Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive161

Bal Thackeray
This page has a massive amount of false information about a known person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samir shaikh (talk • contribs) 20:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Rob Ford
This page has had recent content added and re-added by a new user, and I feel there are significant WP:SYNTH and WP:BLP issues with it, but I don't have the time to deal with it properly right now. At any rate the article could do with a few more eyes. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 21:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

thomas locker
Thomas Locker was considered one of the last painters of the Hudson River School. He was called, at various times, "Asher Durant redux," the "son of Frederick Church," and other things both laudatory and descriptive of his work. An avid nature lover, with his widow, Candace Christiansen, a potter, weaver and teacher, he retired to the Hudson River Valley and worked there in relative seclusion. He occasinally travelled to New York or Boston to see paintings, and enjoyed colloquoy and correspondence with people in the art history world, especially Professor Rebecca Molholt of Brown.He raised five children, and helped raise several more stepchildren, helping two through law school, several to start businesses. He was a devoted family man. His interests other than painting included philosopy...and painting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.236.104 (talk) 00:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

ch. om parkash chautala ji
Article:-Om Prakash Chautala. Heading:- Controversies.

Report:- the content given in specified article(Om Prakash Chautala) containing controversies heading seriously violating the biographies of living persons policies. It should be strictly prohibited for all users using wikipedia or any other social sites. No one should have the permission to insult any other person publicly or to post any unsophisticated, unambigious, insulting material that violates the biographies of living persons policies. While this particular article is seriously viaolationg all the law about the biographies of living persons policies. So please have a great look at this article and remove it from the wikipedia. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.124.37.2 (talk) 03:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Article Om Prakash Chautala is totally libelous
ARTICLE : Om Prakash Chautala ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Om_Prakash_Chautala ) Heading : Controversies

Content given in Controversies portion of article Om Prakash Chautala wiki is totally fake, defamatory and libelous. It should be removed immediately.

Wikipedia is known for fair details about the article, but the article Om Parkash Chautala is totally fake.

Please reffer the link http://joininld.com/OpenPages/aboutSubThree.aspx to know about the actual Biography of Om Prakash Chautala and more over we call him '''Supremo Ch. Om Prakash Chautala ji''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manmohandeswal (talk • contribs) 03:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Everything you added was a copyright violation - you cannot copy and paste from other websites. I've had to blank it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

tiger porn star
please help me remove this article about me "tiger porn star". It is very offensive and has many untrue statements in it. The article was actually brought up in court for my child custody case and my children are seeing less of their father partially because of this material. I have tried to remove it myself and have had a long struggle with it. I just want the content removed because it is affecting my family! Any questions please call me directly at <- redact personal info ->. I just want it removed entirely. There is nothing constructive about it and it offends myself, my family, and my friends. The courts are using it against me. Please help me get rid of this content. Seriously, it is affecting my entire life right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Dauenhauer (talk • contribs)
 * Hi, Chris. I reverted the major edit you made because it basically redid the entire article and had no sources. If there are untrue statements in the article that are harmful to you, that is a serious problem. We strive to have all our biographis of living people be accurate and fair. However, if I'm not mistaken, this process of correction might take a little while. Anything you add must have a reliable source to back it up, and you must have a good reason to remove anything that already has a source. I'm sorry that this has caused you turmoil, but it might not be a simple process for you. I hope you will be patient and work with us to settle the issue.


 * A good place to identify problems with the article would be on its talk page. -- Jprg1966   (talk)  06:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, we have strict policies regarding biographies of living people - and on that basis I have just blanked the section entitled 'Involvement in Tobias death' as a gross policy violation. Hearsay regarding a death, and an interview supposedly in The New York Daily News used to 'source' material that isn't actually in the source at all? None of this remotely belongs in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I've trimmed out some more unsourced information that was a little too much detail for my liking. It should be considered whether to nominate the article for WP:AFD on grounds of notability. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking the same. Almost all of the sourcing was poor, and often didn't support the material it was being used for. - Bilby (talk) 12:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I also wonder if the unsourced, but lengthy, listing of appearances is necessary, since it's presumably just copied from imdb. (And therefore becomes out of date every time imdb is updated.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Nominated for AFD. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

