Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive152

Nate Weiss
The majority of edits to this page have been done from the account "nswsoccer". This is quite clearly Nate Weiss himself. He has a personal YouTube account under the same name.

A perusal of the edits made by this account ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Nswsoccer ) shows that he has deleted unflattering comments (including referenced ones) and added numerous, sometimes unverified, positive information about himself.

As a result of edits by "nswsoccer", the article appears to violate NPOV, V, and NOR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.177.188.97 (talk) 05:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi,take a look now, I have tidied up and removed a lot of the vain, self-congratulatory wording.  Captain Screebo Parley! 15:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Mark Labbett
Does this chap's nickname justify comments about his weight? And does he strike others as particularly notable? My finger hovered over the AfD button... --Dweller (talk) 09:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Nuke it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Sent to AfD, . Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Delphine Batho
A third party view of the most recent edits to this article is respectfully invited.— S Marshall T/C 11:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd say that sort of material belongs there only if it has received wider attention; the single source isn't sufficient for BLP purposes in my view. The source doesn't contain anything at all about the size and value of her apartment.  Just to be clear -- I don't see a BLP problem with this sort of material in principle, but it needs better sourcing.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * On second look: the Le Monde article does tell us how big her apartment is and shows wider attention to the issue. It doesn't support the 65% of market value claim.  The phrasing of that sentence in the article does reflect some WP:OR, but it can probably be dealt with by means other than removal.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * When I see an article stating a 65% discrepancy figure then visit the cited source (and Le Monde is a good source) and see only a 37% discrepancy, I start to wonder. When the same source has a rebuttal from the subject concerning the claim about her property's status as public housing as well as claims about her income, then for the sake of NPOV I wonder why that isn't in the article. --92.6.211.228 (talk) 21:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * On my second look: of course it's actually the difference rounded up (only 65% of its value i.e. 37%ish difference). The approach on fr-wp is more simple with 37%! Incidentally I'm not sure "reserved" is technically correct as concerns the appartements. Nevertheless, brief detail of her rebuttal would be good. --92.6.211.228 (talk) 21:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Steve Allen (radio presenter)
Hi, I'm writing on behalf of Steve Allen, who I work with.

His wikipedia page has been regularly updated by the same person, who adds his home address, incorrect information and homophobic comments. We remove the comments, but this person keeps putting the comments back up - things like "he says he never slept with a woman". He also wrote a letter to Steve at home.

Is it possible to block this person from updating the page, or lock the page down?

Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.20.49.249 (talk) 08:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This is a sample of the bad edit. I have semi-protected the page, which will prevent the anonymous ip number from further vandalism.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Victor Pinchuk
I have posted to the talk page of this article. Raising the issue but not making the edit myself, per my explanation there.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Cleaned up - also fixed the unusual language therein a bit. Collect (talk) 11:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Gene McVay
Gene McVay does not appear to be someone who should have a Wikipedia page. Information on the page is poorly sourced at best and appears to be maintained by friends/family. His chief claim to fame that he ran for governor of Arkansas in 1998 and lost doesn't appear to be true:

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?fips=5&year=1998&f=0&off=5&elect=0

I'd advise deletion. The page looks to be a personal advertisement for his book and his military career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damnman1234 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Given it a bit of a once-over, removing a lot of the fluff and generally unsourced, overlong detail. Haven't checked on his inherent notability, any takers? BTW, Damnman1234, you are authorized to propose articles for deletion yourself, see here.  Captain Screebo Parley! 16:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I proposed it for deletion. I hope I did so correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damnman1234 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, a review of the contributions and the edits of the page seems to indicate that most of the edits and contributions were made by Gene McVay himself Damnman1234 (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well that was certainly Bold of you, see my post below, haven't had a lot of dealings with BLPPROD, let's get some feedback, not entirely sure that he's editing his own article although the username TOPGunF16 or whatever it is does only make edits to his article and the article where he comes from.  Captain Screebo Parley! 19:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

BLPPROD hovering like a hawk
Yes, some imput please, even with an "m", NPP, wanted to nuke and, as the title says, hovering like a hawk. Can we BLPPROD if the sources are rubbish? I'm in two minds about this as the whatchamacallit says "no refs" but also "reliable sources", IMHO the refs are junk, profile listings, databases, fan content, I just wanted to reach out and get some experienced (I've been thru' this, I know what you mean) feedback on this.  Captain Screebo Parley! 19:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Shivshakti got deleted. Again! Maybe it'll stay deleted, but I'd keep an eye on the article space if I were you. My impression is that the sourcing at Anne-Catherine Lacroix is incredibly weak and does not present reliable coverage that could support notability. It might be double-checking at WP:RSN to see if the sources are good for anything at all. JFHJr (㊟) 22:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Craig James (American football)
Multiple BLP issues are again presenting themselves at Craig James (American football), some blatant, some more subtle. On the blatant side, a number of IP editors are once again posting nastiness in the article and on the talk page relating to an unpleasant internet meme that semi-jokingly, and falsely, accuses James of a very serious crime when he was in college. Of a subtler nature are edits about James' dispute with Mike Leach that put a POV spin on that dispute and may also constitute BLP violations as to James' son Adam; these edits may superficially have sources, but under our BLP policies those sources are probably deficient. For an example, see This article has been to BLP/N before. More eyes are greatly appreciated.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've removed the deposition sentence - can't cite to a primary source for this.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Rick Thomas


According to BLP policy, "Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

This article is horrendously written and completely unsourced... I'm sort of amazed it hasn't been deleted already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.90.105.56 (talk) 10:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)  Captain Screebo Parley! 17:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Heads up! Article stubbed, nommed for deletion (see link above) *but* have stumbled across a series of either totally unreffed bios or bios reffed to forum posts or blogs all related to the band Mushroomhead, the content is unencyclopaedic, the different people all appear non-notable and most of what is posted is pure OR, PEACOCK, WEASEL and/or in violation of BLP.
 * Could editors to this noticeboard go through the following (s)hitlist, stubbing and AfDing as they see fit as I have to get off-wiki now and cannot deal with this can of worms alone? Thanks in advance.
 * Waylon Reavis
 * Jeffrey Hatrix
 * Steve Felton
 * Tom Schmitz
 * Jack Kilcoyne
 * John Sekula


 * I've taken a look at (and a knife to) the above articles. I hope you'll consider creating a batch AfD to include all individual members that fail WP:MUSICIAN and WP:GNG. The hard part will be distinguishing which members have joined at least two notable ensembles; it may be that one or two have. Keep in mind, it may be best to have a look at the articles here on the bands. They have been created, but there's no indication of notability in the articles themselves; a GNG evaluation for each one is something you'll need to carry out pre-WP:BEFORE. JFHJr (㊟) 19:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Good, thanks, in fact I'm waiting for the result of the current AfD about Rick Thomas, a bit of a no-brainer that it will be deleted, then I'll do a group AfD for all of the other memebers that fail the above criteria. Cheers!  Captain Screebo Parley! 15:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Jimmy White
The first paragraph is nonsensical rubbish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.255.12.168 (talk) 22:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I assume you mean the first paragraph of the 'Early Life' section. This was vandalism, and I've reverted it. Thanks for pointing it out. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

alex thomas pornographic actor
This is false information about a living person and as such defamation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gary101w (talk • contribs) 09:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Article has been tagged for speedy deletion as no information on the notability of the individual has been provided. It's even worse since the supposed external link also has next to nothing on this person. Thanks for mentioning this, and hopefully this will be gone soon. -- McDoob  AU  93  15:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think speedying this is appropriate; the underlying subject meets the general standard of minimal significance for performers required for A7, though I really doubt he satisfies the GNG. That said, this is a symptom of a significant BLP problem. User:Ash, now User:Fæ, created a large number of dreadfully sourced/functionally unsourced (and, too often, deceptively or fraudulently sourced) bios of gay porn performers, many of whom appeared using common names as, or otherwise generic, pseudonyms. These minimally notable, at best, stage personae are frequently confused with more notable people with corresponding real names (or, occasionally, stage names); the problem is compounded when the names are mislinked in lists. The immediate case is the second in recent weeks where a mainstream performer has become entangled with a porn industry performer about whom we really have no reliable biographical information and only a trivial claim to notability. Coincidentally, I nominated another article of this type (created by a different editor) for deletion earlier today (see Articles for deletion/Glenn Steers). Trying to handle such articles in bulk or in many similar nominations in a short time has been contentious in the past, but the underlying mess really needs to be cleaned up. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Mitt Romney Cranbrook incident
The page was created based upon an extremely well sourced article from the Washington Post, and been copied by hundreds of newspapers, and replied to by Romney. However, there is a strong desire among editors to remove the article since it may harm their political candidate. This would be akin to removing any mention of Watergate because Nixon supporters didn't want any mention of it. The Washington Post obviously knew how important the story was which is why they took the time to get so many witnesses before running the story. Pbmaise (talk) 14:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Article has been nominated for deletion just like previous articles feeding off of supposed political scandals (like Sandra Fluke, Obama Ate a Dog and "Forward" being code for socialism). If anything, belongs as a blurb at Mitt Romney, and certainly not as its own article. Feel free to discuss at the deletion discussion linked above. -- McDoob  AU  93  15:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The page is based on an excellent article from the WP, but I still don't think it merits its own page. If anything it deserves a short mention on the main Romney page.  Being a jerk in high school is not quite on par with Watergate.  a13ean (talk) 15:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The page has some copyvio issues too. Parts of the lead are taken straight from the WaPo article, without any attribution.  Hot Stop  15:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments like "However, there is a strong desire among editors to remove the article since it may harm their political candidate" are not appropriate here. You have no business speculating upon the motives of users. If someone is editing in bad faith that can be discussed, but believe it or not there are people on this planet who disagree with you, not because they have some personal agenda, but because they don't think your argument makes sense. Don't make it personal. S Æ don talk 00:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Mm, prep school hazing? That's probably a minor incident in Romney's life, although it may be indication of a willingness to bully. Nonetheless, I'm not so sure it demands its own page just yet. &mdash;  Rickyrab. Yada yada yada 04:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

David Mapley
This article is a spoof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.222.32 (talk) 15:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I've trimmed back some of the uncited silliness, fixed some of the strange wording, and added a couple of templates. I'm not seeing the spoof aspect, but there may be problems with notability. You may wish to consider sending the article to WP:AFD. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Ira Einhorn

 * previous post

I'm running into a problem at Ira Einhorn. A newly registered SPA,, has reverted my efforts at an article that assigns appropriate weight to a "controversy" section. The section references media accounts of court proceedings, emphasizing the sworn nature of certain disavowments. Other collateral changing in sourcing and lead content are also problematic.

Another editor has stepped in to assist, but the opinions and eyes of any available BLPN contributors would be invaluable. JFHJr (㊟) 05:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I think this gem and this effacement show a pattern here. JFHJr (㊟) 06:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Joe Francis
I have a number of requested edits to this article as follows:

1. [Resolved. Thank you.]

2. [Resolved. Thank you.]

3. Regarding: "In June 2007, Francis and his company became the subject of a lawsuit claiming that images had been used without the subject's permission." '''Comment: this line should be stricken. The lawsuit referred to in the source article (brought by Plaintiffs Brooke Patsolic and Christina Brose, was dropped immediately when video evidencing their consent to be filmed was produced. See http://www.tmz.com/2007/09/28/francis-calls-b-s-on-girls-gone-litigious-claims.'''

4. Regarding the next line:  "The plaintiff, Ashley Alexandra Dupré dropped the suit after Francis released footage showing her agreeing to be filmed." Makes more sense if it reads: "In April 2008, Ashley Alexandra Dupré filed, and then dropped a lawsuit against Girls Gone Wild after Francis released footage showing her agreeing to be filmed."

5. Regarding line:  On March 25, 2008, four women sued him in Florida for filming them while underage, with one girl saying she had been 13 when filmed.[15] On April 7, 2011, the jury ruled that no financial damages would be awarded for "emotional distress".[16] '''Makes more sense and is unbiased if it reads: "In March 2008, four women filed suit against Girls Gone Wild in Florida for allegedly filming them while underage. Francis and GGW were vindicated by an all-female jury on April 7, 2011, when the jury decided that none of the plaintiffs was entitled to damages." Also, this should probably be moved up to the "Civil" section, above.'''

6. Regarding the section "Charges in Florida" generally, '''the section is poorly written, has typos, is completely biased, states charges that were never proven, etc. This is a biography, not a rap sheet filled with irrelevant/erroneous charges that never came into being. I revised the section as follows, and would like the changes to be incorporated: "In a 2003 incident in Panama City Beach, Florida, Francis was arrested and released on a $165,000 bond. Francis' private jet and other property were confiscated.[9] However, the judge ultimately disallowed much of the evidence,[10] and on January 4, 2007 dismissed most of the charges, ruling that the remaining evidence did not support the allegations. The seized assets were returned. Francis was fined $1.6 million and ordered to perform community service for 18 U.S.C. § 2257 record-keeping violations.[11] In April 2007, while detained for contempt of court, Francis allegedly offered a guard money for bottled water. Authorities allegedly found prescription medication including Lunesta and Lorazepam on Francis, which he claimed he had previously disclosed.[12][13] On March 12, 2008 Francis pled no contest to child abuse and prostitution, and was sentenced to time served.[14]"'''

7. Regarding the next section "Federal criminal tax problems" again, '''the section is terribly written, disjointed, contains a lot of simply irrelevant material, etc. I mean, the stuff about the setting and vacating of the trial date? Who cares! Also the fact that Joe was late to court one day? Again, this is stupid and irrelevant. I revised the section as follows, and would like the changes to be incorporated: "On April 11, 2007, Francis was indicted by a federal grand jury in Reno, Nevada on two counts of tax evasion.[15] The Department of Justice alleged that Francis had claimed over $20 million in false business deductions on his corporate tax returns during 2002 and 2003.[16] The Los Angeles Times quoted his attorney, Jan L. Handzlik, as saying: "The government has chosen to make a criminal case out of what we believe to be, at most, a civil tax dispute..."[15] Francis pleaded not guilty, arguing that the tax returns for the businesses were prepared and filed by a former corporate accountant without his approval. Francis' attorney pointed out that when the accountant left the company, he contacted the IRS to report the accounting mistakes with the hope of collecting a bonus from the government Tax Whistleblower Program.[17] Francis ultimately pleaded guilty to filing false tax returns, and was directed to pay restitution. He received credit for time served, and would be subject to one year of supervised release.[18] “It took us seven months, but in the end we demonstrated that the felony tax charges never should have been brought in the first place. As a result, the indictment was dismissed and the charges were reduced to only two misdemeanors with no jail time." Brad Brian, lead trial attorney, [19]"'''

I really appreciate the feedback and editing assistance of the community on some of these issues, and hope we can one day arrive at an article that is more becoming and characteristic of Wikipedia and just intellectually honest and interesting to read. Thank you. --Aaftergo (talk) 05:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)aaftergo


 * Some changes made - hopefully showing a sense ofbalance, and removing asides about other people where the information is of no value here. Collect (talk) 12:08, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The further edits indicate the article still isn't quite stable as far as content. I'll have a look when I can, but I thought this thread should stay alive in case others also have a look. JFHJr (㊟) 05:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you, JFHJr. Just looking for someone to give this page a reasonable, fair and objective review, and help it read less like a rap sheet or 4th grade book report, and more like a biographical article about a living person. --Aaftergo (talk) 04:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Removing alleged BLP violations from article talk pages
So, I posted a question on an article talk page asking for an explanation of exactly what the BLP violation was. The entire section was removed by the person who claims it's a BLP vio. Since there's no external input on the related BLPN thread (BLPN), I'm left wondering how this is supposed to be resolved. If this sort of approach is OK, almost anything can be removed citing "BLP", and then discussion of it shut down by again citing "BLP", all by a single editor without anyone agreeing. So... anyone care to comment? Rd232 talk 17:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We had this on another page recently -- might have been Santorum. "It's a BLP violation, so we can't discuss how it's a BLP violation".  That editor must think they're part of MI6 or the NSA or something along those lines.  I support reverting that removal.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You can also link to the diff. But the discussion itself would necessitate including parts of the BLP violations as part of the discussion.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

