been reinserted after deletion by an IP from the institution at which Ahmad is a member. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.226.56.7 (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The unsourced material was properly removed by another editor.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There seems to be ongoing additional excitement, including a brewing dispute about keeping a template about notability on top of the page for more than six months (I'm a party to the dispute!), so more watchlisting and more opinions would be useful. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there's a discussion at WP:EAR on that issue. In my view, any tag remains as long as the basis for the tag remains, and that includes the notability tag.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What a foolish idea. See Articles for deletion/Khurshid Ahmad (Professor of Computer Science). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure which idea you're speaking of, but just a caution about the AfD. If Ahmad fails WP:GNG, or more specifically fails WP:PROF, fine, but there are many editors who may beat you up for bringing it as a "procedural nomination". AfD is not a friendly place, having been the butt of some editors' wrath. Somehow WP:CIVIL just doesn't apply at AfD.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Many people have tried to beat me up over the internet. Unsurprisingly, all have failed. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That wasn't the tone I was looking for (it was a very, very long day). Thank you for the advice. (Although, things said to me at AfD tend not to upset me much.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Keith Gary
How can I add photos to my wikipedia page?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Gary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keithgary (talk • contribs) 02:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If as you say you are the Keith Gary that article is about, it is not your Wikipedia page, it is an article in Wikipedia about you. You do not own or control it in any way. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  02:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Give him a second. doesn't seem to have edited inappropriately. The subject very likely owns the rights to some images of himself that would be of encyclopedic quality. Keithgary, you might start here. Once you've gotten your image (that you're sure you own the rights to) uploaded, leave another note here. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 03:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Orangemike: Yes...It's not "my" page, but a page about me. I'm new to this terminology, sorry for the confusion. JFHJr: thanks for the help. I'll find an appropriate image and upload it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keithgary (talk • contribs) 16:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

David Hornsby
has persisted in adding a date of birth to the article based only on his claim to be the subject of the article (diffs: ). The date in the article currently is based on this news article, where Hornsby was 27 as of the date of the story; no date of birth can be discerned from the article.