BP
There has been an edit war going on at this article on the corporation regarding its former CEO John Browne. I reverted once when it struck me that the edits were probably a BLP concern, but the material has since been restored twice even as there is an RfC going on with regards to a related issue with the lede and a discussion specifically noting my concerns that these edits are a BLP issue. Basically, material claiming Browne's actions as CEO are the main cause for BP's poor environmental record is getting repeatedly added in prominent places such as the lede, as well as the top of basically any section that concerns the company's environmental record. The most recent addition did remove specific mention of Browne from the lede, but is easy to see as still obliquely referencing him and the mentions in other prominent parts of the article remain the same. Specifically, even though the environmental record section mentions incidents prior to Browne becoming CEO and after Browne's resignation, he is being noted right at the top of that section in the first sentence as a responsible party. I just noticed that another section for accidents also has these accusations displayed right at the top, despite the first accident mentioned in that section being from 1965. Although the material about Browne is sourced to a New York Times piece, the attempt to plaster it all over the article wherever it can conceivably stick seems to be skewed towards WP:UNDUE attacking of a single living person for the failures of an entire organization on a specific matter.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 05:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Wrong venue for this complaint. The UNDUE noticeboard (let's say WP:NPOVN) is where this concern should be taken, and even then I don't think a problem would be discovered with neutrality or undue weight. There is certainly no BLP violation; the WP:WELLKNOWN section of BLP is what is applicable here. For crying out loud, the negative information about Browne echoes what Browne himself wrote in Beyond Business, his memoir! John Browne was CEO of BP and he instituted sweeping changes. These changes have been seen as negative by observers from more than a dozen major news outlets and authors. The Browne changes (severe cost-cutting, deferred maintenance, reliance on contractors for dirty jobs) have continued to have a negative safety effect at BP even after he left the company.
 * "How BP's Browne Created Culture of Risk, Incompetence", 15 February 2011, Bloomberg
 * "Browne's BP cost-cutting led to Gulf spill, book says", 29 February 2012, Reuters
 * "Browne censured by US safety panel", 16 January 2007, The Guardian
 * "BP's Browne bears responsibility – safety panel", 16 January 2007, ICIS News
 * "How the Sun King sank BP: He was hailed for turning round a dying oil corporation. But John Browne laid the ground for this Gulf disaster", 2 June 2010, The Guardian, by investigative historian Tom Bower, the author of Oil: Money, Politics, and Power in the 21st Century
 * "July Fourth Outrage: British Gov't Elevates Disgraced BP Boss", 1 July 2010, The Daily Beast, by Tom Bower
 * "BP Ignored the Omens of Disaster", 18 June 2010, The New York Times. Quote: "...something was systemically wrong with BP's culture. Mr. Browne had built BP by taking over other oil companies, like Amoco in 1998, and then ruthlessly cutting costs, often firing the acquired company's most experienced engineers. Taking shortcuts was ingrained in the company's culture, and everyone in the oil business knew it." (emphasis added)
 * "Why the former BP boss's new government job is beyond parody", 2 July 2010, The Independent. Quote: "But critics have suggested that his [Browne's] determination to bear down on costs at BP, where he was chief executive in 1995-2007, contributed to the company's patchy safety record... Some critics attribute these [post-Browne] disasters to Lord Browne's drive to cut costs and expand BP."
 * "Reports at BP over years find history of problems", 7 June 2010, The Washington Post.
 * "BP's History of Oil Spills and Accidents: Same Strategy, Different Day", 7 May 2010, CBS News.
 * "BP's Dismal Safety Record", 27 May 2010, ABC World News
 * Amazon.com book review: Run to Failure: BP and the Making of the Deepwater Horizon Disaster. "Two decades ago, British Petroleum, a venerable and storied corporation, was running out of oil reserves. Along came a new CEO of vision and vast ambition, John Browne, who pulled off one of the greatest corporate turnarounds in history. BP bought one company after another and then relentlessly fired employees and cut costs. It skipped safety procedures, pumped toxic chemicals back into the ground, and let equipment languish, even while Browne claimed a new era of environmentally sustainable business as his own. For a while the strategy worked, making BP one of the most profitable corporations in the world. Then it all began to unravel, in felony convictions for environmental crimes and in one deadly accident after another. Employees and regulators warned that BP’s problems, unfixed, were spinning out of control, that another disaster—bigger and deadlier—was inevitable. Nobody was listening."