We've got the full discussion of the problematic text already here on this board; Rd232 also brought it to the Village Pump policy page; the talk page of the article already contains a link to the discussion here: how many new places do we need to replay text that is under BLP vio discussion? The question has been answered repeatedly; how many places are we going to spread this, and why do we need yet another talk section to further spread the text when there are already links and discussion on article talk? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I mentioned the previous discussion (still no other input, barring Jimbo managing to find his way there). The VPP discussion was about a different issue, namely guidance on use of a problem tag (though you did your best to try and make the discussion about the content the problem tag was applied to). We wouldn't need a new section if you hadn't created a new problem, by (i) refusing to explain how it's a BLP vio in the article and (ii) then insisting it's a BLP vio so egregious it can't even be discussed on the talk page. So will you explain i and ii here and now? Rd232 talk 23:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need to be discussed again on article talk, when it is completely covered here and already linked from article talk. It is a mystery to me what still needs explaining; would you mind keeping this in one section (the one above)?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter where or how often I ask the question, you still won't or can't answer it: how is
 * According to state-run Radio Nacional de Venezuela (RNV), the allegations Silva was referring to were made by the Chief Inspector of the police of Baruta referring to a May 2000 incident. Capriles was elected Mayor of Baruta several months after the alleged incident in the 30 July 2000 regional elections, and according to RNV, the policeman says Capriles used his position to avoid indecency charges and to "have the policeman in question subjected to a disciplinary process". RNV says the policeman said he had received a "barrage of slanderous attacks that led to disciplinary actions" and wanted to clear his name.
 * a BLP violation, especially bearing in mind the current paragraph two at Venezuelan_presidential_election,_2012, which it was supplementing before you deleted it? And again, since I keep asking and you won't answer: (i) is Mario Silva exempt from BLP considerations and (ii) why is it acceptable to make it look like Silva invented the allegations, rather than merely repeating the allegations from another source? Rd232 talk 00:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

'''would you mind keeping this in one section (the one above)? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 00:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)'''
 * allrighty then, I'll move it back to the section above myself. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 06:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Guidelines?
Do we have any guidelines on this issue? I've only very rarely seen good-faith content removed from talk pages even for BLP-related reasons, and I'm not sure I recall it ever being done by an involved party. Rd232 talk 23:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * From our WP:BLP page:"Biographies of living persons ('BLP's) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages." It was already under discussion here, and linked from talk to here.  Adding the text again to talk was gratuitous.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know that WP:BLP includes that passing mention. That tells us nothing practical about when a BLP vio is so serious we can't even discuss it on a talk page. Rd232 talk 00:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Moot. It was being discussed here. That is what should be done.  That no one would touch it is another issue, not reason to continue raising it in other places.  No one is going to die if we have to wait a few days before smearing someone. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't perceive a BLP violation in the text Rd232 proposes to add. (I certainly don't think it's such a BLP violation that it merits being deleted from an article talk page.) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I do perceive a BLP violation in it. State-controlled media in a country with no freedom of the press is not a reliable source, so this is using an unreliable source for negative comments about a living person. Ken Arromdee (talk) 23:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Are we now going to hold this discussion in five places? It was removed from talk because it was a BLP issue already under discussion in multiple places.  If someone would like to join this section with the same section above, I can consolidate responses and not have to continue typing the same thing five times in five places.  Then we might discuss on what basis you see no BLP violation, but not when the discussion is fragmented unncessarily. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 06:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Moved it myself; I can see no reason for this discussion to have been carried on in five different places, and two on this page at the same time. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 06:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We're doing it here as well because you took it upon yourself to delete something from an article talk page on the basis that it was a BLP violation. That's how we've ended up with another section, and that's the aspect of the issue that I'm most interested in here.  Your action on the article talk page was needlessly inflammatory -- so here we are.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Andrew Nikolic
Editing of this page has been semi-protected until 13 May 2012. The recently-added Controversy section of this page contains subjective and emotive content (e.g. "international ridicule", "threatening response"). In addition, since the edited content admits that the comments allegedly made by Mr Nikolic have been deleted, verification of the screenshots mentioned in the edit is not possible. Mr Nikolic contends that the screenshots contained comments that he did not make. A fake account purporting to be him appeared on Facebook around this time, and posted obscenities to his Facebook page. These obscenities were screenshotted and a complaint was made to Facebook. The offending page was subsequently deleted by Facebook Admin. Other Facebook sites have been springing up in the past week satirising and defaming Mr Nikolic. In light of the general nature of the movement happening here, and the fact that the edits are being perpetrated by political opponents of Mr Nikolic, the "Controversy" edit on this page should be scrapped, and a longer-lasting protection should be added to the page to prevent further malicious editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catagunyah (talk • contribs) 05:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I removed it - as undue trivia - You  really  can  06:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * In general, I agree with both of the above. However, it is obvious and documented in reliable sources that there is indeed "a Controversy". I believe the article should contain objective mention that there is a Controversy. I agree that what is/was there is/was overstated and not objective. But that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be anything there. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * As a local to the event (which may make it easier to search and find sources) can you please present some wp:reliable sources this issue is reported in so as users can evaluate the content/desired addition - thanks - You  really  can  16:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that this is a noteworthy event, particularly as it looks like it's possibly ending the subject's political career. I too am local and aware of this story being printed in numerous reliable Australian and international media sources.  I will revert the deletion, add references, and attempt to edit for appropriate tone. Autumnalmonk (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you present the citations here first for investigation and discussion, as the content is as you can see - contentious thanks - You  really  can  04:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Google.com.au produces dozens of related links:
 * version1 - 11:24am 9 May 2012
 * http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2012/05/09/326671_tasmania-news.html
 * James Manning article - and some of the identical copies - I stopped looking when I had found a dozen copies
 * http://www.canberratimes.com.au/technology/technology-news/liberal-candidate-threatens-facebook-users-over-satirical-article-20120508-1y9v3.html
 * http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/liberal-candidate-threatens-facebook-users-over-satirical-article-20120508-1y9v3.html
 * http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/liberal-candidate-threatens-facebook-users-over-satirical-article-20120508-1y9v3.html
 * comments in "newspapers" that I can't guarantee as WP:RS
 * http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/08/nikolic_threatens_facebook_users/
 * http://news.techeye.net/internet/aussie-politician-threatens-to-get-facebook-likers-fired
 * http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/social-networking/75064.html
 * International comment
 * http://punto-informatico.it/3514348/PI/News/quando-satira-online-colpisce-permalosi.aspx
 * The "Andrew Nikolic Blocked Me" page seems to have been removed
 * http://www.facebook.com/AndrewNikolicBlockedMe
 * Etc. Pdfpdf (talk) 04:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * http://www.examiner.com.au/news/local/news/general/nikolic-cops-online-abuse/2550654.aspx (paper most local to incident)
 * Autumnalmonk (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I guess a controversy does exist, and has reliable sources after all, although the "Register" might be a dubious source. &mdash;  Rickyrab. Yada yada yada 04:47, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

There is edit warring of this disputed content into the biography - its disputed facebook comment and they are warring these undue comment style into the article - Nikolic garnered international ridicule in May of 2012 = INTERNATIONAL RIDICULE ? You really  can  04:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * a) Please don't use caps lock. b) You are the one who is edit warring. c) Yes, ridicule. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, international ridicule. He is being held up as a laughing stock by people in Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, America, etc.  However, in the interest of neutral tone, "ridicule" has been changed to "criticism". Autumnalmonk (talk) 06:16, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Clearly the addition is not neutral - and I have added a NPOV template until it is - You  really  can  05:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "Ridicule" changed to the more neutral "criticism" in the interest of tone- though I think "ridicule" was certainly accurate. Autumnalmonk (talk) 05:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with the original use of "ridicule", but in the interest of closing this issue, which clearly has been resolved, I'll accept the inaccurate "criticism". Pdfpdf (talk) 05:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * 1. "Ridicule" has been changed to "criticism" in the interest of tone. As for "threatening response", he made a threat in his response so this is not subjective nor "emotive content".
 * 2. Nikolic made the comments himself and posted the matching info-trolled data on the people he threatened to his established account, establishing that it was indeed Nikolic and not an imposter who made the threats. While he may have thought that by deleting the posts he was erasing all the evidence of his behavior, on being confronted with proof in the form of the screenshots he was unable to further categorically deny what he had done.
 * 3. Imposter accounts are irrelevant to this matter. It is just as likely that they were created by Nikolic himself as an attempt to provide a cover-story to hide his behavior ex post facto.
 * 4. Regardless of who is entering the information into the wiki page, the information is factual, heavily referenced (now), and of sufficiently neutral tone to be appropriate. Just because something is stated by a person of differing opinion does not make it untrue.
 * 5. Yes, numerous Facebook pages, articles, Youtube videos, and the like are appearing that are criticising and satirizing Nikolic since the scandal erupted. This is because a very large number of people have some very strong negative reactions to Nikolic threatening people online, attempting to censor the internet, using intimidation to stifle opposing political perspectives, and then lying about his own behavior. Not only is this the understandable, and indeed even expectable, response of the populace- but further, it too is totally irrelevant to the presentation of factual and well-referenced information of a neutral tone on the subject's wiki page.
 * Autumnalmonk (talk) 05:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree. Although ridicule itself is POV, the factual reporting of ridicule, backed up by numerous reliable sources, is fact, not POV. As I said above, I believe that use of the word "ridicule" is accurate and justifiable. But in the interest of closing this discussion, I'll let it pass. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Wasilla High School
Would an editor experienced with the BLP policy, review this edit for WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, and WP:UNDUE: "Wasilla High School received widespread criticism in 2011 for principal Dwight Probasco's decision to remove the band Queen's 'Bohemian Rhapsody' from the school's jazz choir lineup for a graduation ceremony, due to the homosexuality of the band's lead singer, Freddie Mercury. The school later reversed it's decision. It attracted notoriety again in February, 2012 when a statue said to resemble a vagina was erected in front of the school by its administrators. The work was later covered with a tarp by the principal until the work's artists were able to give explanatory workshops on the statue's meaning."

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This is actually two different principals under discussion, so a sensible first step would be to remove the name of the first one from the article (he's not notable anyway). That pretty much removes the BLP problem, leaving more minor problems such as the slightly unclear wording (the sources say the complaint was about the lead singer being gay, they don't specifically say the principal's decision was for that reason) and the fact this sort of thing shouldn't be in the lead, and possibly shouldn't be in the article at all. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for reviewing the sources and the edit. I agree that the principal's name should be removed if the content is kept. For the content about the removal of "Bohemian Rhapsody" from the jazz choir lineup, two articles are cited: http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/05/13/Queen_Song_Causes_Stir_at_Wasilla_High_School and http://gawker.com/5801439/wasilla-high-school-principal-bans-bohemian-rhapsody-because-freddie-mercury-was-gay. I'm not sure if the former is an acceptable source, but I'm certain Gawker is not. The Advocate links to http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2011/05/12/local_news/doc4dc8c8e0a76f2219524721.txt, but that link is now a dead link. One dubious source, one unreliable source, and one dead link are insufficient for mentioning this content. I think the mention of the sculpture is WP:UNDUE, maybe violates WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, and probably shouldn't be included in the article. I'm leaning on removing the entire edit from the article but will await further opinions from the editors at this board. Cunard (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No disagreement from me about removing the principal's name, but The Advocate is an acceptable reliable source for this, and this story was also reported in other media sources such as the Anchorage Daily News, and the New York Daily News.--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:46, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No lengthy reply as I'm going to sleep, but the deadlinked story The Advocate refers to is at . --92.6.211.228 (talk) 01:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a lot of news coverage for this incident, so it belongs in the article. It probably should be moved from the article's lead to its body somewhere. Cunard (talk) 01:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally I would remove it - its not long term encyclopedic noteworthy content in an article about a school - If you really want to keep it - please get it out of the lede asap - its the kind of thing a pupil would writew because he was there and it was important to him - that is no excuse to bloat the article with the trivia for the next twenty years - You  really  can  02:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed it from the lede - as I said - I don't support its continued presence in the article so I did not replace it -  You  really  can  03:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Basically agree. With ephemeral trivia like the first item it doesn't belong in the article, making analysis of sources or their relative merits (precious little for gossip blog Gawker), determining precisely what's said, and attaining neutrality of prose superfluous. Youreallycan's recentism point on the event's insignificance in the schools' overall history is bang on. As for the local artist duo's front lawn sculpture, maybe a brief mention although no need for it in the lead. The school will continue to get media attention due in part to slow news day syndrome and partly because it counts Sarah Palin as an alumna. We needn't log it all. --92.6.200.56 (formerly 92.6.211.228) 16:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not have a strong opinion about whether this information belongs in the article. I can see the arguments for both sides so will leave the article as it is after having been edited by Youreallycan. Thank you everyone for reviewing the possibly problematic edit I pointed out. Cunard (talk) 06:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

British Virgin Islands national football team's Current Squad section tampered
I'm here to report that one of the sections of the British Virgin Islands national football team has been tampered by a number of unknown users I have yet to acknowledge, and I am unable to make any reverts because the tampered section somehow remained. It would be helpful if anyone would assist me on restoring the Current Squad section back in its current state and find the user responsible for tampering with the sections by adding fake date of births. JMBZ-12 (talk) 13:47, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Another editor restored some of the vandalized birth dates, and I restored two others. Finding who's "responsible" would require going through the history to see who changed what when. If that editor is still editing, you would then want to add a template to their Talk page.


 * I've also added a tag to the Current squad section because nothing in the section has any references, including the "correct" birth dates.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your help. Although one curent squad player, Euan Cole, has the fake DoB, who claims to be 2 September 2008, which is, in fact, fake that was added by an unknown user. I could try and fix it, but because of the lack of page for his name, I have no knowledge about his date of birth. JMBZ-12 (talk) 15:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Any redlinked entry must be sourced. Even bluelinked entries should be sourced. However, if the DOB in the player's own article is the same AND it is sourced in that article, I'd be inclined to let it go.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Lawrence Morris
Another contributor used the edit summary "Gone, this is defamation per se." when they made this edit.

I wrote the section they excised. I did my best to keep it in a neutral voice, and I believe I succeeded.

I'd appreciate the opinion of uninvolved third parties as to whether that section lapsed from our policies on defamation -- or any other policy. I'd appreciate it if any third party who thought there was a problem with that section could explain why they thought it was a problem.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 14:20, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem. I agree that the wording was quite neutral.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * We're talking about edits from over a year ago. Why are you bringing this up now? Two of the links in support of the material are no longer available. Based on the one link that is, I think what you wrote could have been worded significantly better, and I'm not sure it warranted its own section. Also, given that this happened in 2008, what has happened since? What happened to the case that was brought by the lawyers? I wouldn't want to restore the material, even better worded, without an update. Otherwise, it's just accusations. As for the removing editor's edit summary, I really wish people wouldn't use legal terms like "defamation" in summaries or generally in any discussions. It's distracting and often wrong.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I hadn't noticed the dates here; I agree that it shouldn't be restored without an update. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Andrew_Nikolić#Facebook_claims
Andrew_Nikolić

Can uninvolved experienced editors please assess and comment on this content please -  You  really  can  19:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems to be WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE. At the same time, something short about it (and not its own section) would probably be reasonable given that he's a public figure. If it becomes more of a big deal over time, then that could potentially be changed.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks can you please keep an eye on the issue and input if possible - there is a lot of partisan input - You  really  can  19:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Paul Ryan
The Paul Ryan article is top heavy with references to Ayn Rand. His interest in that author is worth mentioning, once, not several times. Ryan is a leading political figure and the article should remain focused on policy, rather than searching for controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickcrane (talk • contribs) 20:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I count three mentions. I don't see this as "searching for controversy".  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. I suppose the paragraph about Rand might be a little more than needed, but it's a judgment call and certainly not obviously undue.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Daniel Tammet

 * Most recent post
 * Other prior posts

This is a follow-up to post here on 12 April. The dispute seemingly has not been resolved. Probably the same anonymous user continues to insert original research, poorly referenced claims, while removing well referenced information from this living person biographical article.