I ask the wider community here if they accept Rufer1976's claim to be the subject and accept his date of birth, or if we need to stay with the date as supportable by the Daily Press article. —C.Fred (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've edited the article to restore the 1975/1976 year. I left in your dubious tag, although I disagree with it. Even Rufer isn't saying the sourced year(s) are wrong. He's just saying it's 1975, so I don't see anything incorrect or problematic about the source. As for what should happen, either we leave it the way it is (reliably sourced), or OTRS can verify that Rufer is the subject, and we can then remove the year of birth entirely. We have to either have it in with a source or not have it in.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Rufer is just going to get himself blocked, whether he's the article subject or not. His comments here, his comments off Wiki, his entire style is disruptive. I would be more sympathetic if we were reporting a DOB that was truly wrong, but we are reporting 1975 or 1976 based on the 2003 article, and he says he was born on December 1, 1975. How can he get this riled up over that? I have reverted him and warned him about WP:3RR. Next revert, I will go to WP:3RRNB.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I seem to be having this conversation by myself, but here's the latest. User:Tiptoety blocked Rufer for violating 3RR. For whatever reasons, Rufer's DOB edit was allowed to remain with a cite to Hornsby's Twitter account, which states, "I was born 12/1/75. Put that shit in Fred C and stop being a dick." I thought that was an outrageous thing for us to cite to, so I restored the article back to pre-Rufer. Tiptoety warned me about violating 3RR (my last revert was #3), so even though I had not yet breached 3RR, I self-reverted. The article now stands with Rufer's DOB and the Twitter cite. (It may sound like I'm pissed at Tiptoety, but actually I'm not. First, it's better to warn editors of 3RR breaches before they breach. Second, Tiptoety is just doing what they think is right and being even-handed. Also, some would say it doesn't matter how obnoxious the comment it is as long as the fact in it is verifiable. I just think it's all obnoxious.)--Bbb23 (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe ping User:Ponyo. I know she has a lot of experience with DOB issues. I'm with Bbb23 on twitter as a source, but then again I just really dislike twitter in general.  The Interior  (Talk) 17:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Were it a verified account, I'd have accepted the source as a reliable self-published source, but it's not. Frankly, I still have concerns about whether the Twitter account is reliable. I gave Rufer instructions on how to contact OTRS to verify his identity. Rather than go that route, he (apparently) posted via an unverified Twitter account the comment above. Given the personal attack, I'm trying to assume good faith, but it really increases the likelihood that he's not who he claims to be. But, in the long run, it's probably not worth it. If the date is wrong, somebody else claiming to be him will come along to post a correction. :) —C.Fred (talk) 17:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You should put your dislike of Twitter on your resume as a sign of good judgment.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Vladimir Katriuk
Two sections of article: 3 Schutzmannschaft Batallion 118 4 War criminals in Canada are only intented to dishonor a living person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.104.254.110 (talk) 17:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You'll have to be more specific as both of those sections are well-sourced (I haven't verified source-compliance). There's nothing wrong with putting in well-sourced, relevant, negative information into a BLP article. Do you believe some of the material is not source-compliant or some of the sources are not reliable? If so, please point them out.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyone can make allegations, but calling them facts shouldn't be permited. Calling a living person a war criminal until proved so by court, should not be permitted. Statement that any militaty unit in two years killed thousands of innocent people should be made only if proved by court/tribunal with reference to reliable source, othervise it should be clearly made only as allegations. There's only one credible source of the article - Decision of the Federal Court, the rest of them are just articles in the newspapers, that may shift public oppinion into prejudice, if public will check wiki looking for information.--213.104.254.110 03:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Removed the war criminals in Canada section - diff -  the person doesn't appear to have been convicted of any war crimes and even if he had, the content would not belong in his biography. - The non free picture is also a violation of use imo. I have not investigated the 3 Schutzmannschaft Batallion 118 section externals. You  really  can  21:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for catching that. If I hadn't been so hasty, I would have realized that it was just a generalized section and not about the subject.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No problemo - I didn't notice at first. You  really  can  21:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello, I am the editor that started the article. All entries in the article are based on the facts and supported with citations.  Unfortunately, the IP editor 213.104.254.110 is deleting cited information and replacing it with revisionist history of the events in question.  The person in the article lied to obtain Canadian Citizenship and lied again in the Federal Court of Canada about his activities during the Second World War.  This is documented in the recently published article cited in the article.  Thank you. JunoBeach (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please take care accusing living people of lying as if a proven fact - they are allegations only. - please also take the same care, using attribution and clearly stating in article content that they are only allegations and who it is that alleges whatever it is. You  really  can  21:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Article mentions unseen untill 2008 "KGB interrogation reports" and refers to couple of newspapers, and those newspapers refer to a words of Per Anders Rudling. I tried to find those reports, but found myself in a loop, returning back to the publications in the newspapers. So if those reports are yet to be seen, it should be clearly stated.--213.104.254.110 03:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Dylan Lauren
Hello, I was doing some research on the Bush family,and came across the biography of Dylan Lauren. I have no other source that states that she passed away yesterday. Please investigate. Thank you.

~ Sharon L. San Antonio, TX — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.10.138.117 (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The unsourced death claim was removed by another editor. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Good move in the absence of reliable and convincing sources. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC).

Hyun Jin Moon
I had several issues.

Issue one: sourcing

According to Wikipedia's policies on living persons - "Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoiding original research." The policies also state that comments should be well sourced.

I used the sourced cites to try to read more and several links for references lead to no content. This cannot be accepted as the sources for content posted on a living person.

source 3 from the Family Federation site source 5, Kibaki meets Global Peace Foundation Chairman leads to nothing source 6 from the Connecticut Post source 9 Washington Times updates style guide, conservatives up in arms - from what paper, publication, or online source? what date? and link leads to no content

This puts to question 1. Where is the source to verify he is the Chairman of News World Communications 2. Where is the source to verify he is Chairman of Global Peace Foundation.

That is pretty serious if those are sources used to create this very short biography. This doesn't seem like verifiability and good sourcing practices.

Due to lack of sourcing but without sourcing, these cannot be accepted as factual representations of a living person.

Also the source 1 is about 1994-1999 and is the only source used to state facts about Hyun Jin Moon when it is 2012 now. Same with other sources posted above (though the links do not work). There are very very few current sources. I would think, therefore, the facts presented are outdated to represent what and who he is today. How do we know any of the information is accurate. This cannot be the only content about him today is it?

issue 2: Paragraph two has legal issues. Moon (as in Hyun Jin Moon which this article is about) is stated to have fired several editors.