- The user inserts a sentence (or part of) from Tammet's first book, lifted out of context, and which has not been referenced in any reliably published secondary source that I can find. This seems an obvious example of original research.

- The user inserts the claim that Tammet's interview in Icelandic lasted a "few minutes" relying on the English subtitles from the documentary film ("We are now going to try to speak to Daniel Tammet in Icelandic for the next few minutes" etc.) The Icelandic interviewer actually says "næstu mínútur" (literally 'next minutes'). No reliable published secondary source cites interview duration. This seems another obvious example of original research.

- The user removed the referenced statement from Tammet's first book that he speaks 10 languages, claiming that 'only' French, German, and Icelandic have been 'verified'. This is a third obvious example of original research. The statement, drawn from the subject's own book, is well sourced, particularly as the article only states that Tammet 'says' he speaks these languages.

I notice that in every case the user's intention is to diminish/put in doubt Tammet's achievements. It follows a long-established pattern of vandalism and edit-warring behavior on the article by anonymous single-purpose users.

I strongly recommend speedy editorial intervention to prevent this from dragging on. Oughtprice99 (talk) 12:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Exceptional claims of language ability need verification. There is no evidence of other languages spoken other than French, German and Icelandic. Impressive self-written claims which cannot be independently verified are not permitted in Wikipedia. I have removed the poorly sourced (circular-sourced), self-made claim.


 * My edit read, “In his memoir, talking about algebra, Tammet states not experiencing a synaesthetic response for letters.” On page 117 of “Born on a Blue Day”, talking about maths/algebra, Tammet wrote: “I found it very difficult to use equations that substituted numbers – to which I had a synaesthetic and emotional response - for letters, to which I had none.” I trust admin will agree that my edit is faithfully and accurately phrased. I have restored the edit. That said, if admin deem the latter wording is preferable, please insert the edit on my behalf. However, I assert that Tammet's wording is written in an awkward way and for ease of understanding my version is clearer.


 * I, and several administrators, have intervened previously regarding user Oughtprice99’s frequent, fallacious and disruptive conduct – leading to admin warnings and admin reverts. For example, user Oughtprice99 was recently stopped by admin (Bbb23) and myself for deleting irrefutable scientific findings and then pulled up again for altering the scientists’ comments – evidence of vandalism. Above, (talking about algebra) user Oughtprice99 falsely and oddly labels the edit as original research – twice reverted. These are just two examples, of which there are many, showing ill-intent or misguided judgement. There are a plethora of instances of invention and falsities, in addition to umpteen edit wars all involving the same user throughout the Talk Page. Several users have complained and it appears several users have felt sidelined or disheartened as a result of lengthy, quarrelsome exchanges with Oughtprice99. Bar some genuine objections, it is clear that the protectionist, COIN user (several users in Talk Page speculate is Tammet) is controlling the article and solely shaping the article with approxiametly 150 edits of late, and furthermore, obsessively acting to prevent ordinary statements from been edited in. To give an example, with desperation Oughtprice99 is defending vagueness over preciseness, e.g. preventing editors from inserting the full list of universities which have tested Tammet, and omitting/blocking the fact that the Icelandic interviewers spoke to Tammet for a few minutes (as quoted) within their programme content.


 * I petition admin to guard good points made and act to prevent user Oughtprice99 from instigating further disruption.XNQlo (talk) 17:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I have only two comments. First, I am not an admin. Second, the article has been fully protected by someone who is.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Wiki rules for living person bio articles are strict and require reliably published sources. Original research is not permitted. My edits simply conform to Wiki's guidelines for the reasons I have already given. Wikipedia editors are not asked to 'verify' information about subjects, but only to faithfully reproduce statements that have been reliably published.


 * Several major published media have stated that Tammet has learned 10 languages, including:


 * "Daniel Tammet can speak 10 languages, including Lithuanian and Welsh, as well as his own invented language" (The Independent, 23 July 2006)


 * "Daniel Tammet ... has learned to speak more than 10 languages" (Spiegel, 5 March 2009).


 * No self-made claim at all.


 * If you have a reliably published source for the 'full list of universities which have tested Tammet' (ie, not your own original research), please produce it. Otherwise, we need to publish only what the sources - reliable published major media articles - have stated to date. I had already updated the statement using a reference from a New York Times article on the subject. Oughtprice99 (talk) 06:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Reply in a few days. Thank you for your patience in advance.XNQlo (talk) 12:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I have added detail to the original posting above to clarify further the points already made. Please forgive some of the overlap herein.


 * Exceptional claims of language ability need verification. There is no evidence of other languages spoken other than French, German and Icelandic. Impressive self-written claims and inconsistent claims made to the press (reported differently and reported as “can” speak) where there is no consensus and a self-claim of ability which cannot be independently verified makes for a poor edit. Put simply, anyone could claim in a self-written memoir to speak say 12 languages – it hardly makes good editing to include touted claims of grandeur absent of reported consensus and verification. To accept mention of self-made claims would reduce every Wikipedia biography to the temptation of distortion and PR filling.


 * My edit read, “In his memoir, talking about algebra, Tammet states not experiencing a synaesthetic response for letters.” On page 117 of “Born on a Blue Day” (publisher: Hodder and Stoughton, copyright 2006 Daniel Tammet), talking about maths/algebra in the leading sentence, Tammet (in his own self-written memoir) wrote: “I found it very difficult to use equations that substituted numbers – to which I had a synaesthetic and emotional response – for letters, to which I had none.” I trust users and admin will agree that my edit is faithfully and accurately phrased. I have rightfully restored the reliably sourced edit. That said, if admin deem the latter wording is preferable, please insert the edit on my behalf. However, I assert that Tammet's wording is written in an awkward way and for ease of understanding my version which, says exactly the same thing, is clearer. User Oughtprice99 falsely and oddly labels the edit as original research – obsessively reverted. This is clearly wrong. Also, Oughtprice99 originally complained the reproduced sentence did not include its context or a page number – both have been given. There is no justification to discuss this point any more.


 * I, and several users or administrators, have intervened previously regarding user Oughtprice99’s frequent, fallacious and disruptive conduct – leading to warnings and reverts (for example, see User Oughtprice99’s Talk Page). To cite an example of vandalism, user Oughtprice99 was recently stopped by a user and myself for deleting irrefutable scientific findings and then pulled up again for altering the scientists’ comments to suit his own bias – evidence of vandalism and COIN. Another example of vandalism by Oughtprice99 involves covertly adding wording not attributable to the original author (I can cite the sentence if requested). Also, I noticed in a recent BLPN, user Oughtprice99’s claims were denounced/rejected by two users and furthermore, Oughtprice99 was told he should not make personal assumptions about a user’s identity – same mistake made again. Be aware also that the same user obsessively reverted Joshua Foer’s reliably sourced (book published) criticism, upholding a consensus of 5:1 for several weeks (see Talk Page history) – mistakenly arguing to block a criticism before eventually being forced to concede.


 * Additionally, user Oughtprice99 also blocked Joshua Foer’s (Moonwalking with Einstein) criticism about Tammet’s face recognition ability. Citing a reliable, secondary source (World Memory Championships), the author highlighted Tammet’s gold medal Name/Face results and compared the findings with the Cambridge study “impaired” results. Note, pictures of faces are given, and upon recognition of the faces, the contestants have to recall the names). Science journalist and former US Memory Champion, Joshua Foer, outlined the anomaly in his award-winning book. A several user consensus was established in the Talk Page. User Oughtprice99 obsessively blocked all attempts to sensitively mention the reliably sourced, referenced point – demonstrating further dogmatic control the site. This edit is unresolved.


 * These are just a few examples, of which there are many, showing ill-intent or misguided judgement. There are a plethora of instances of invention and falsities, in addition to umpteen edit wars all involving the same user throughout the Talk Page. Several users have complained and it appears several users have felt sidelined or disheartened as a result of lengthy, quarrelsome exchanges with Oughtprice99. Bar some genuine objections, it is clear that the protectionist, COIN user (several users in the Talk Page speculate is Tammet) is controlling the article and solely shaping the article with approxiametly 150 edits of late, and furthermore, obsessively acting to prevent ordinary statements from been edited in. To give an example, user Oughtprice99 is defending vagueness over preciseness, e.g. preventing editors from inserting the exact list of universities which have tested Tammet (i.e. all major media sources state two universities only: Cambridge (ARC) and UC San Diego Center for Brain Studies). Also, user Oughtprice99 is misleading readers by quoting the NYT reference – he knows full well the reference points to the previous sentence – two, two word (adjective/adverb) unsupported insertions of no substance. To give yet another example, Oughtprice99 is obsessively deleting the reliably sourced fact that the Icelandic interviewers spoke to Tammet for a few minutes, as stated verbally in Icelandic and stated in English subtitles, as evidenced in the UK documentary, The Boy with the Incredible Brain. Moreover, user Oughtprice99 is deliberately misleading readers by not disclosing that the TED related sentence was copied from a website, specifically referenced as blog material which, constitutes poor and inadequate sourcing as per Wikipedia rules. A few users in the Talk Page have attributed misleading edits to Oughtprice99 before. Finally, I have also noticed that Oughtprice99 appears to have posted an originally researched finding about a female user’s background in a previous BLPN and posted a somewhat disparaging remark about author Joshua Foer in a user’s Talk Page – which I feel is disrespectful and unacceptable.


 * User Oughtprice99 is arguably taking ownership of the article and at times is abusing his privilege to edit the article – deleting reliably sourced edits, edit warring and obsessively quibbling on and on about factual edits from reasoning which is baseless and erroneous. The user has a long history of malpractice. Collectively there is a compelling case for admin to recognise the user’s often problematic and persistent disregard for Wikipedia rules and practices which, I have only partly summarized above. Can something be done to curb or stop further flagrant malpractice?


 * Regarding edit protection, one reasonable suggestion would be to indefinitely protect the reliably sourced edits I have made to prevent embedded alterations/deletions being made within legitimate future edits by user Oughtprice99 or an anonymous IP user. User Oughtprice99 has altered paragraph wording before while adding legitimate details to a citation (see edits related to scientific study findings – no activation of colour areas in regions of the brain).


 * It is reasonable to assume given Oughtprice99’s history further disruption is highly likely. There is evidence of COIN, insistence on OPOV only, vandalism, constant edit warring, controlling the site – the collective impact of which is spoiling the editing experience of Wikipedia users from editing reliably sourced material – i.e. inserting edits into the article from Tammet’s own self-written memoir. As a result few people edit now. I petition admin to act.


 * There appears to be three places for this discussion: here, dispute noticeboard and talk page. I suggest closing the BLPN and using only the dispute noticeboard and talk page - otherwise its going to get messy and awkward for users to contribute. If acceptable to admin, can this BLPN be closed. Thank you for your consideration in advance.XNQlo (talk) 11:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Just noticed the dispute resolution noticeboard has been closed due to pending discussion here.XNQlo (talk) 12:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

May Day arbitrary break
I'll start my comment by referring above parties (except Bbb23) to WP:DIFF. It's immensely helpful when you're trying to coax people who don't care a great deal (i.e., objective people) into reading your wall of text. This isn't necessarily the board of investigation. The above wall of text is indicative of one or several problems BLPN does not address, namely user behavior per se, which is the realm of WP:EWN and WP:ANI to name a few. Because some intelligible questions touch on sourcing, another appropriate venue may have been WP:RSN, if even only to invite the regulars into this forum to discuss. The gist seems to be a challenge to the claim that the subject speaks 10 languages. If I've missed a content-related issue, forgive me, but frankly it's WP:TLDR. Re-post the issue you're bringing in a succinct manner, and volunteers here won't miss it.

The subject speaks 10 languages; a rather noteworthy claim, of encyclopedic biographical significance to this subject in particular. So what. It's challenged. Go to sources. They're generally reliable, but we should ask who the sources are, who the ultimate sources are, and what they are reliable in reporting as fact. While verifiability is not an operation in original research, it is only a part of how we treat sources in question. Here, sources are secondary: they essentially report on primary source claims. So, on one hand, reliable sources objectively seem convinced-to-accepting of the claim that the subject speaks 10 languages. On the other hand, no reasonable reader could assume news, especially rather local news, to be competent to evaluate fluency among one, let alone ten, languages. Generally, journalists establish credibility and report accordingly, at the risk of their own credibility. In this case, I think, a tertiary or specialized primary/secondary source would be ideal: Guinness World Records, a well-published and reputable language study, another encyclopedia even.

On balance, the claim is just that: Daniel Tammet or someone reporting on him claims he speaks 10 languages; more precisely: he reportedly speaks at least 10 languages.[  ] No comment on fluency, because the sources in question are of least reliability as to the fluency of an interviewee's performance of, say, ten different languages.

If there's another specific issue at hand regarding the subject or content, kindly re-post below. Don't forget diffs. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 03:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi JFHJr,


 * Thanks for your contribution. Your wording seems fair: 'He reportedly speaks at least 10 languages' with links to the reliable third-party published sources.


 * Other specific issues are raised at the top of this section, and on the article's talk page. Specifically:


 * - The user XNQlo insists that Tammet has been studied at precisely two scientific sites. He gives no source for this claim, which appears to be original research. A New York Times article from 2007(http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/15/garden/15savant.html?pagewanted=all) states only that he has been "studied repeatedly by researchers in Britain and the United States". Tammet's website states: "His remarkable memory, mathematical and linguistic abilities have been studied by some of the world's leading neuroscientists at California's Center for Brain Studies and the UK's Cambridge Autism Research Centre."


 * What about: 'Tammet has been studied by scientists at the Center for Brain Studies in California and the Cambridge Autism Research Centre in the UK'.


 * - The same user inserts a sentence stating that Tammet's Icelandic interview lasted 'a few minutes'. His source is a documentary subtitle that only shows the opening seconds of the interview. In the subtitle it says 'We will try to speak to Daniel Tammet in Icelandic for the next few minutes'. No reliable source that I know of gives the interview's actual duration. Did the interview last 5 minutes, or 10, or 15? We don't know.


 * - The same user has removed a referenced statement that Tammet was 'among the invited speakers at TED 2011 in Long Beach, California'. Source is Tammet's own blog. The user argued that blogs are not reliable sources. Wiki rules, however, state that blogs can be used when they are written by the subject of the article, and are not unduly self-serving. The TED website has a page showing Tammet's entire lecture (www.ted.com/talks/daniel_tammet_different_ways_of_knowing.html). The single sentence should be restored to the article. Oughtprice99 (talk) 07:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't use Tammet's website or blog for anything that touches on his claims to notability. Those claims are generally open to challenge, and the subject's say-so doesn't win. Even his own book is inappropriate for sourcing a statement that he learned Icelandic in a week, as the article does now; it needs to be clearly phrased in terms of a self-published claim. On the other hand, using those primary sources for information about, say, his family background and personal life, would be alright. But when there's a more reliable third party source for the scientific investigation of what makes the subject notable, it should be used instead. Stick with "studied repeatedly by researchers in Britain and the United States."


 * Self-serving isn't the only problem; insignificance is also. WP:PRIMARY sources generally are insufficient to demonstrate a given topic is worth any weight, but they can be used to give some additional information within a topic that's clearly worth mentioning. Third party coverage is required to show the import of this subject's having been a TED speaker. If there isn't anything out there, let it go.


 * I find the "few minutes" quote from the subtitle problematic because I'm not able to verify any of the the documentary contents (I looked for a bit but didn't find it in a reliable place). A URL would help. But, from what you say, the video contains a statement of intent to speak with the subject "for a few minutes," and the text here reports a completed action. That's improper, unless the video actually shows the few minutes. If it does, "few minutes" need not be in quotes. JFHJr (㊟) 22:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi again JFHJr,


 * TED appears to be a pretty prestigious international event, and the subject's speech to the conference appears in full on the TED website. I also note that Wikipedia have articles on TED, and all past TED speakers, which would suggest notability.


 * 'Studied repeatedly by researchers in Britain and the United States' seems fair to me.


 * I can confirm that the video shows only a few seconds from the interview, and agree with your conclusion.