1. I looked for sourcing on verifiability of this person's position as Chairman of News World Communications. The sources cited do not give this fact and therefore, why is it accepted as fact on this post?

2. The paragraph above states that Hyun Jin Moon is Chairman of News World Communications and therefore I assume this means there is a board. If so it is a board that makes decisions and decisions are pushed through a process of most likely voting. To state here that "Moon fired several editors" would be misrepresenting what happened. Whether what is described here is taken as a positive or negative depending on if you are conservative or liberal, is not the point. The point is to be neutral and factual and explain what happened accurately. This sounds like someone's opinion.

3. Finally what does this have to do with Moon? If this content is so pressing put this on the Washington Times page. This is about its history of editors. If this is going to be on his biography page, make it connected to him. Otherwise it makes me wonder - who posted this here and why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Golden curry (talk • contribs) 22:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You removed all the material you didn't think was appropriate - I haven't checked to see if you're right, but no one thus far has complained.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Kitty Kelley‎
I realize that she's controversial, but this is nothing less than a hit piece on Kelley. Can something be done about it? CheeseStakeholder (talk) 14:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes its awful a WP:Shame - There are thousands upon thousands of similar inconceivably low quality articles just like this one on en wikipedia - a reflection of all that is bad about the projects policy and guidelines and the poor monitoring and implementation of them - a reflection of the I can add anything I want from anywhere I want guideline, which we haven't actually got . Lots of recent additions cited to what appears to have been an unofficial biography - that part about stealing at school seems totally excessive - it will take a lot of work to bring it inline with Pol and Gui to resemble a encyclopedic biography and not a celeb style gossip piece. - I can trim it back to the noteworthy details but there would likely be objections and im not willing to waste my time to just be reverted with an edit summary of - its cited.. This diff edit summary, expand early life section citing the unnoficial bio of her, I think the title says it all - "Poisen pen" by George Carpozi, Jr.. - seems to just be undue - does such a school issue require so much coverage cited to that book? - You  really  can  15:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Theft issue prob deserves the line that I put into the early life sec. He does claim that she attended the Univ of Arizona, which is now missing. Page now looks much better. There is nothing wrong with writing unofficial biographies, though, Kelley herself and many other great writers have gained renown from doing just that. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 16:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hm, an unofficial biographer writing an unofficial biography about an unofficial biographer ..... Yes, much better now imo also - thanks to both of you. -  You  really  can  17:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's been this way for a long time. I took a sabbatical from the Wiki for over a year and I was amazed to find it had gotten worse, CheeseStakeholder (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I have cut a lot of material out of the article. It might still require some more focused surgery. I, too, don't like the citations to the book by Carpozi, although I've left some in.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the article is much better now, for which I thank all concerned. But I hesitate to remove the "unbalanced" tag. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Michael A. Bellesiles
I have the same problem with this article as I do with the Kelley article reported above. It seems intended to denigrate the subject. I raised the point on the talk page over a year ago and didn't get very far. I see that the problem remains and may have grown worse. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Harumph, you just came back to make work for everyone. :-) The main thing I've done to the article is to hatnote the book section, which was virtually a repeat of our article on the book. If someone wants to try, I suppose one could put in a brief summary of the controversy in the section, but it's already covered in the lead. You might want to look at the Further reading section to see if that many entries are really necessary. I removed a couple of external links but decided to leave in the rest. I haven't looked at the end of the article. I wonder if he's notable per WP:BLP1E.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh. Sorry. I'd been away from Wikipedia for a while and looked back in on some articles that bothered me. Boing! Just as bad as before, if not worse. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 19:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Sun Myung Moon
User:Jokestress puts negative-only information (except for list of children linked one by one, stayed unremoved by the reporter) of very personal tragedies which is absolutely disliked by a living person: deaths of children, a suicide, get-revenge-memoirs of the daughter-in-law which is described in details on late Hyo Jin Moon-article (User:Jokestress already linked Hyo Jin Moon in the article, as well as other scandalous children or the daughter-in-law: for each, separate pages exist - no need to victimize here in BLP).

User:Jokestress was proposed to post the negative things in no-BLP article if considered as notable, she was noticed about BLP-violation twice but she is continuing to ignite WP:WAR posting gradually more negative information  and convincing others in no-violation but her actions approve the opposite.


 * 1) This statement is not sourced at all: Moon has been sexually active outside of his marriages.
 * 2) This source is unable to verify: no e-version of the book
 * 3) This source is the primary one: UPI is Moon-owned news agency

So all the sources in the section Sun Myung Moon created by User:Jokestress are dubious for WP:BLP and intended to WP:ATTACK the subject.

Please, take measures. Full protection or at least semi-protection is preferred because of high sensibility of the topic related to public figure. Hope Wikipedia is worthy encyclopedia but not a tabloid. Borovv Borovv (talk) 02:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As I discussed on the talk page, Moon's sexual activity and children outside of marriage have been discussed by Moon himself in sworn testimony as reported in reliable newspapers (see citation in bio). Nansook Hong and one of Moon's daughters discussed another child born out of wedlock on 60 Minutes in 1998, also cited. These are reliable sources, and we typically list people's family members in their biographies. I came to this because there was an earlier BLP related to conflation between Moon's sons Hyun Jin Moon and Hyung Jin Moon. To help keep things straight, I believe it is useful to list all of his children, even those outside the True Family, as many already had biographies. This is classic WP:IDONTLIKEIT by an editor who appears to be a member of the Unification Church. Jokestress (talk) 02:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "an editor who appears to be a member of the Unification Church". That's pretty strong allegation. WP:COI is deriven in a greater extent from you rather then from me: you have posted the harmful-only (fo example, "infant death", "suicide", "reincarnated", adultery (unsourced at all, original research), Sun Kil Choi (who's she? no reliable source) information which is unreliable at all, what for? "Illegitimate son" could mean other things and "to father" could have two meanings. Korean War separated many families especialy of Moon who at the time was inprisoned for years by North-Korean communists. In 1982, when the article was written, Moon was persecuted by US govt through court trials because of xenophobia. Court details might be easily manipulated in order to reach the goal (to kick him out of the country). But i kept the information in the Criticism section.

"This is classic WP:IDONTLIKEIT": suppose this is classic Disruptive editing, Gaming the system by more experienced editor, Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, WP:Etiquette. Besides, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a guideline. Borovv (talk) 04:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * User:Jokestress, please do not threaten me with the possibility of being blocked as you did here. You are in the noticeboard for BLP violation, not me, so it's unapropriate of you to recommend me smth: i am flattered, thanks, but i dont need that - it's an administrator's jurisdiction to deside a block, not yours, not mine. Please follow a WP:COMMONSENSE: the last source actually does not say about adultery, it says about misunderstanding because of possible translation hardships and power misuse from court officials, but you put the misleading citation torn out of context. See WP:COI, WP:ATTACK and WP:NEEDSMOARDRAMA. DONT FORGET WP:BLP. Borovv (talk) 07:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Richard Osman
Richard Osman biography

An incited entry states that this person fathered a well known footballer when he was 10 hrs old.

The entry for said footballer, Leon Osman, does not mention this, and gives his parents names and nationalities.