 * The same user XNQlo repeatedly inserts a sentence statement from subject's memoir about him not seeing algebraic equations in synesthetic colors. I assume from what you say above that this would also be inappropriate according to Wiki notability rules. Oughtprice99 (talk) 10:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * XNQlo makes some valid points. The quote from Tammet's book about non-synaesthetic response for letters is unquestionably acceptable. I do not accept the generalisation that Tammet has been tested by researchers in America and Britain. Why? I favour accuracy, i.e. only two centres of research are mentioned across all media sources. I suggestion the following: "Tammet has been tested by researchers at Cambridge University Autism Research Centre and UC San Diego Center for Brain Studies." I agree with XNQlo about self-serving claims of language ability without any test of fluency. It is not an appropriate edit. Regarding the matter about acceptability of blog material, it represents poor and improper sourcing, and so any quotes taken from Tammet's own website or his blog or any other blog is no good. I noticed that two, approximately one and a half minute clips of Tammet speaking in Icelandic are shown in the documentary. The interview was very short. It is handy to know how long the interview lasted as Tammet in his memoir does not disclose the duration of the interview. XNQlo is aiming for precision I think. The Icelandic interviewers mention "next few minutes" and XNQlo states "few minutes" - it is hardly original research. Just an observation . . . why has user Oughtprice99 created a single-purpose account solely representing the Tammet article?194.238.70.70 (talk) 10:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * If TED is so prestigious, third party coverage is even more appropriate. Other Wiki articles are irrelevant. I don't have the memoir to compare the synesthesia claim to, but if it's not supported in those exact terms, it should be removed. I'm not even sure the assertion has any value in a biography (it seems like trivia to me), but if it's accurate at all compared to the source, it should be phrased in terms of a claim.


 * Regarding the IP's statements: it is original research to assert something that is not contained in the source, or to use, say, a subtitle statement of intent to assert an event occurred. If the institute names appear in any reliable sources, and not just in self-publications, show those sources. What's called a generalization by the IP is actually what one reliable source in question truly states. I'll also point out that is himself an WP:SPA, and I have lots of difficulty believing the IP is not actually XNQlo.


 * Both of you should learn to indent using colons. JFHJr (㊟) 20:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC) Note: I've taken the liberty of indenting for legibility. JFHJr (㊟) 04:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC) 


 * Hi JFHJr. Thank you for trying to help out. I appreciate the time you’re spending to help resolve matters. Several comments. I (XNQlo) and IP (above) are in different parts of the country. Secondly, I have provided the exact quote about non-synaesthesia for letters below:


 * On page 117 of “Born on a Blue Day” (publisher: Hodder and Stoughton, copyright 2006 Daniel Tammet), talking about maths/algebra in the leading sentence, Tammet wrote: “I found it very difficult to use equations that substituted numbers – to which I had a synaesthetic and emotional response – for letters, to which I had none.” My edit read, “In his memoir, talking about algebra, Tammet states not experiencing a synaesthetic response for letters.” Of the two which do you think can be used JFHJr, please tell me.


 * User Oughtprice99 states the video shows “only a few seconds” of the interview. Untrue. Approximately three minutes is shown. As the IP user also confirms. As per your suggestion above, it seems fair to remove the quotes. Agreed. Regarding the statement “he learned Icelandic in a week”, like you, I find it problematic as it stands. What would you suggest as an alternative?


 * As for language ability, there is no “press” consensus about number of languages spoken. Several articles cite different claims. Furthermore, should we really include journalist uptake of a notable self-made claim?


 * I agree with Oughtprice99’s original posting above but slightly changed: “Tammet has been studied at the Cambridge Autism Research Centre and the UC San Diego Center for Brain Studies.” Hope this is agreeable.XNQlo (talk) 01:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * About the synaesthesia: I'd leave out algebra, since it's not really helpful in making the point: "In his memoir, Tammet states experiencing a synaesthetic and emotional response for numbers, but not letters."


 * We can include language claims that appear in third party sources, even if those sources aren't competent to evaluate the claims themselves. When that's done, it's best to add indicative language: "Tammet claims to speak 10 languages." I'd leave out the Icelandic-in-a-week claim if it only appears in his self-publication. On the same subject, viewer commentary and description of a documentary is in fact original research if the information in question is not actually from the documentary: i.e., the duration of the interview. Leave it out. If there's anything worth stating about the documentary, it will be the actual contents, not a combination of shown, unshown, and subtitles, plus some information from the subject's memoir about the interview.


 * Finally, what reliable source is there about the institutes where the subject was studied? From what's been shown here, reliable sources haven't stated those two. What's more, none have limited the statement to the two. JFHJr (㊟) 03:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The suggested sentence "In his memoir, Tammet states experiencing a synaesthetic and emotional response for numbers, but not letters" risks appearing inaccurate as Tammet states in the memoir p.10 "My synaesthesia also affects how I perceive words and language. The word 'ladder,' for example, is blue and shiny, while 'hoop' is a soft, white word..." On page 11: "I can even make the colour of a word change by mentally adding initial letters to turn the word into another: 'at' is a red word, but add the letter H to get 'hat' and it becomes a white word." XNQlo's sentence refers to letters appearing in algebraic equations.


 * The Icelandic-in-a-week claim appears in a documentary film 'The Boy with the Incredible Brain' and several reliable published sources including Spiegel, 5 Mar 2009: "He learned Icelandic in a week for a TV documentary" www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,611381,00.html


 * Google search for 'Tammet TED' brings up over a million results. The TED website shows Tammet's talk in full (which has been viewed 600,000 times). TED's blog for the event, date Mar 4 2011, shows a photo of Tammet on stage with a quote from his talk. http://blog.ted.com/2011/03/04/ted2011-report-%E2%80%93-session-9-threads-of-discovery/ I think it's quite a stretch to suggest this is not a notable event in Tammet's career worthy of a single sentence.


 * I also notice that all mention of Tammet's documentary film, first broadcast on UK national television in 2005, has been removed from the article. Many third-party published sources refer to it. The documentary brought Tammet to public attention. It should have a sentence in the article. Oughtprice99 (talk) 08:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The statement on synaesthesia could be made more accurate by stating: "In his memoir, Tammet states experiencing a synaesthetic and emotional response for words and numbers, but not letters in algebraic contexts." The subject's memoir is not the best source, but since it's speaking to a condition rather than an achievement, it's probably an acceptable amount of trivia relating to his being a savant.

The Spiegel article and its own sourcing are rather strong. Its contents do not seem based solely on Tammet's claims, but also on researching past coverage and language coach (i.e., expert) evaluation. It could support a statement along the lines of "Tammet can speak over 10 languages, including German, Romanian, Gaelic, Welsh, and Icelandic, having learned some in as little as a week."

The subject's blog is insufficient for establishing the significance of a speech. So are any other Google search results that do not qualify as reliable sources. You can think that's a stretch, but it's not. You can replace the documentary film mentions and references directly to it. It's probably an acceptable secondary source in itself. Feel free to provide diffs to explain what you're talking about as far as removal. JFHJr (㊟) 21:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Languages: Disagree with recent assertion. Spiegel article is problematic. Quotation is false, “learned some languages in a week”. Article claims learned German in a week – totally false. Tammet studied GCSE German (2yrs) and advanced (A level) GCSE German (2yrs) at school (British school education system – 4yrs in total) – see Wikipedia article. Also, Spiegel online states “more than 10 languages” and Spiegel magazine states three languages and “seven other languages” – equals 10. Contradiction. No consensus across media sources (reported as several up to ten). Your suggestion to add, "Tammet claims to speak 10 languages" is acceptable and supported. Please leave it as you previously agreed.


 * Languages: Tammet managed a short rudimentary conversation in Icelandic only – handling a few, arguably obvious, pithy questions (of which 3 minutes were shown on the documentary). It is an over–stretch to claim "he learned Icelandic in a week" given there is no qualified consensus. Your suggestion to remove, "he learned Icelandic in a week" is supported. Also, agree to remove “duration of interview” quote. If I find a report which states the length of the interview I will edit it into the article.


 * Synaesthesia: Adding new words into an author’s original wording is not permitted. Tammet exactly wrote: I found it very difficult to use equations that substituted numbers – to which I had a synaesthetic and emotional response – for letters, to which I had none.” Tammet states emphatically, “for letters” there is no response. Your agreement: "In his memoir, Tammet states experiencing a synaesthetic and emotional response for numbers, but not letters" is acceptable and supported. Another sentence can mention “words” point. Please leave it as you previously agreed.


 * Other matters. The documentary mentions both universities. The collaborated sentence, "Tammet has been studied at the Cambridge Autism Research Centre and the UC San Diego Center for Brain Studies" is broadly agreeable. Also, the documentary film (2005) has nothing to do with TED blog (2011). Furthermore, website/blog referencing is not acceptable. Regarding the supposed removal of documentary details, user Oughtprice99 is mistaken – check article. This is the second disingenuous point in two recent postings – why does user Oughtprice99 invent and/or deliberately falsify statements in order to coax unknowing people into agreement? I have outlined this recurring problem before. I will consider raising this behaviour at the appropriate noticeboard. XNQlo (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed edit protection prematurely removed. Why? The BLPN is not marked as resolved. Discussion is still underway. Consensus is not yet established. User Oughtprice99 has used JHFJr's name in the edit summary of the article claiming that everything is resolved. This is not true. XNQlo (talk) 16:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't refer me to the article for information; it's worthless. Refer me to the source, along with a link if you can. You found a contradiction that decreases the reliability of the Spiegel reporting. So we're left with the claim itself, phrased in terms of a claim. That's fine.


 * Provide a reliable source describing the Icelandic conversation as rudimentary. Your opinions and impressions of the interview don't matter. Only that of reliable sources.


 * Your underlined comment regarding changing original wording is misguided. Stating "In his memoir, Tammet states experiencing a synaesthetic and emotional response for words and numbers, but not letters in algebraic contexts" is permitted and accurate according to the information in quotes above. We are not constrained to direct quotes, nor to awkward sentences or separate sentences. The topic of synaesthesia merits very little weight, and conciseness is required.


 * If the documentary mentions both universities, you should provide a citation to be precise about it. Along those lines, I suggest using  to improve the citations to Tammet's memoir; they're rather imprecise currently, which makes them hard to verify.


 * Page protection is not subject to this discussion. This is not the forum for page protection. I'll add that your accusation of vandalism is false; see WP:VANDALISM to see what vandalism is. I don't see where anyone claimed this topic was resolved. Either provide diffs to show what you're talking about, or stop talking about other people's behavior. JFHJr (㊟) 17:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I have restored the Spiegel reference in the article, deleted by XNQlo, in accordance with JFHJr's previous comments, and have been careful to qualify the claim using 'reportedly': "Tammet has reportedly learned 10 languages, including Romanian, Gaelic, Welsh, and Icelandic which he learned in one week for a TV documentary." The claim that Tammet learned Icelandic in one week is repeated within the documentary film itself of course, and has also appeared in many other third-party published sources concerning him, therefore highly notable.


 * A different (?) user has inserted a claim that Tammet made an error during his recitation of the number Pi (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Tammet&diff=491147044&oldid=491141473) Only supporting reference is a website claiming to rank all Pi records. This website flatly contradicts all the reliable sources listed elsewhere in the article. No reliable third-party published source states that Tammet made an error during his recitation, including the press release statement (referenced in the article) by the University where Tammet performed his recitation in 2004. Have therefore removed the website reference as a poor source for a living person biographical article. Suggest a consensus be quickly reached over matter to prevent it from descending into yet another potential edit war.

Oughtprice99 (talk) 07:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Anticipating XNQlo's comments about the Spiegel article being somehow inaccurate, the article does state that Tammet had learned some "rudimentary school German" before his trip to Germany. As for the other reliable third-party sources, the Boston Globe from March 11 2007 (http://articles.boston.com/2007-03-11/ae/29225571_1_autistic-savant-synesthesia-memoir) reported: "He can learn foreign languages - even notoriously tricky ones like Icelandic - in a week." The Australian, on Jan 31 2009, stated: "He has a similar facility with words and language: he learned Icelandic in a week" (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/a-savvy-savant-finds-his-voice/story-e6frg6to-1111118714550). Tammet gave an interview to Iceland Review (http://www.icelandreview.com/icelandreview/search/news/Default.asp?ew_0_a_id=298978) on 21 Jan 2008. The interviewer is an American who states that he has "spent five years in Iceland and still stumble through my declensions, but then you blow into town and in a week make me look like a beginner."


 * The Pi rank website contradicts itself: the page http://pi-world-ranking-list.com/lists/memo/index.html states that Tammet's record is 22514 digits with the words 'European/British record' (in agreement with all the reliable published sources). Only when one clicks the 'notes' link does a separate page make the claim of an error. No supporting references are given, and the website appears to be anonymously run.

Oughtprice99 (talk) 08:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The Pi edit is a different user (admin can verify this). If Pi claim appears only in a website then its no good. I have taken the liberty to correct the spelling of my username above. Please spell it correctly in future Oughtprice99. Thanks. XNQlo (talk) 09:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "If Pi claim appears only in a website then its no good." Really? That's right beside claiming we can't change the wording from a source. Where do you come up with these broad and utter misapprehensions? Link to policies, please, or don't try to assert any. FYI, reliable sources often come in the form of a website. And editorial anonymity isn't necessarily a barrier to reliability. The level of micro-management between you two has become unwarranted. I think you're both ready to either take it to the talk page or refrain from editing the article because you've both mischaracterized each other's behavior, displayed a lack of good faith or even a very good understanding of BLP policy despite being BLP WP:SPAs — oh, and edit warring, too. If another BLPN volunteer is inclined to take over babysitting, have at it. I've finished with this lot. JFHJr (㊟) 02:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Misapprehensions by User JFHJr. Context is "denouncing pi record in website" contrary to all media reporting. Secondly, your edit regarding non-synaesthetic response to letters imposes a definite restriction to context which, not necessarily is true. Thirdly, please refrain from making derogatory remarks about users. Respectfulness and civility are fundamentals by which Wikipedia operates. Please remove the remark. 188.28.140.237 (talk) 10:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Costa Dillon
There are essentially no sources whatsoever for his biographical information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.33.36 (talk) 07:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I've replaced the inline cn tags you added with a "BLP sources" tag at the top since there were a large amount of them. It looks like you changed the picture size by mistake, so I fixed that. The article does have sources, although not necessarily as inline citations to all the (non negative in this case) biographical information. Inline citations are preferred for verification purposes. The article's main points are he's a Superintendent of the NPS and created Attack of the Killer Tomatoes. Is there any content you specifically find a problem? --92.6.200.56 (talk) 11:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Adam Yauch
This founder member of the Beastie Boys died the other day but I would still argue he deserves BLP protection as per WP:BDP. Yauch was from a Jewish background but was not a practising Jew, which seems to place him firmly in Category:American people of Jewish descent rather than Category:American Jews. We have WP:BLPCAT for a reason. --John (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * YES - WP:BLPCAT is clear - its undue to add him the the American Jew cat without his clear statement of practice / identification - He sits quite correctly in the Category:American people of Jewish descent. You  really  can  21:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The key consideration as far as BLP is concerned is whether the material has implications for their living relatives and friends. Can you tell us what those implications are?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Asserting a position to a recently deceased person - (or a longer dead person for that matter imo ) that they themselves have denied is a violation of WP:NPOV as a minimum - You  really  can  21:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Youreallycan—Are you saying that Adam Yauch "denied" being Jewish? I'm referring to your post immediately above, at 21:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC). If that is what you are saying, could you please present us with a source for such denial. I'm certainly not aware of any such denial. Bus stop (talk) 16:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:NPOV is determined by third-party sources, not by how the first-party chooses to view themselves. BLPCAT provides an exception to NPOV.  (In fact, it might be the only exception to NPOV there is, not sure.)  In any case, can you explain what the implications for their living relatives and friends are?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Third-party sources quality sources don't report him to be a practicing Jew and neither did he. - You  really  can


 * Where in Category:American Jews does it say that it's only for practicing Jews? I looked but I didn't see it.  Can you direct me to where it says that? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This person had historic relatives that were Jewish - some of those relatives practiced the Judaism faith - this person did not - there are two options of category to put him in - Category:American people of Jewish descent or Category:American Jews - its clear to me from a NPOV position which one he belongs in -  You  really  can  22:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That might be, but the BLP excemption only applies if the material has implications for their living relatives and friends. If there are none, then this is not a BLP issue, but an ordinary content dispute.  I suggest that discussion resume on the article talk page or take it to the WP:NPOV/N.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC
 * Any location you choose he is still not a practising Jew and Category:American people of Jewish descent rather than Category:American Jews is the cat he belongs in is clear from a NPOV position = You  really  can  22:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * What does being a practising Jew have to do with this discussion?  says that the main article for this category is American Jews.  The first sentence of American Jews is "American Jews, also known as Jewish Americans,[4] are American citizens of the Jewish faith or Jewish ethnicity." (emphasis mine).  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We can't use Wikipedia as a source on a contentious BLP issue though. What you are proposing sounds like the one drop rule or even the yellow badge. No thanks. --John (talk) 22:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * John—is there a reason in this particular case that we should be weighing issues of antisemitism? Can you tell me what your reference to yellow badge is about? Has Adam Yauch been exposed to antisemitism? Has any editor here or on the article's Talk page invoked or displayed antisemitism? It would seem to me that we are only deciding whether to place into Category:American Jews or not. Bus stop (talk) 14:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You're reading the policy too selectively. The next sentence is "Contentious or questionable material that affects living persons or recently deceased persons should be removed promptly" and that is what I go with. --John (talk) 22:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I guess I don't understand. Are you saying that he's not of Jewish descent?  Your original post said that he was, so how is this contentious? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * We know that Adam Yauch was Jewish because reliable sources tell us that he was Jewish. We are not making the determination as to whether Yauch was Jewish or not, but rather it is Reliable sources that are making that determination for us. They show us that Yauch was Jewish:


 * "They were three white Jewish kids from Brooklyn (and Manhattan)—to be sure, nothing really prevented their demographic from making hip-hop music, but they showed that you could be taken seriously as a rapper no matter what you looked like."