IMHO the entry on Richard Osman's page is defamatory and libellous, can you please remove it, I cannot dothis on my tablet.
 * It's been removed as vandalism. --Ronz (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Cherry Hill Public Schools
the talk page at Cherry Hill Public Schools has, in its edit history, some unsourced comments that may be libelous. I dont know the policy on such histories, or if it needs to be redacted, but i hope someone here knows and can decide if im being responsible or overzealous. i have informed the editor who added it about BLP, and i have no reason to believe they will add it again, let alone add it to the article. to be honest (and to my embarrassment as a fairly active editor), i hadnt really noticed that even talk pages cant contain such material, or i would have removed some other unsourced comments from other talk pages i have encountered.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Stephanie Adams
I have recently recreated and expanded this article based on recent substantial press coverage of a lawsuit won by Adams against the NYPD. The subject of the article has been the locus of a long-running edit war between sockpuppets and Wikipedia editors adding and removing Adams from various lists. While neither "side" is blameless in this dispute, I felt that there was a chance to put an end to this by creating a balanced BLP. This has been a contentious article in the past and there have already been comments made on the talk page of the article that I find concerning, so I am pre-emptively asking for more eyes on this article. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk)
 * - User:Fasttimes68 needs a topic ban - they are overly involved. - the user has shown animosity to the  subject on- and off-wiki -  You  really  can  20:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * provide evidence. Fasttimes68 (talk) 20:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Whether there's "evidence" or not - and evidence is a flexible term given the history of the Adams article - if YRC wants to propose a topic ban, take it to WP:ANI - it doesn't belong here. All DC asked was for editors to watch the article, a common and sensible enough request for this forum.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is not the place for the discussion, but just for the record, the specific allegations that were made on Talk:List of Playboy Playmates of 1992 were that User:Fasttimes68 posted a blog entry on his blog entitled "Stephanie Adams is a twat" and that they were using User:69.143.17.59 (which geolocates to Virginia) as a sockpuppet. These claimed were not disputed by Fasttimes68 at that time. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You are excellent at making accusations without evidence. Fasttimes68 (talk) 22:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, those allegations are correct - This User:Fasttimes68 is a conflicted contributor in regards to this subject. - 20:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC) You really  can

Matt Gunther
I'm trying to find Matt Gunther's death and HIV/AIDS stuff, but I found none reliable in either Google News or Books about his death. At least I found this same source under different terms:, ,. I'm still trying:. --George Ho (talk) 15:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've removed both current references in the article. One was at rame.net, which doesn't strike me as reliable at all, itself sourced to a usenet posting. Another was a Wikipedia link. Neither is acceptable for BLPs. JFHJr (㊟) 03:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Question: Are there sources that confirm his death? --George Ho (talk) 05:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe? They're not coming up on a fast and dirty search, if they're out there. Not everything's on the Googles yet, and between the genre and the past, the subject isn't hugely amenable to reliable sources to start with. Certainly, there are no sources that confirm his death in the article, so if you want to remove something, you've got pretty much free rein to challenge anything. JFHJr (㊟) 05:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Craig Brockman
Numerous persons with this name - one being a highly decorated NYPD WTC Recovery Team member. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.136.241 (talk) 16:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Its not clear what you are intending/requesting - please explain in a bit more detail if you want editors to be able to investigate - thanks You really  can  16:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Nicki Minaj
I have reported this on the actual talk page so someone may handle the issue, but I feel it's worth noting here too because it does raise an issue regarding use of sources. In a nutshell, Minaj publicly states one birthdate, but a Dallas Police Report posted to TMZ and cited by the article states a different year of birth. (The report is linked to twice, in the articlespace and the infobox). Which is fair enough. But the article does not address the context of that police report. It just uses it as a source. So you have an article suggesting a legal issue involving the subject by way of sourcing, without providing balance in the context. Was she found guilty? Cleared? Charged at all? Is it before the courts? Has she issued a denial? Etc. You see what I'm talking about. As a BLP-eligible article I feel uncomfortable with a police source being used without some sort of balance, or even just a "In 2010, she was the subject of a police complaint about XYZ but the complaint was dropped/upheld..." I have confidence the folks who police that article will handle the issue, but the circumstances might be worth examining as the BLP policy continues to evolve. 70.72.223.215 (talk) 13:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi - Its not optimal - It appears to me that the subject of the article was the complainant - At least all the really personal details have been blanked out - I would just remove the link to the external from the citation - so that we cease to link to it but continue to use it for the dob - as soon as there is less contentious reliable location to cite the dob I would remove that one completely. - note - I removed the link to the tmz pdf and as I said, left the cite details - I also removed the note that said, her date of birth is various but the police report is definitive - this seems undue also and unnecessary, considering she was the complainant only in a minor incident. - as I said, if you find another reliable report of her dob then replace it completely. You  really  can  14:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Brian Coleman - some attention please?
I recently posted here asking for help with this article. I'd be most grateful if some could be provided. It's a shopping list of political/personal attacks, some of which look reasonably sourced, others very dubiously - I just removed one entirely based on YouTube. --Dweller (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, its a cited partisan attack. - requires npov editors to tweak it up for weight - I did a couple of sections - pick a section - any section - You  really  can  16:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Stephen E. Ambrose
Not a living person, but still an egregious case of unbalance. I've raised balance issues in the past to no avail and was outnumbered. It would be great if we could get more editors on this one. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you speaking of the entire article or just section 3 entitled "Criticism"? Although I have only contributed to the two paragraph subsection therein on the Pacific Railroad (a subject on which I have also written several books), it seems to me in reading over the rest of the entire section that all of the criticism's noted are well referenced and properly cite objective sources that support many instances of factual errors and/or apparent plagiarism in Ambrose's published works. If you disagree then please be specific about what you mean by the article being "far too skewed in the direction of a hit piece" (as you have contended on the article's Talk Page) and provide objective sources that support your contention. The issues of plagiarism and factual errors in Ambrose's books were (and continue to be) very significant issues in their reliability as reference works. To ignore or minimize them (as CheeseStakeholder appears to suggest) would, in fact, constitute a far greater "egregious case of unbalance" than not including the section in the article. Centpacrr (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm talking about the slant of the entire article, and the excessive space devoted to criticism, which dominates the article. Not being a living person, I've started a discussion at NPOVN as suggested below and request that this discussion be closed out. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I suggest taking this discussion to WP:NPOVN. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Tô Linh Hương
While the contents of the article on To Linh Huong are generally accurate the article is plagued by editorialised comments, such as 'Huong is the latest figure of the Crown Prince Party and from families of senior national and provincial leaders. This is usually portrayed as 'Red Offspring' by the public.[5]