 * "The encounter was at the Sundance Film Festival in January, 2006. Yauch, a.k.a. MCA, and his Beastie Boys brethren Mike “Mike D” Diamond and Adam “Ad-Rock” Horovitz had already redefined the notion of a hip-hop act — three white Jewish guys from Brooklyn! — and they’d been early innovators of music videos, boutique indie labels and the Internet. They were about to explode the conventions of concert films."


 * "Beastie Boys’ Adam Yauch, Jewish legend and hip-hop pioneer, has died." Bus stop (talk) 23:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree with Bus Stop. The Beastie Boys have been identified as a Jewish hip-hop banned, a trio of "Jews" - Youch's mother is Jewish which according to Jewish law makes him Jewish. This whole BLPcat seems too ambiguous as far as Jewish status is concerned - one can be Jewish and not practice the religion or be part of a totally different one. Unless Yauch converted out of Judaism to another religion and self-identified as a non-Jew, then John's arguments hold up. But if this actually becomes precedents there are hundreds, if not thousands of BLP Jewish [insert country here] articles that would be subject to review. Does anyone question Karl Marx's status as Jew? Wikifan Be nice  23:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * And the following: "All three Beastie Boys—Mike D (born Michael Diamond) MCA (born Adam Yuach), and Ad-Rock (born Adam Horovitz)—are Jews, raised in middle-class families of New York City" Bus stop (talk) 23:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Youreallycan—please post a response if you wish to take issue with a post that I have made. I am asking you again not to alter my posts as you've done here and here. You are certainly at liberty to explain in your own words the shortcomings as you see it of something I've posted. But it is not necessary for you to go into my post and alter its appearance. Bus stop (talk) 23:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What is wrong with exposing opinionated externals and why you would edit war to keep them hidden is the real question  You  really  can  00:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem here is we have two people who are convinced Category:American people of Jewish descent and Category:American Jews are not redundant when they clearly are. I agree that this is nothing more than a content dispute wherein two people are trying to force their preferred version with a bit of process wonkery. You've brought it to the BLP noticeboard and been told BLPCAT doesn't apply because none of his living relatives are hurt by us referring to him as a Jew (which he is!). A Jew is a Jew, there's no special distinction to be made between a religious Jew and a secular Jew. I added like 5 different reliable sources to the article that refer to him as Jewish. And this reference to "yellow stars" is offensive... if anything the attempt to deny this deceased man his heritage is highly questionable. Night Ranger (talk) 00:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This is getting extreme - we don't categorise people according to one interpretation of Jewish law when that person showed no affiliation with that sect/group/interpretation - Nobody is denying anybody anything in regards to his heritage, the dispute is about the minor weight issue of adding someone who was a American with a Catholic Father and a Jewish Mother and brought up in a non-religious upbringing to the Category:American people of Jewish descent rather than Category:American Jews. You really  can  00:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely zero difference between the two. Since this is clearly a content dispute I initiated an RFC at Yauch's talk page. Night Ranger (talk) 02:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe Youreally case is confused on what it means to be Jewish when he/she drew analogy between Catholicism and Judaism. One is not ethnically Catholic, it is a exclusively a religion - much like Christianity. On the other hand, one can be born Jewish and not be part of the religion. Wikifan Be nice  03:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * True enough. On the other hand, one can be 'of Jewish descent' without being 'ethnically Jewish'. I have some Irish ancestors, but that doesn't make me ethnically Irish. Or if it does, I'm also ethnically English, Scottish, and not-quite-sure-possibly-French-or-Belgian too - and that is just the 'descent' I'm aware of. Ethnicity is about self-identification. Anything else isn't 'ethnicity' - ask an anthropologist to explain why, if you are too dense to figure it out for yourself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Youreallycan has a long history of being "confused" about what it means to be Jewish and can safely be ignored on the topic. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Its demeaning and a form of bully behaviour to repeatedly comment about person to assert a person can be ignored and that they are confused. Diff of specific reference to me in a personal demeaning manner - recorded for my report about your following demeaning pattern in regards to me and your repeated focus on me after multiple requests for a voluntary interaction ban. - You  really  can  13:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Youreallycan—Judaism makes no distinction between whether someone is observant or not. A nonobservant Jew is just as Jewish as an observant Jew. Yet you are stressing in posts above that Yuach was not "practicing". It is of no consequence. It does not matter. Reliable sources are keenly aware of this. We should be following the guidance of reliable sources. Bus stop (talk) 15:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Several points. You say 'reliable sources' are keenly aware of the way a person of Jewish ancestry should be viewed by other Jews and by society. I don't think something that is a reliable source for music news would necessarily be a reliable source for matters of Jewish heritage. WP:RS says that context makes a difference as to whether something is reliable for a purpose or not. Find reliable sources on Jewish ancestry, and find primary sources or interviews with Adam Yaunch discussing his Jewish ancestry. Also, WP:BLP directly applies to Adam Yaunch since he is 'recently' deceased. WP:BDP *also* applies. One thing for certain, if his mother is Jewish he at least fits into "Category:American people of Jewish descent", so without any contention, you can have that. As far as the other... who cares? Adam Yaunch never cared to self-identify closely with Jewish ethnicity than we can tell publicly, so why make this into a big fight? Isn't "Category:American people of Jewish descent" enough? We should be fighting for our right to party, not for his right to be included in Category:American Jews. -- Avanu (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * @Avanu: WP:BDP applies if the material has implications for their living relatives and friends. Can you tell us what the implications are for his living relatives and friends? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * First, who knows? Second, read the policy more carefully and you will see that it doesn't matter quite yet. Recent deaths are treated much closer to the way living people are. -- Avanu (talk) 02:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Avanu—I don't think that quite addresses the question. Policy language refers to material that "has implications for their living relatives and friends". Nonexistent implications aren't our concern. Bus stop (talk) 04:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm saying you are not reading the full policy. BDP is a part of BLP. Heck, I don't even know how someone accidentally putting Yaunch in either of these categories has contentious implications for anyone, Yaunch himself included. The two categories are only slightly different and I doubt from his attitude on this stuff that he would even have cared. He obviously fits in the 'jewish descent' one at least. The overall point I am making is that BLP *does* apply to Adam Yaunch and not just because he has living relatives or friends, but because he just died. But I don't know why any of this matters much. I think the whole discussion is about 150 sentences too long. -- Avanu (talk) 07:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

@Avanu: Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that you are saying that BLP applies, but you don't see a bona fide BLP violation? Is that correct? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * BLP applies to anything related to a person. (yeah, I don't see anything at all contentious except this silly debate) Add one category or add both or don't add any. Who the hell cares? No one except nitpicky people. More than enough points have been brought out that you can have it any way you like, so just the add the tags and move on. -- Avanu (talk) 23:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

There is more than one person on both sides of this argument, and it's not about minutia or process abuse. Matters of heritage and religion are important and deserve careful consideration, especially in an encyclopedia claiming NPOV. My arguments are here. —&#91; Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 16:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Matters of heritage and religion are important, but there is nothing in the record that seems to imply that Mr. Yaunch would have cared about this 'label'. -- Avanu (talk) 23:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Porscia Yeganeh
This article reads like personal memoir and needs some attention.--173.78.125.151 (talk) 18:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Porscia Yeganeh
 * I see what you mean. “At an early age Porscia aspired to be a fashion designer. Her remarkable talent and eye for fashion was evident since she was a child growing up in Iran. This was the start of her hunger for fashion...” The recent Talk page discussions indicate somebody is trying hard to improve the article but is a little unfamiliar with the tone/style used here. It's actually quite a pleasant and easy read. It's just the prose is closer to a magazine article. I'll go help at the article and Talk page. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * After a quick perusal of sources via "findsources", sent to AfD, link above. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds best. Doing the example copyedits late last night it fast became clear it had more promotional content than'd originally seemed. As it seemed to be being worked on I didn't remove huge amounts, but if no significant third-party reliable sources exist well then it can't be brought up to par, and belongs at AfD. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 22:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Lucas Silveira
Majority of page fails to adhere to the NPOV policy, tone is not dispassionate, content is heavily biased, and the whole thing is poorly written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.65.237 (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The tone is awful. Why did you change the DOB in the article?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * &hellip; especially since your date doesn't square with ? Uncle G (talk) 16:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Mark Clifford
The biography on Mark Clifford is frequently edited by Clifford himself. He seems to like to add certain details which are, to my mind, not notable or otherwise sourced only to primary sources. In this recent edit, he has once again inserted his election as parent governor of the English Schools Foundation. He has also added to his bio his membership of the Oxfam Trailwalker Advisory Committee, the Council on Foreign Relations and the editorial board of the Asian Review of Books. How appropriate are all these mentions? -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 06:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this sort of stuff get us into résumé territory, particularly as they do not appear to be discussed in secondary sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This is probably more of a WP:COIN issue than a WP:BLPN one. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The article appears largely based upon press releases, bare mentions and the like. The closest it comes to substantive is in coverage of the controversy over Clifford's firing of a couple of subeditors -- but that's very much WP::BLP1E and could be handled in South China Morning Post, if the incident really is thought noteworthy. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Nate Berkus
Wikipedia says his show was cancelled in 2011 but it is still on the air with new shows in may 2012. Did I miss something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.202.126 (talk) 18:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Apparently, it's scheduled to be canceled after the second season finishes. I corrected the wording.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

BLP issues in Venezuela/Chavez opposition candidates in election articles

 * See also Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive78 for another issue involving an opposition presidential candidate in a previous Venezuelan election.

This is the edit in question, regarding Henrique Capriles Radonski who is the opposition candidate running against incumbent Hugo Chávez in the Venezuelan presidential election, 2012.

The current text can be seen here.

This is what the following sources say:
 * 1)  "In another broadside, a popular late-night program on state television called 'The Razor,' which every night vilifies Chávez opponents, alleged that Mr. Capriles was caught having sex with a man in a car. The host of the show, Mario Silva, claimed to be reading a police report from 2000 Press."
 * 2) "While the attacks on the 39-year-old governor of Miranda state have increased in intensity since the primary, they began even before it. On Feb. 10, Mario Silva, host of a late-night debate program aired on state-owned Venezolana de Television, or VTV, accused Capriles of being caught by police performing oral sex in a car with another man in 2000. Silva said Capriles had used his influence to force police to drop indecency charges stemming from the incident. The only support presented for the allegations was a piece of paper that Silva waved in front of the cameras and said was a police report on the incident. Capriles on Feb. 15 denied the allegations and said the police report, which has circulated via e-mail in Venezuela, was false.  When asked whether a police report existed, and if so whether it could be released, the Baruta Police declined to comment."
 * 3)  "Mario Silva, a staunch Chavez ally who hosts a late-night talk show on state television called 'La Hojilla,' or 'The Razor Blade,' recently suggested that Capriles is gay. Citing an alleged police report, Silva said police officers spotted Capriles engaged in a sexual act with another man. Capriles denied the accusation."

That summarizes what sources that meet WP:BLP sourcing requirements generally say. The following two partisan, pro-Chavez sources are used to expand the text: Neither Venezuelanalysis.com nor a website with no indication of reliability should be used to add to such derogatory claims, already covered by high quality sources. Both the election article and the Capriles Radonski article could benefit from more eyes until the December election; the articles currently give undue attention to these claims, and expound upon them using dubious sources. I am concerned that as a former admin and long-standing editor, Rd232 should know what quality of sources are needed for these kinds of derogatory claims, yet this is a repeat issue on candidates opposing Chavez in elections. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 01:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Venezuelanalysis.com, discussed multiple times at the Reliable sources noticeboard, deemed a reliable source for statements about Chavez policies, but not apt for highly contentious BLP statements because it is a pro-Chavez (controlled and previously funded) website.
 * Text added to the article based on that source, and not present in other sources is:
 * ... and according to the policeman, used this position ... to "have the policeman in question subjected to a disciplinary process". The policeman also said he had received a "barrage of threats" and wanted to clear his name.
 * 1) A website called Bloque Socialista Digital, Guerilla Comunicacional.  The source appears to be an editorial and provides  no indication that it meets reliability on its About Us page.
 * Text added to the article based on that source, and not present in other sources is:
 * ... allegations by a Chief Inspector of the police of Baruta that on 8 May 2000 …
 * Text added to the article based on that source, and not present in other sources is:
 * ... allegations by a Chief Inspector of the police of Baruta that on 8 May 2000 …