Vietnam is one of a few nations that lets crown princes and princesses hold senior positions in commerce, especially in private equity. This allows them to maximize their profits and also brings them into regular contact with the Vietnamese and international business elite.

An easy solution would be to change 'Crown Prince Party' to 'Communist Party of Vietnam' and 'lets crown princes and princesses' to sons and daughters of senior officials...etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.252.50.185 (talk) 10:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The term "Crown Prince Party" does not appear in the source given; the closest term is actually translated into English as "Chinese princelings" in the source itself . At any rate, I've removed it in favor of a simpler statement to the same effect, following the source in question. Thanks for posting! JFHJr (㊟) 03:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Simon Watney
I recently found a biography of myself on Wikipedia which began by getting my age wrong and appeared to have little idea of who I am, beyond some kind of obscure political grudge. An anonymous Wikipedia editor had understandably and correctly already expressed a stated concern that the article lent 'undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, controversies or matters relative to the article subject as a whole' etc.

So firstly, I am writing to thank the editor for his/her intervention.

Secondly, I have now corrected the biography and trust that the Wikipedia editor will now revise/remove his/comment relating to the version to which we both objected. Many thanks Simon Watney — Preceding unsigned comment added by Recusant boy (talk • contribs) 13:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Assuming you are Watney, my edits to the article will probably not please you. There was virtually nothing in the article that was reliably sourced. Except for one source, there was nothing except primary sources, which are generally not permissible, particularly for some of the claims in the article. You should also be aware that it's not usually a good idea for someone to edit his own article. See WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. The better approach is to identify yourself on the article Talk page and suggest edits with reliable sources. Thanks for your understanding.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Evelyn Lozada
Is this page necessary? her bio on the Basketball Wives wiki page says exactly the same thing and is better worded anyway.

Seems to be put up by one of her publicists or fans — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.151.200 (talk) 13:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Some of it was copied from one of her promotional bios. Other than her role in the reality show, there's really nothing but trivia in it. I don't even want to evaluate whether she's sufficiently notable, a thankless task.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Dave Winer
I believe more eyes may be necessary over on Talk:Dave Winer. Dave Winer is a technology writer and entrepreneur and an early blogging pioneer, but has a communication style that can get him into controversy.