 * 3 and 4. And now, we have deragotory text about a living person (and candidate) sourced only and exclusively to state-run and controlled Radio Nacional de Venezuela (it is unlawful in Venezuela for media to criticize the President, but state-run programs can criticize opposing candidates), and the addition also of primicias24.com, for which I can find no indication of reliability or editorial oversight. In sum, we have now a claim of a coverup that is 12 years old and mysteriously did not surface in the three months before Capriles was elected Mayor along with allegations of threats to silence a policeman coming from nothing but pro-Chavez or non-reliable sources, not suited for such deragotory BLP claims.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Sandy, what are your personal views about this Chavez guy? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This question is entirely out of line. Our personal views of Chavez, pro- or con- have no bearing on the problems with this article.  We have serious BLP violations here that must be dealt with.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just misplaced, not out of line. If the first point of emphasis is a personal impression of a source's pro- or anti- bias, then certainly that's worth looking at. If the editor making that assertion goes on to make repeated unsourced statements about a living person, decidedly at odds with what up to date reliable independent sources say (yes I see the scare quote in the headline), then that makes me look at it a little more. So a leading question here isn't as inappropriate as you might think. Nor do I think, as you imply, that such thoughts mean we should not deal with "serious BLP violations". (You should know better.) Having said all that, I was just recently talking about concentrating on actual edits rather than on the assumptions or presumptions that might have been made by the editor, so I'll leave it there. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So what all this Oo oo oo BLP VIOLATION (cf User_talk:SandyGeorgia) amounts to is that allegations of someone using their position to cover up indecency charges are given marginally more detail from a source Sandy disapproves of. Bloomberg (as Sandy quotes above) said "Silva said Capriles had used his influence to force police to drop indecency charges stemming from the incident. The only support presented for the allegations was a piece of paper that Silva waved in front of the cameras and said was a police report on the incident." That's the key point already there, and explaining further the allegations (the allegations all stem from the policeman who claims to be the author of that police report cited by Silva) doesn't create a BLP vio. Indeed, it's necessary to avoid a BLP vio by implying that Silva may have made the whole thing up. Regardless of its authenticity, the document's claims are down to the policeman who authored it, not to Silva. Also, I made a mistake on one of the sources - I had both primicias24.com and blosodi.com.ve's mirror of that article open, and must have copied the wrong URL. I've corrected that and added another source  and provided a direct quote from the author of the document. Rd232 talk 09:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, and regarding the "see also" Sandy throws in gratuitously: "see also" this series of edits of 8 June 2010 which she contributed to on the disputed topic in question. The result is still in the article today, and no substantive changes have been made since she edited that topic. PS It hasn't escaped me that Sandy manages to imply that the alleged BLP vio was an issue while Rosales was a candidate. It wasn't, and couldn't have been, since the topic only came into the news three years after the election Rosales lost. Rd232 talk 09:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The new cite you've added (RNV) is another Chavez-controlled, state-run source, which again contains allegations not covered in the kind of third-party, independent, high quality sources we expect for BLPs and such damaging claims. Every independent reliable third-party source puts the event in the context of the state-sanctioned attacks from state-run media on an opposition candidate, while the text now has been expanded to imply, indeed explicitly state, that there was a coverup even including threats-- all coming from partisan or government-controlled sources, given undue weight, downplaying the account as given in reliable sources wrt the state role in the attacks, and conveying the strong views expressed by Rd232 on my talk page of his belief that what circulates in private email should be given weight and is a valid account of some coverup allegations surfacing 12 years later.  There is not only an issue of using government-controlled sources to attack on opposition candidate and claim a coverup including threats that are not mentioned in the quality of sources required for a BLP:  there is undue weight given to these biased accounts to the exclusion of the issue of the state role in the attacks on opposition candidates as covered by every independent source (there are more than the three I listed above).  And, on the Rosales article, as well as numerous others in the suite of Venezuela articles, I'm so sorry that there aren't enough hours in a day for one volunteer editor to clean up all of them.  There is not a candidate who has opposed Chavez in any election where we don't have similar allegations from biased sources given undue weight in our articles, the persecution of opposition candidates has been the topic of numerous reports from Human Rights oganizations, and keeping up with every one of these articles would be a full-time job.  (The controversy over paid editing comes to mind.) Rd232, did you forget to mention the timing of Rosales being forced into exile?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Everything is explicitly attributed to the source of the allegations, namely the policeman, not stated as fact - and since the issue is unconfirmed allegations, the local sources you object to are certainly good enough to document those allegations in marginally more detail than the foreign sources you prefer. As for Rosales: you heavily edited that topic on 8 June 2010, so stop pretending it's an ongoing problem you just haven't got round to fixing. Rd232 talk 18:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, you may have a BLP vio on your user talk page: the allegations I've seen are only "oral sex", and don't say who was doing what. Rd232 talk 18:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "the strong views expressed by Rd232 on my talk page of his belief that what circulates in private email should be given weight and is a valid account of some coverup allegations surfacing 12 years later." - where did I say that? Quotes please. I believe in fact I wanted you to properly rely on the Bloomberg source, which says there was a document (the authenticity of which is disputed), and you said there wasn't. Rd232 talk 18:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, since it appears that the board is active yet no one wants to touch this after well over a full day, I have per BLP policy removed the text sourced only to state-controlled or non-reliable sources. We have third-party independent reliable accounts in English, and considering that multiple human rights organizations have detailed the problems with freedom of the press in Venezuela (criticism of the President is disallowed by law, but state-run media can be used to make allegations about opposing candidates), BLP requires us to use independent reliable sources, not associated with candidates for such claims. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 14:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "BLP requires us to use independent reliable sources, not associated with candidates" - where does it say "not associated with candidates"? And who gets to decide who is "associated"? You, Sandy? And are you going to say El Universal is neutral, so it's OK to use it - or will you remove that from the article too? ... But it's a convenient position you've invented there, knowing that whatever nonsense the Venezuelan opposition comes up with is immediately piped into Western media, whilst anyone else in Venezuela struggles to get their voice heard there. Rd232 talk 15:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Rd232, that's a classic example of Original Research. You don't get to decide, i don't get to decide, we follow reliable sources.  You having an opinion that Venezuela "struggles to get their voice heard" while the opposition is "immediately piped in" is your opinion, and useless and counterproductive in an editing discussion.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Jimbo, Original Research is material in an article; in a discussion, it's just my opinion. Just as Sandy has her opinion on the ability of Venezuelan press to say what they want, I have my opinion on what the Western media says (and actually it can be backed up half-decent sources to some extent, but I can't be bothered right now, especially as Sandy would just dispute the reliability of those sources). Sandy's opinion is used as partial justification for excluding state media sources, on the logic that opposition media aren't allowed to respond, so therefore what the state media says can't be included either - care to comment on that? And my question directed at Sandy was actually very specific: she wants to exclude any national or international media that support Chavez as "too associated with a candidate", whilst being fine with opposition-supporting El Universal. Basically, Sandy is happy to use any policy or non-policy argument she can lay her hands on to exclude the point of view of anyone who doesn't support the Venezuelan opposition (national media), or depend on them for their view of Venezuelan issues (international media). Are you going to do the same because you (apparently) share her politics, or actually stand up for basic Wikipedia principles? Rd232 talk 23:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * she wants to exclude any national or international media that support Chavez as "too associated with a candidate", ... ahem.  Bring forward any source that meets our basic reliability standards of editorial oversight, etc, and that is not controlled by Chavez and let's discuss it.  So far, you haven't.  In the interim, please don't make false statements about me.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You said not far above "BLP requires us to use independent reliable sources, not associated with candidates". And then decline to explain why the opposition-supporting El Universal doesn't fall foul of that position. And you refuse to accept independent websites like Venezuelanalysis.com even when their statements are explicitly attributed, because they broadly support the Bolivarian Revolution. Rd232 talk 23:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ignoring that you've introduced Socialist blogs and other sources that give no indication of reliability on their "About us" page, I've answered your other queries multiple times. El Universal cannot (by Venezuelan law) criticize the president, and certainly not in the way Silva has Capriles on state-controlled media, so that's a straw man.  Venezuelanalysis.com can support the Bolivarian Revolution all they want and they are a reliable source when speaking to the policies of that revolution (yet strangely, you accept their opinion as fact on articles, while rejecting "western media" fact as opinion); the issue is their clear and direct ties not to the "Revolution", but to the "candidate" (Chavez), making it unsuitable for  BLPs, particularly about the opposing candidate.  Reliability of sources depends on context, and in the context of damaging material in a BLP, they have a clear bias.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * the socialist blog was a mistake (it was a mirror of an article from somewhere else, and I copied the wrong URL). I'm sure you're never going to forget that mistake, because allows you to believe and claim that I read that blog (I'd never heard of it before). There is no evidence of Venezuelanalysis being tied to Chavez rather than the revolutionary movement more broadly. As for El Universal - are you really saying that based on your unsourced opinion, El Universal is a reliable source despite its support for the opposition because Venezuelan law prevents it being unreliable?? Rd232 talk 00:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, no ... I acknowledge the Socialist blog was a mistake, albeit ironic that a blog spreading those claims can be mixed up with a state source, which doesn't speak well for the state source, but that's an aside. After you removed the mistaken socialist blog, you still used a source that didn't have any indication of reliability.  Are you familiar with how to look for an "About us" or "Contact us" or some similar page on a website to evaluate what kind of editorial oversight, staff, fact checking etc they have to evaluate for reliability?  You do not find a link in that Chavez granted a plum General Consul spot in New York (I assume you're familiar with how those spots are allocated, in Venezuela and in many countries?) to the wife of one of the founders and editors of Venezuelanalysis.com, that many sources describe it as pro-Chavez, that one source describes the editor as a prominent Chavista, or that one of the founders himself describes the website as "mostly pro-Chavez"?  With that kind of close ties to Chavez, it is not suitable for deragotory BLP claims about opposing candidates, although it is well positioned to document the policies and programs of the Bolivarian Revolution.  On your question about El Universal, on other topics, I have many times observed that you have a good command of logic; please use it, as the length of this section is becoming tedious.  I am saying, and repeating myself, it is moot and has not had to be tested:  El Universal cannot make and does not make deragotory BLP claims or it can be shut down by Chavez.  If you have an instance where we have used El Universal for a controversial BLP claim by all means bring it forward so we can discuss whether it was used appropriately.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 06:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * That's a straw man: El Universal is prohibited by law from doing/saying the same things that state-controlled media does in Venezuela routinely (with a state-controlled judiciary complicating matters), so what El Universal may or may not say is not a relevant comparison-- it won't be a BLP issue under the current press double standards in Venezuela.   It's hard to come up with an equivalent scenario that folks might understand:  let's suppose the US had no independent judiciary, power consolidated in the Executive, and the State Department of the US issued a press release saying Mitt Romney had engaged in oral sex in a car, and the Executive also controlled the media, so he could allege that on state-run television, but we had laws in the US that prohibited Romney from criticizing the State Department for saying that? Yes, I know, it's outlandish-- that's the situation in Venezuela.  All Capriles can do is deny the charges, and Venezuelan media can't go very far with it or they risk being shut down per the Law of Social Responsibility passed under Chavez control of congress.  The freedom of the press issue, and the control of the judiciary, in Venezuela has been discussed by numerous human rights and independent reliable sources.  Reliable sources, not "me", get to decide.  Should Wikipedia decide that sources controlled by and associated with a candidate can be used to villify an opposing candidate contrary to our WP:BLP policy, in a country where there are restrictions on freedom of the press, that precedent leaves Wikipedia with a big issue on its hands.  It's most curious that no one will weigh in here when the board is quite active.  We have independent reliable sources, not affiliated with the campaign, and we have sources in English, and we have independent journalists who know the laws in Venezuela; it is irresponsible for us to use sources associated with and controlled by a candidate to allege anything beyond what is already covered, when it's covered pretty well already (or as well as it can be covered when one considers that politicins criticizing Chavez are subject to exile or prison-- there is nothing Capriles can do except deny it, and until/unless more independent sources report more, I believe we've given the issue its due weight in the article).   Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You have put it very nicely Georgia. Discussion of what Chavez-controlled sources have alleged should be limited to what actual reliable sources have said about the allegations. I say treat them the same as we would supermarket tabloids in the US. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And that's compatible with WP:NPOV how? (And on this specific issue can we please remember that the allegations are not FROM state-run media but REPORTED BY them. Part of the NPOV problem is failing to make this clear, and pretending the allegations are invented by a Chavez-supporting TV host - which for some reason isn't a WP:BLP problem because BLP doesn't apply to Chavez supporters I suppose...) Rd232 talk 23:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's compatible with NPOV because state-run media in a country without a free press is not a reliable source....Allegations do not suddenly become significant because they passed through an independent source if that source still isn't a reliable one. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "state-run media in a country without a free press is not a reliable source" - is (i) not logical and has no foundation in policy and (ii) not the case for Venezuela. Maybe it's not as free as it could be, but it's plenty free enough; we're not talking about North Korea here. As for the specific issue: the allegations have already been judged significant enough to be picked up by international media. So that bridge has already been crossed; the question is whether the allegations are going to be reported less accurately (creating a BLP violation by giving the impression a TV host invented them) or more accurately (by clarifying the source of the allegations is a policeman). Rd232 talk 00:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's not as free as it could be, but it's plenty free enough; we're not talking about North Korea here. Well, you can google press freedom in Venezuela and find the hundreds to thousands of sources discussing the lack of freedom of expression in Venezuela as well as I can, but for one example NPR has Venezuela on par with Iran, Russia, Zimbabwe, China and Vietnam. You can find human rights reports, news reports, journalist organizations, of the serious issues ad nauseuam.  Now Rd232 will post something from Venezuelanalysis.com painting a different picture from the point of view of the Bolivarian Revolution, but regardless ... for the purposes of BLP, where we must use high quality sources, state-run and controlled media in Venezuela can say whatever it wants, but opposing candidates cannot criticize Chavez or they can be jailed and media outlets shut down.  Google press freedom Venezuela-- there are recent reports from Human Rights Watch, Committee to Protect Journalists, Amnestry International, New York Times, The Economist, The Huffington Post and it goes on and on ... take your pick.  We can't use state-controlled and affiliated sources from Venezuela to further damaging BLP claims.  We can use them to state what Chavez's policies are and what his revolution is about because they speak for him. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * All newspapers are created free; but some are more free than others. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Moved text
Moved text from a separate thread created on this same page to consolidate two discussions unnecessarily forked. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 06:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter where or how often I ask the question, you still won't or can't answer it: how is
 * According to state-run Radio Nacional de Venezuela (RNV), the allegations Silva was referring to were made by the Chief Inspector of the police of Baruta referring to a May 2000 incident. Capriles was elected Mayor of Baruta several months after the alleged incident in the 30 July 2000 regional elections, and according to RNV, the policeman says Capriles used his position to avoid indecency charges and to "have the policeman in question subjected to a disciplinary process". RNV says the policeman said he had received a "barrage of slanderous attacks that led to disciplinary actions" and wanted to clear his name.
 * a BLP violation, especially bearing in mind the current paragraph two at Venezuelan_presidential_election,_2012, which it was supplementing before you deleted it? And again, since I keep asking and you won't answer: (i) is Mario Silva exempt from BLP considerations and (ii) why is it acceptable to make it look like Silva invented the allegations, rather than merely repeating the allegations from another source? Rd232 talk 00:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Repeating myself again, since it is demanded.

On Mario Silva. I do not know where you are getting the notion that there is a BLP issue with Mario Silva. Where have we deviated in the article from what high quality sources say? We have at least half a dozen in the article but there are scores more high quality sources discussing the incident, and they all say basically the same thing. They say he repeated allegations, he pruported to read a report, he claimed he had a report, etc. We say the same thing. We do not have a BLP issue when we repeat what dozens of high quality reliable sources say. We are reporting a breadth of high quality sources, and sources from the right, left and middle-- they all say similar. We do not "make it look like" anything: that is original research. We repeat what sources say. On your concern that we are somehow damaging him with a BLP issue, that is a noble thought, but it indicates to me that it is likely that you have never watched his show, do not know his market, or have not seen this specific episode of his show. If you had, I believe you might temper your opinions of the "Western media" since they were very generous, conservative, and judicious in what they reported about what he did. He did not just "read from a report" or "repeat allegations". There is no chance his reputation is damaged based on what little we say and the sources say, since he went way over the top and well beyond just "reading a report". I don't think he's in danger of losing his state job based on the command performance he gave or the type of captive audience he plays to. That's just my opinion, irrelevant since we stick to sources, but I hope it assuages your concern about his reputation. Nowhere do we say he invented the allegations; you can watch the episode to decide if the media reports are fair, but regardless, we are within policy. On the specific text, I've answered before, will again. First, you are still using primicias24.com as a source. I may have missed it, but I can find nothing on that site to indicate reliablity by the usual measures (fact checking, editorial oversight, journalistic credentials, etc.). Please have a look at WP:RS and based on text there, point me to something at primicias24.com that indicates reliability. You use that source, a state source (Radio Nacional de Venezuela) and a Chavez-affiliated website (Venezuelanalysis.com) for this text that is not in any high quality source:"... made by the Chief Inspector of the police of Baruta ... mi vida profesional en el cuerpo policial sufrió una andanada calumnias que se elevaron a acciones disciplinarias con la apertura de un procedimiento por parte del entonces Alcalde a mi persona (that is very damaging, and just because it's in Spanish and in a footnote doesn't make it any less so) and he had received a 'barrage of slanderous attacks that led to disciplinary actions'." We don't know the facts of who the Baruta policeman was, if any, because we don't have it from a non-partisan source, and all of that threat business is a direct BLP vio against Capriles, detail not given in nonpartisan, high quality sources. Everything else in that paragraph is already in the article. You are adding damaging text from partisan sources that is not included in any of the higher quality sources-- it's likely those journalists watched the show :) Sandy Georgia (Talk) 07:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "We don't know the facts of who the Baruta policeman was" - we don't need to "know" the facts, we just need to cite all relevant sources as necessary to comply with WP:NPOV. Either we cover both sides of the issue, or we don't cover the issue at all. Rd232 talk 07:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * When we're talking about BLP issues, we report facts from high quality sources. We do not yet have that from a high quality source (you have now found something from Pink News-- I have never encountered that source and don't know if it rises to the level required for a BLP).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 08:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a fact that RNV reported bla, a key aspect of the story (the original source of the allegations). We don't need the combined might of the Western media to deign to cover the issue properly in order to say that RNV reported bla, when it's an essential part of the story we're already covering. You're using BLP to try and bypass NPOV, ignoring the fact (as pointed out below) that omitting the essential part of the story from sources you deem unmentionable creates a BLP violation. Rd232 talk 09:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Mario Silva BLP violation
Here is the text you've crafted:

The week before the MUD primary elections, Mario Silva repeated on his political satire program La Hojilla (English: The Razorblade) allegations that Capriles had been caught in a sexual act with a man in a car. According to Bloomberg,"The only support presented for the allegations was a piece of paper that Silva waved in front of the cameras and said was a police report on the incident. ... Silva said Capriles had used his influence to force police to drop indecency charges stemming from the incident." Silva's program airs on the state-run television station Venezolana de Televisión; it was described by the WSJ as a show "which every night vilifies Chávez opponents" and Silva was described by The Huffington Post as a "staunch Chávez ally". Reuters described Silva as a "diehard Chavista" who "showed a cartoon of Capriles wearing pink shorts and a swastika on his arm" in another episode. The WSJ said Silva "claimed to be reading a police report from 2000 Press"; Capriles said the report was false; the local police refused to comment. This is a BLP violation because it strongly gives the impression that Silva invented the allegations himself, and waved a piece of paper in support of them. The refusal to include the information that allegations come from another source makes Silva out to be a manipulative liar. Since this is clearly a BLP violation, I've removed the content pending discussion about how to fix it. Rd232 talk 07:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No, here is the text *I* crafted, before dubious sources were added (brief, simple) and overquoting was used to avoid charges of misrepresentation. Allrighty then.  Half a dozen high quality reliable sources, reported practically verbatim with quotes, and now excised entirely from the article. Interesting! As is "Silva was attacked by The Economist".  I see you are familiar with the personaje and his show. Curious to use blog posts in an article. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 09:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, there was that previous version you did, which included your editorial claim contradicted by your source that "no proof was presented", which amounts to an attempt to argue just as strongly as in the newer version I quoted above that the allegations come from Silva, and were made up by him. As for the La Hojilla article - I was showing international coverage prior to the recent incident, i.e. showing notability. PS when I say "contradicted", don't misunderstand me again: the issue is that you're claiming the content of Silva's piece of paper is unknown, whilst your source said it was not (and indeed the RNV sources you object to provide the actual document in question). Rd232 talk 09:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think you should be establishing notability on an article by sourcing an anonymous blog post. I'm sure you wouldn't let me get away with same :)  YMMV.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's The Economist. I assumed you would approve! Rd232 talk 15:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Haakon Faste
This person uses this Wikipedia article, for personal gain.

Please delete this page, as there is no need of a page for someone who are not famous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryderiator56 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I have proposed it for deletion, but as non-notable rather than a vanity bio.--ukexpat (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've endorsed. JFHJr (㊟) 05:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Excessive use of this noticeboard?
I wonder if BLP issues are better discussed on the talk pages of the articles in question. Is the noticeboard better than the talk pages? Does it serve a purpose better than the articles' talk pages? &mdash; Rickyrab. Yada yada yada 04:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As a matter of dispute resolution, you're absolutely correct. When it comes to bringing an issue to the attention of experienced editors, or simply asking to watch, it's alright. What's awful is when this board fractures discussion, or simply draws out and repeats what's in talks. In comparison, I see overeager appeal to this board as very easily remedied: tell them to take it back to talk. Several volunteers here are not hesitant to recommend it, and more of us actively steer conversation back to talk. JFHJr (㊟) 05:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There's some of that going on in BLPN. Some editors (including me) are trying to edit the main article to include proper coverage of Bellesiles' well-documented fraudulent scholarship. Others seem to want to frustrate that, in part by making unsupported assertions of BLP violations in a carefully vetted section that stood unchallenged for several years, and bringing the discussion to Talk:Michael_A._Bellesiles. The matter could use the attention of some uninvolved voices of reason. Lou Sander (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL. I guess this would be called topic shopping as opposed to forum shopping. "uninvolved voices of reason"? My, my.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * On point! BTW, the "accusation" most notable is that inclusion of an entire subarticle is not proper -- the purpose of a subarticle is to allow a summary of the subarticle in the main article, and not to simply copy the entire dang subarticle into the main article. Collect (talk) 20:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * There are numerous instances of editors bringing issues here because they don't approve of the consensus at the article itself, or for other reasons. I don't approve of the use of BLP cries to promote or defend particular views on articles or sets of articles. But equally, we should never discourage editors from coming here, whether new or experienced - there's nothing wrong with asking for a third (fourth, fifth, six, uninvolved) set of opinions.


 * It's awkward that discussion here fragments discussion overall, so those of us who help here should be pro-active in directing discussion back to the article talk pages where necessary. This already happens a lot, so I don't think we have a big problem. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Michael Bellesiles
Previous BLPN discussion

I'm not getting anywhere convincing two other editors that a LONG repeat of negative information from another article doesn't belong in the Bellesiles article. See this discussion. It strikes me as attacking to duplicate information in multiple places with the rationale that it's "well sourced". And for the life of me, I can't figure out why they'd want to put it all back in while a "compromise" is reached rather than the other way around.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The scandal about Arming America is what makes Bellesiles noteworthy. A whole chapter was dedicated to it in Peter Charles Hoffer, Past Imperfect: Facts, Fictions, Fraud--American History from Bancroft and Parkman to Ambrose, Bellesiles, Ellis, and Goodwin (Public Affairs Press, 2004).--John Foxe (talk) 20:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If that's the only thing that makes Bellesiles noteworthy, then we can delete his article as we already have a separate article about the book. We don't need an attack article about the author.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course (struck per LS' userpg) In my view it doesn't belong. We don't allow content forks, it's why we speedy delete articles under . Summary style does not equal duplication. As for it being "well sourced", well I can source lots of things well, it doesn't make principles on disinterestedness, WP:WEIGHT, and content forks null and void. I've read the current article. Apart from framing, bibliography and brief resume information it's near exclusively about "the scandal". Even the section that purports to concern him after all of that, title onwards has focus on "the scandal". As for the restoring the moment by moment description present in the other article into this one, again that's not how we do articles. - 92.6.200.56 21:51, 12 May 92.6.200.56 (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Then put the article up for AfD.--John Foxe (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In your view—aside from on the scandal—can anything much besides basic résumé information actually be written (from Reliable Sources) about Bellesiles? --92.6.200.56 (talk) 23:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose it depends on how you define "much." But what defines (and will always define) Bellesiles is the scandal.--John Foxe (talk) 01:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The present problem with the article is that an editor removed 16K of longstandingly unchallenged material from a stable article, without discussing it on the talk page. When another editor restored it, the first editor removed it again. Discussion ensued, and the first editor began justifying his actions, in part by claiming that the material removed violates WP:BLP. BLP in a Nutshell says: "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 disputed material meets all those standards, and withstood years of scrutiny and editing by many editors before being summarily removed without discussion. Lou Sander (talk) 12:59, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I'd be very interested to hear your response to the question I asked John Foxe above. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I created a temp subpage based on the current article. In the subpage I omitted content predominantly-focused on the book/controversy and converted résumé data (degree/employment dates & places) to list form, so we can more easily see what's left. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 15:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * (smiling) very clever and to the point.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no BLP problem with any of the material in the unredacted article. The temporary subpage looks like it was written by Bellisiles himself, in that it fails to mention the one thing in his career that made him a household word. I plan to make things whole by restoring the improperly deleted material. Ohio Mailman (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree.--John Foxe (talk) 01:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Ohio Mailman, I would proceed cautiously. Although you have had an account since 2007, you have made precisely 36 edits in those years, of which only 20 were to articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec x3) Let's try not to all talk past each other (is! isn't!) please.
 * All involved editors seem to agree it's appropriate to cover the book/controversy on Wikipedia to some extent, some way, somewhere. What we disagree on is the extent and manner of coverage in each article. Right now we've two articles: one on the book, one on the man.
 * The purpose of the subpage is to easily see other existing biographical content on Bellisles. It's not a push to purge Wikipedia of the controversy.
 * If nothing can be written in a biographical article besides name, rank and serial number (i.e. résumé data: qualifications, occupations plus bibliography) it brings into question whether we should have one. Right now the only content in the subpage beside that is a controversy-that-wasn't and a solitary reviewer's comment best described as damning with faint praise.
 * If the book controversy is the only thing that can be written about the task is already accomplished—with the separate book article. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 03:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no BLP problem with this article in its original form. Those who have asserted it have epically failed to back it up. My nose tells me there is a childish effort underway to purge the entire article, based on reasoning even more spurious than the undefended assertion of biography problems. Bellisles is a fraudulent academic. That needs to be said, and has been said for many years in the article. I encourage Ohio Mailman to revert the article to its consensus driven form. Good Cop (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I see the problem -- it is not up to us to prove that anyone is a fraud - it is up to us to represent what reliable sources say in an even-handed manner. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Question. What problem do you see? If it is the BLP problem, please explain it. Good Cop (talk) 12:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The information from the book article has been added back to the Bellesiles article, all 16,000+ characters of it. There was a chorus (almost a mantra) of editors on the Talk page, mostly editors with very few edits (similar to Ohio Mailman), chanting "restore the material". So, John Foxe (a significantly more seasoned editor) restored it all. Just prior to that, Collect put in a very brief summary of the book, but that didn't stick. Although what Collect did was more than what I've done, I honestly think it was too short. Another editor created a different version in his sandbox, which I thought was too long. I asked if I could edit his version to a shorter version, but he said he didn't want me to touch his sandbox. At some point, my plan was to take his version, copy it to my sandbox, edit it from there, and then propose it, but I haven't had time to do so.

I'm a little disappointed that more experienced BLP editors haven't weighed in on this issue, but I understand that each of us can only fight so many fires at once. Still, if any of those editors happens to be reading this and can spare a moment, comments would be appreciated. As usual, I don't care if anyone disagrees with me. I just would like to see a consensus formed that doesn't rely on vote counting from many apparently junior editors simply repeating what the others said before him/her.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Any hope that they might be sockpuppets? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The information about the book is well-sourced, but does not need to be duplicated in a biography. Arguably, Bellesiles falls under WP:BLP1E - certainly his biography, as written, is almost completely dominated by the material about the Arming America scandal. The best BLP-compliant approach, in my mind, would be to keep the material in Arming America and simply redirect Michael A. Bellesiles to the book article. The second-best approach would be an actual biography of Bellesiles (in contrast to what's there now), where the Arming America incident is briefly summarized (i.e. one paragraph at most) with a main link to the book article. MastCell Talk 16:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree, the only thing of note after the controversy was a book he wrote in 2010 that, according to our article, received a favorable review. My preference would be a redirect until someone can justify an entire article about him.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think a redirect is the correct answer, but it's unlikely to fly in the current heated atmosphere. As a compromise, I went ahead and restored Collect's version, which I think was an excellent step in the right direction, and took a stab at rewriting the lead to be a bit more encyclopedic. MastCell Talk 16:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure whether a redirect would be necessarily rejected by those who favor duping the book article in the author article. It's a fairly clean solution and avoids the battle over how to balance the Bellesiles article. In any event, I've opened a discussion of a redirect on the Talk page, and we'll see how it's received. My god, the Bellesiles article is defined by the book. Even the section headers like "Life after Arming America - give me a break.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody favors duping the book article in the author article. Many are working toward a proper coverage of the author's fraudulent scholarship. Some seem to be working against that goal. Lou Sander (talk) 20:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What's your view on a redirect?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Asaph Ward
I am Asaph Ward and someone has added some info about me that was bogus. I need to know how to keep people from tampering with the truth. I took it down and I don't know how someone can just take info away or add. Please advise.

Asaph — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asaphaward1 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, including vandals. It happens and there's very little we can do about it. You removed it (that is, if you're also ), and that's fine. If this is a recurring event there are other options we can pursue, such as semi-protection (that would have disallowed the IP edit, but it would also have prevented you from removing that stuff). Next time, drop a note here and someone will look into it. Please stick to one account. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Savourna Stevenson


As a result of numerous edits by one account, article has swelled into a sparsely sourced press release, filled with promotional blurbs. If an IP dramatically cuts this it can be misconstrued as disruptive. More eyes appreciated. Thanks, 71.241.199.226 (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It wasn't in very good shape before Frasergord's edits, but it was in even worse shape after. I've restored the article back to the not-so-good shape and left a message on the editor's Talk page that he must comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, particularly with respect to sourcing and formatting. Thanks for the heads up.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your helpful comments and actions. I am interested in up-dating information for Savourna Stevenson ( which, as mentioned, is not in very good shape ) but have no previous experience editing Wikipedia. I shall attempt to do the required homework on Wikipedia policies, guidelines and writing style before attempting any future edits, but would find it very helpful to run future edits past an experienced editor before it goes public. Is this possible and can, for example, an edit be double-checked by an experienced editor while still in the sandbox? I would be most grateful for your help before I proceed. Frasergord (talk) 10:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note. It's most helpful to read Wikipedia guidelines; in this instance WP:RELIABLE and WP:ADVERT are helpful--you want to find objective reliable sources, like newspaper and magazine articles and mentions in books, for all information you add to a biography. Also, so as to avoid a promotional impression, perhaps one positive review from a prominent writer would be sufficient, rather than a rave for each album she's recorded. If you have any questions, feel free to continue discussing them here or at the article's talk page. Cheers, 71.241.199.226 (talk) 11:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your advice on this. As I have recently up-dated information on Savourna Stevenson's own web site, I currently have access to a fairly comprehensive archive of material from the last 30 years including copies of all of her original recordings, commissions, performance programmes and posters, collaborations, press articles/interviews/reviews, photos, videos, music scores, sheet music, etc. Therefore, I have an excellent source of accurate and verifiable information, but no experience of putting this into a format suitable for Wikipedia. After doing further homework on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, I shall try to completely re-write this article with only the relevant factual & neutral information. I would still however be greatly reassured if there is some way of running this past an experienced editor before I save any edits for public view? Frasergord (talk) 12:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The articles and interviews, rather than the subject's website, are probably the best sources, per WP:PRIMARY. You could rewrite the article offline, or at a sub-page in your user space (see WP:SUBPAGE), and request feedback from experienced editors--this is one good place to seek such oversight. Adding inline sources, per WP:CITE, will be important, so that information won't be challenged. If you have trouble implementing that you can ask for advice with cites, too. My sense is that the 2006 and 2011 articles in The Scotsman will verify some, if not much, of the basic information. 71.241.199.226 (talk) 13:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your helpful comments and actions. I am interested in up-dating information for Savourna Stevenson ( which, as mentioned, is not in very good shape ) but have no previous experience editing Wikipedia. I shall attempt to do the required homework on Wikipedia policies, guidelines and writing style before attempting any future edits, but would find it very helpful to run future edits past an experienced editor before it goes public. Is this possible and can, for example, an edit be double-checked by an experienced editor while still in the sandbox? I would be most grateful for your help before I proceed. Frasergord (talk) 11:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Just passing through: Fraser, my advice to new editors who work on material they are acquainted with (or people they like) is usually the same: start by finding the reliable sources (see WP:RS) using Google News and Books. Write it neutrally, and don't draw conclusions about style, success, beauty, etc. based on your own thoughts and observation. Write only what the sources give you. It may not be as exciting as you want the article to be, but it's more likely to be neutral. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 14:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Frasergord, for wanting to improve your Wikipedia skills and contributions. If you let me know when you have something in your sandbox for me to review, I'll be happy to do so. I can't promise I'll do it immediately after you tell me (depending on time constraints), but I'll get to it. Just leave a heads up here. Also, if you have a question, you can drop a line here, too, and I'll do my best to answer it.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Bbb23, for your kind offer. I realize that I will need all the help I can get.

Having looked more closely at Wikipedia policies and other WP articles I can see that I need to start by being absolutely neutral and without personal opinion. However, when it comes to the strict principles of citations, primary & secondary sources and 'no original research', I quickly find that I have some paradoxical difficulties ...

I have recently up-dated the content of Savourna Stevenson's own website and so currently have access to a comprehensive archive of all her recordings, collaborations, commissions, articles, interviews, reviews, videos, music scores, etc, etc, for the last 30 years. She originally brought to my attention that some members of the press are inclined to pick up their background information for newspaper articles about her from Wikipedia and that this is irritating becaues her Wikipedia article is currently so inaccurate and badly researched  ...

Although I hope I could put together a more accurate Wikipedia article ( than the current one ) complete with citations from press articles taken from reputable newpapers and magazines from the last 30 years, I am left with the dilema that I have some of the most relevant information sitting on the desk in from of me, but this information is nowhere to be found within a suitable citation!? Take for example a simple list like a discography ... which may not have been printed in any previous article or book, but I actually have a copy of every recording ever made by Savourna Stevenson on my desk so that I can check the dates and the details? Perhaps I even have a reputable article which lists a discography, but gets it wrong ... which then is the correct and accurate information to list in the Wikipedia article? As must be the case with many biographies of living persons on Wikipedia, there may be few or no respected books already published on the subject - so does this mean that there should be no Wikipedia article at all for those people?

I am quite sure it is essential that disputed information, known to be incorrect, is always removed from Wikipedia ... but if only absolutely 100% verifiable information was listed, then Wikipedia would be almost without articles! I would be most interested to get your comments on this before I have another look at the Savourna Stevenson article.

Sorry to be long-winded -  its a big subject for a complete beginner. With thanks Frasergord (talk) 22:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I already commented a bit at Drmies's Talk page (you're leaving a lot of messages). Short answer. In an ideal world, material is accurate and verifiable. However, if material can't be verified, it can't be included.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that - I shall pay special attention to my conflict of interest, in addition to my other areas of inexperience, and will ensure that I declare this COI. My principle concern is that the Wikipedia article should become factual/accurate and I will happily take advice from other editors regarding neutrality.

As a helpful contribution to my learning curve, can you please suggest two or three ideal examples of Wikipedia articles which I can study ... which contain similar biographies of living persons/musicians, not working within an obvious mainstream category, who have work extending back over 30 years and more. I realize that my first poor attempts at editing were largely based on the existing content/format/lack of citation of the current Stevenson article ... and I should obviously be using a more ideal article as my starting template. With thanks again for your help. Frasergord (talk) 12:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've asked over at the Featured articles (FA) area. FAs are supposed to be our best work, so tend to be good examples. As the few music bios I clicked on didn't seem obvious candidates for your requirements I asked over there. With luck somebody'll be able to recommend some. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 14:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for asking about suitable Featured Articles for me to look at. I'm sure this could be a very helpful starting point for my Wikipedia education. I shall look forward to receiving some recommendations.  Thanks Frasergord (talk) 15:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Friedman again


On 16:41, 17 April 2012 created a SPA to make a single edit.  Seven minutes after creating the account, Cromer985 made a single contribution to Thomas Friedman and disappeared forever.  The user added the following text, attributed to a blogger named [redacted]. "On April 17, 2012, Friedman was awarded the title [redacted]."

His edit summary was accurately tagged as a "possible BLP issue or vandalism", and wisely deleted it several minutes later.  However, an IP,, returned to add the material back in, this time expanding it with a ref to a blog post:

"On April 17, 2012, Friedman was awarded the title [redacted]. &lt;ref&gt;"

The cite added was

This odd entry, added once by a SPA and a second time by an IP, was removed again, this time by.

Strangely, a user who had never edited the page before, a, showed up out of the blue to revert Celuici and add the material back in, justifying their revert in the edit summary with "prominent blog represents a widespread view".

I don't think these kind of edits meet WP:BLP nor do they even meet WP:SPS. Viriditas (talk) 21:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd remove that yet again, and consider starting a sock investigation if this continues. WP:DUCK suggests that at the very least the SPA and the IP are the same person. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 23:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I think the article on Thomas Friedman still has numerous BLP issues, so if anyone on this board has time to take a look, that would be great. Viriditas (talk) 03:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed several items. It has various issues such as highly questionable interpretation of sources (often POV), excessive (mis)use of his WP:SELFPUB writings, and it's a quotefarm. Tagged accordingly. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 20:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The article Friedman Unit, used somewhere in the lengthy controversies section, also leaves me unimpressed. It had two AfDs March/May 2007. In my opinion, it might be due another. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 15:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Ann Rule
I believe Ann Rule did not write a book "Perfect Husband". Gary Provost wrote a book called Perfect Husband. Ann Rule's website does not list Perfect Husband as one of her books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.85.240.15 (talk) 17:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Rule apparently wrote a book called Dead by Sunset Perfect Husband, Perfect Killer? Regardless, the book in our article is unsourced, along with the rest of the books in the bibliography section. I'm removing the section as unsourced and unnoteworthy. If a book is noteworthy, it can be addressed in the article with secondary sources.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In my experience, it is commonly accepted to have a list of publications in a persons BLP. For this reason I have reinstated the list of books written by the subject and add a citation for World Cat. About 90% of the books listed checked out and those that were not listed at World Cat I place a cite needed tag. The subject is a prolific author and deserves to be recognized as such IMHO.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 20:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, now I see that Bbb23 has within minutes deleted my work. Perhaps this needs further discussion.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 20:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Everywhere I look I see BLP's that have a Bibliography section listing all of their books: Michael Connelly, James Swain, Isaac Asimov, Tony Robbins, Dan Millman, John Gray (U.S. author), Eckhart Tolle.  Author Dean Koontz has a separate page for his books .  Bbb23, can you please point out to me the policy or guideline which supports your removal of the list of books written by Ann Rule? Maybe I'm missing something. Thanks. -- — Keithbob •  Talk  • 20:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, not quite deleted, but close. I removed the bibliography section but put the WorldCat link (that you provided) into external links in case anyone wants to see a full list of her books. As for your contention about what is "commonly accepted", I haven't done a statistical study of all the author articles at Wikipedia, but from my own observations, I see a little bit of everything. Some have a full biobliography, some have a so-called selected bibliography (never real sure the sourced criteria for selection), and some have none. I know that many editors, including me, believe that a list - and lists are disfavored generally at Wikipedia - is not noteworthy because there's no indication from secondary sources that the book is important. However, there are others who agree with you, Keith, that a list is appropriate. I've often wondered what would happen if I took a well-known actor's article and tried to delete non-noteworthy films or series from their filmographies. My guess is I'd be stoned to death, or at least close to it, with screams about common practice (no one cares about WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, although, admittedly, in the instance of actors, the crap exists in abundance).


 * Returning to the Rule article inasmuch as we probably can't fix the global issue, it's a pretty lousy article, frankly. Very little of it is sourced to anything but her website. Why do we need a complete list of her books? Just because it's handy? Wouldn't it make more sense to discuss the books that are most important in the prose of the article (one of the reasons lists are disfavored)? What about articles she's written? Shouldn't we include those, too? What if the complete list ran to over 1,000? Would that be okay?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Suggestion. It seems to me that list or no list has moved beyond BLP issues to a standard content question.  That should be handled in the usual way I'd say.  Article talk page discussion and all the usual content dispute avenues if it can't be decided easily.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree - I'll shut up now.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * As long as we're throwing out articles, here are two that don't have lists: Jane Bowles and Rilla Askew. I'm sure there are more, but I'm not going to spend my time playing that game. As for identifying rules for this sort of thing, there's WP:Source list. In addition, there are just the general editorial guidelines for what is sufficiently relevant and noteworthy to justify inclusion in an article.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

It might be common to have a list of publications but it's not common to add a complete bibliography, as it swamps or distorts the balance of the article. The list you restored was a third of the article's size. Some articles, the likes of Vladimir Nabokov, might have a List of works subarticle - even then only a small selection of the most notable go in the main article. I don't know if you saw but Bbb23 did add your WorldCat link cite to the ext links. If you include her official site, which presumably has one, that makes 3 bibliographies linked. I don't see it's necessary to give a full listing on the page as well.

Glancing at one of the articles you just linked, Asimov has a "Selected bibliography" with linked subarticle. It's likely the main/spinoff article need to be resync'd so more recent additions move into the spinoff. Clicking on one more, Tolle, again has "Selected publications". Incidentally, the Koontz page should really have a selection in the main article. The likes of Dean Koontz and Vladimir Nabokov have had a different level of impact compared with Ann Rule. This a short article and some of those listed were already mentioned. I think a small selection is all that's needed. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 21:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Jack Welch
Recently I raised some issues about the Jack Welch article, including plagiarism from a cited source, as well as inaccurate information, among other topics. I am reluctant to change these myself, because my interests in fixing it relate to my employer (Strayer University) which owns the Jack Welch Management Institute. I know that WP:COI allows direct edits like this sometimes, but Id also prefer to be cautious and follow Jimbo's WP:BRIGHTLINE advisory. I've posted a fairly detailed explanation of changes there. Would someone here review them, and implement these changes? Thanks, --Hamilton83 (talk) 14:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Reviewed, agreed and implemented - Thank you for the declaration and the quality of your edit request and explanation - You  really  can  14:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Although from his comments in the interview this details appears correct, it didn't appear to be specifically cited and was challenged - "Welch has been actively involved with the curriculum, faculty and students at the online business school since its launch" - I tweaked the wording to the source diff - you may have another source or can show its support in the original source ? - Thats been disputed now, I got that directly from the citation - anyway - you may want to discuss it with the objector - User:Hipocrite - You  really  can  14:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Youreallycan, glad you agreed and could make the changes. I'm surprised that this sentence was contested:


 * Welch has been actively involved with the curriculum, faculty and students at the online business school since its launch.


 * The information was in both articles I provided, as follows:


 * The Bloomberg Businessweek article says:


 * Welch and his wife Suzy are also heavily involved in curriculum design, leaning heavily on the principles he used training managers at GE.


 * The Wired Academic article says:


 * Jack and Suzy are active in hiring faculty and teaching in the program.


 * Would you be willing to replace my original sentence and remove the citation needed tag? --Hamilton83 (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I am experienced in being reverted . LOL - Thanks for the added input and details - the best thing imo in this situation is .... I will bring the other editors here to comment - I have left the two users a note to this discussion - lets see if they have any continued objection - regards - You  really  can  05:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not being paid enough to argue with a paid advocate. Given the date on the Businessweek article, it is not a reliable source for what it was being used for, which is written like standard PR copy. Further, there is no BLP issue here, so this noticeboard is irrelevant. Have the paid advocate start an rfc. Are you being paid by him, or are you donating your time so he can make more money? Hipocrite (talk) 11:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Huh? YRC has a strong reputation on BLPs and your direct accusation of being paid or having any improper motives is unwarranted and a gross personal attack here.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not accusing him of being paid - I'm asking him if he's being paid, or if he's donating his time to someone who is being paid. There's no other choice here. I think he should demand at least 50% of the cash that Hamilton83 is being paid to promote Strayer University, and I'll take the other half. Hipocrite (talk) 11:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Your post was entirely clear:
 * Are you being paid by him, or are you donating your time so he can make more money?
 * Seems incapable of being misapprehended. And your further post
 * I think he should demand at least 50% of the cash that Hamilton83 is being paid to promote Strayer University, and I'll take the other half.
 * Is also sufficiently clear. I think you should redact before you fall further behind.  I oppose any "Paypedia" but I also oppose "WitchHuntPedia" as well. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi again, Youreallycan and Hipocrite (and hi Collect), I appreciate your comments, although I feel I should point out I'm not a "paid advocate" but an employee of Strayer University. The suggestions I've been making are on behalf of the University, but are just one small part of my day-to-day job there. And to be very clear, I have not and would not offer payment to any volunteer editors here: it's important to me (and my employers) that unbiased volunteers are involved to ensure any edits are neutral.

On that note, can I ask why the Businessweek article isn't a reliable source for the sentence I suggested? The article was written at the time of the institute's launch (in June 2009) and describes how Welch had been planning the curriculum and was involved with faculty. If a change to the wording of the sentence is needed, I would be happy to do so, I'm just confused as to why you say it doesn't support it. Thanks, Hamilton83 (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please accept my apology Hamilton for such a confrontational situation - I accept your contributing in good faith. I think the objection is that the wording created a from the start till now appearance and the statement in the article doesn't totally support that position because its historic article - have can/can you find another article that verifies the comment or reword it a bit? - You  really  can  16:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The wording seems fine (and factual) to me. The Wired Academic article is recent. -- J N  466  16:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ow, ok. I was taking the objections at face value but if the comment is supported I will replace it, are there any continued objections?  You  really  can  16:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I continue to object. The Wired Academic article does would support a statement that Welsh was involved with hiring and teaching, though that appears to be video presentations, not actual teaching. The Businessweek article does not support an ongoing role at all. Hipocrite (talk) 16:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You are aware it is an online program? The proposed text makes that clear. As for Welch's involvement, it is described and advertised here: . Are you doubting the veracity of that page? -- J N  466  16:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not doubting the veracity of that page. Video presentations are not teaching, they are presentations. "The opportunity to speak with Jack directly through a live video conference at the end of each term," is not "actively involved with the ... students," nor was it the source cited. If his involvement is "weekly video addresses and one video conference per term," say that, not "actively involved with everything about the school!" Hipocrite (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The proposed sentence is, "Welch has been actively involved with the curriculum, faculty and students at the online business school since its launch." That closely emulates what the sources have said, and the involvement appears to be ongoing. Teaching an online course does involve video lectures -- that's how an online course is taught. -- J  N  466  17:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments here, everyone. I have an additional request for the Jack Welch article if anyone here is able to help: over the weekend I've uploaded and I'd like to add it to his article. Would it be possible for someone here to add this to the infobox in his article?

Regarding the sentence about Jack's involvement at JWMI: if there's consensus to return to the wording originally suggested, would someone here be willing to make that change? Alternatively, is there a tweak to the wording that would be supported by everyone here? Thanks in advance, Hamilton83 (talk) 18:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added the sentence above, and cited the page that describes the actual nature of his involvement with the students as well. -- J N  466  03:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help with the sentence and sourcing, Jayen, and also to Youreallycan who added the photo. Thanks also to everyone who commented here. I may have more requests later, but for now I've marked my above requests as resolved. If any editors here would be interested in helping me with further updates and improvements to the article, I hope to post these to the article's Talk page soon. Thanks, Hamilton83 (talk) 15:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Michael de la Force
Subject of dubious notability, without reliable sources. Multiple accounts working on this, with several acting as WP:SPAs, and an IP persistently removing maintenance tags. Would appreciate other eyes on this, perhaps for AFD if the PROD is removed. Thanks, 99.153.142.225 (talk) 01:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You can actually do all three steps of the AFD nomination yourself, if that is what you want to do. Simply create the article discussion page at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Michael de la Force,since you can create pages in talk namespaces, and get an editor with an account to rename it into the project namespace. Uncle G (talk) 12:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I've returned to my desk to see someone else has done it. 99.153.142.225 (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Now at Articles for deletion/Michael de la Force. (talk) 22:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've also started a thread at ANI . An apparent, if confused advocate for the article (voted delete, but is impugning motives of those who argue for deletion) is comparing the AFD process to a famous Wikipedia libel suit, and is making accusations of character assassination. 99.153.142.225 (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for adapting the rules of blanking as per WP: Courtesy Blanking — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.69.145 (talk) 03:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

If for any reason you refuse to allow use of the courtesy blanking in a discussion that is a moot point, please make that known fully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.69.145 (talk • contribs) 22:40, June 3, 2012
 * Courtesy blanking does not apply in this case. Further attempts to remove all mentions of Michael de la Force will simply result in you being blocked again. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 12:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Any way to get this page archived sooner?  Я ehevkor ✉  18:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Done &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 19:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)