I just declined a request at WP:RFPP to remove semi-protection from the article. One editor is very keen to include material about the subject that is negative, but seems to want to use sources that are fairly unreliable (including the gossip blog Gawker, seemingly on the basis of the argument that if Gawker is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, that must show that they are a reliable source). It'd be useful if some BLP-minded editors would have a look at these discussions and weigh in on the appropriateness of sources and recent editing to the article. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The editor mentioned above is User:Irelan12. His suggestions for adding criticism to Dave Winer's article can now be seen at Talk:Dave Winer. This may be a person who has had disputes with Winer in real life. Merely wanting to balance Winer's article is acceptable, but naked animosity will raise most people's eyebrows. An account with a similar name has previously been blocked for abuse of multiple accounts, per WP:Suspected sock puppets/Nirelan. See also Talk:Dave Winer/Archive 2 from 2008, where Nirelan is mentioned many times. Since Nirelan has been around the block here before, my thought is that any further addition of negative material at Dave Winer that is not supported by consensus should lead to a block. EdJohnston (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Irelan12 is a sockpuppet of Nirelan, who has been blocked countless times in the past, and whose whole career as a Wikipedian has been dedicated to the purpose of exacting revenge from Dave Winer over an incident that happened in 2007: originally Irelan failed in his attempt to get the article deleted, ever since he's been trying to get the minor incident of his conflict with Winer included in the article. Arguing from a personal grievance and against an overwhelming consensus, he's been disputing Winer's accomplishments, trying to have them minimised or removed. He's currently flogging a dead horse in the Talk pages of the Winer article. The current semi-protection of the article, incidentally, is a result of Nirelan's edits from an IP account.
 * The man has a strong conflict of interest, and it is tiresome having to defend the article against his baseless attacks. I recommend he be banned again immediately. ARK (talk) 08:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've blocked Irelan12 as an obvious sock. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! ARK (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Irelan12 has removed the sockpuppet template from his user page and has edited the Winer page, violating a clear consensus in the talk pages. Has his block been lifted? ARK (talk) 07:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes he has been unblocked - see here - If the user returns to the previous edit issues/violations occur report him back here - or to the previous blocking admin, User:Tom Morris - You  really  can  08:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As soon as Irelan12 got unblocked, he made the edit he'd been threatening to make for days prior to getting blocked, ignoring the consensual view that this edit should not be made (see ). ARK (talk) 10:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * user:Nirelan currently reads: "This account was formerly used by Irelan12. It is not a sock puppet, but is an account to which the password has been lost, or which the user has abandoned." Surely Nirelan has managed to wriggle out of this only through some glitch in which the original Nirelan account was not properly blocked, as the discussion on the Nirelan12 talk page suggests? For the past week, Irelan12 has been up to exactly the same persistent trolling of the Dave Winer biography that earned Nirelan his block in the first place. ARK (talk) 11:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The admin who unblocked Nirelan appears to be inexperienced and has recently made another poor judgement in unblocking an account [source]. ARK (talk) 12:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The Nirlan account was only blocked for a month - way back in 2007 - see his block history - No, it was User:Jpgordon  that unblocked the user - there is nothing much wrong with all the admin actions in regards to the user imo - I would block him myself as a single purpose disruptive account with a previous history of disrupting that single biography, but hes been unblocked on a technicality ,  so ... just keep your eye on him and report every violation he makes. - Looking at the edit history he has been editing as an IP also ,  - see this IP addresses contributions - I left User:Tom Morris a note to update him. You  really  can  13:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If the talk page User_talk:Nirelan is any indication, the admin who imposed the block in 2007 intended it to be indefinite. But yeah, let's ask User:Tom Morris. ARK (talk) 14:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Irelan12 has just made a string of edits to the Dave Winer in egregious disregard of the talk page consensus. I would like to request that the article be reverted to the [last version] by user:MarkBernstein. ARK (talk) 18:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I did just that a moment ago, since the edits were removing information that would otherwise take lots of time and effort to recover -- including systems that represent a substantial part of the subject's technical career. I don't follow the details of the block/unblock history, but it seems clear to me that some action is necessary. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I have shown that Userland Software made Editthispage.com and that he did not invent podcasting or enclosures in the discussion. They want to add fluff. If they want to undo my edits they need to provide refrences.--Irelan12 (talk) 19:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * So the original Nirelan account of early 2007 was blocked only for one month, allowing him to escape the indefinite block for block evasion on a technicality. Nirelan went through a whole Muppet Show of sock puppets, however, and Nirelan2 was blocked indefinitely. This should be sufficient cause to block user:Irelan12 indefinitely, rather than blocking him merely for 48 hours, as is the case right now. ARK (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's a list of other Nirelan blocks, including the indefinite block for NickIre. ARK (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Nick Irelan has been banned from Wikipedia after a discussion at the Wikipedia administrators' noticeboard. ARK (talk) 13:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)