 * Run to Failure: BP and the Making of the Deepwater Horizon Disaster, by Abrahm Lustgarten. Quote: "'BP appears to have had a corporate blind spot relating to process safety', [U.S. Secretary of State] James Baker said, taking aim directly at John Browne: 'Leadership from the top of the company... is essential. BP has not adequately established process safety as a core value... While BP has an aspirational goal of "no accidents, no harm to people", BP has not provided effective leadership... Significant process safety culture issues exist at all five U.S. refineries, not just Texas City.'" (emphasis added)
 * "A Stain That Won’t Wash Away", 19 April 2012, The New York Times, by Abrahm Lustgarten
 * "BP's Sun King Lord Browne reveals his darker side", 8 February 2010, The Guardian. Quote: "Lord Browne has... suggested in his revealing memoirs published this week that his arrogance and a culture of complacency contributed to BP's failure to prevent a huge oil spill in Alaska."
 * "BP: 'An accident waiting to happen'", 24 January 2011, CNN Money. Quote: "Browne would define the future of BP, the entire oil industry... John Browne's legacy as CEO would be enormous—for better and worse. After taking over in 1995 he imposed a tough bottom-line mentality, ever focused on cutting costs... Browne's 'decentralized management system and entrepreneurial culture' had 'delegated' safety issues."
 * "BP's Troubled Past", PBS Frontline
 * "In BP’s Record, a History of Boldness and Costly Blunders", 12 July 2010, The New York Times
 * "http://www.propublica.org/article/bp-accidents-past-and-present", 26 October 2010, ProPublica, by Abrahm Lustgarten.
 * "Drilling Down: A Troubled Legacy in Oil", 1 May 2010, Wall Street Journal.
 * "Former BP chief brought in to axe jobs in Whitehall and save taxpayers billions of pounds", 1 July 2010, The Daily Mail
 * "BP Safety Record in Question Following Two High Profile Events", 2007, Maritime Executive
 * "For BP, a History of Spills and Safety Lapses", 8 May 2010, The New York Times
 * Amazon.com interview with authors Stanley Reed and Alison Fitzgerald regarding their book In Too Deep: BP and the Drilling Race That Took it Down. Quote: "The culture he [Browne] instilled at BP stressed financial performance and risk-taking while paying only lip-service to safety. Even before the end of Browne's tenure at BP in 2007, those shortcomings were revealed by the explosion that killed 15 people at the Texas City refinery in 2005. Tony Hayward vowed to fix those problems, but he was a protégé of Browne, and in the end couldn't do enough to change his predecessor's legacy."
 * In Too Deep: BP and the Drilling Race That Took it Down, by Stanley Reed and Alison Fitzgerald. Quote from page 98: "Getting rid of Browne was not enough to fix the entrenched troubles at BP or to restore its reputation... Many experts, adversaries and employees laid the blame at the financially-focused culture that Browne had created... which didn't put enough value on the safe operation of a complex and dangerous enterprise." (emphasis added)
 * "BP's Fall From Grace: Disgraced Oil Giant Was Once Favored by Green Groups", December 2010, Green Watch, by Kevin Mooney for Capital Research Center. Describes the media's history of gullibility in believing the positive words of John Browne while ignoring the negative results.
 * "BP and Public Issues (Mis)Management", September–October 2010, Ivey Business Journal
 * "BP = Beyond Petro-safety", 17 June 2010, The Washington Times. Quote: "...his [Browne's] mismanagement was at fault for massive oil spills in Alaska and a deadly explosion with nearly 200 casualties at a Texas refinery."
 * "The Inside Story of BP's Negligence on Oil Safety", 28 June 2010, Esquire. Quote from Mark Warren: "According to [Brent] Coon, both the 2005 disaster and the current hell in the Gulf [the Deepwater Horizon disaster] go back to 1999 and Lord Browne, who was then BP's CEO. It was that year that Browne ordered drastic budget cuts for all BP refining facilities worldwide. Now, refining crude is an expensive proposition, carrying many fixed costs, and so those cuts would come straight out of regularly scheduled reinvestments in BP's infrastructure. Meaning that the moment Lord Browne issued his budget order, BP had given thrown [sic] safety in favor of profit, and it was just a matter of time before something catastrophic happened. Texas City, BP's largest refinery, was first. Deepwater Horizon was next."
 * "Five Lessons From the BP Oil Spill", 3 June 2010, Harvard Business Review
 * "BP's Bubbling Cauldron: Some unattended HR issues regarding culture and leadership may have contributed to the Deepwater Horizon's tragic explosion and spill.", 1 March 2011, Human Resources Online. Quote: "...John Browne's focus on numbers, set the tone for the company, with shareholder value being the ultimate goal, often to the detriment of safety."
 * "The Real Scandal At BP", 13 May 2007, Bloomberg Businessweek. Quote: "John Browne's exit in disgrace from BP last week... likely is due to the conflict between how he actually managed the company and the public principles he claimed were the essence of BP's corporate character. Tragic mishaps in safety, environmental lapses, and questionable competitive maneuvers—not his lifestyle—eroded the company's self-righteous advertising image and Browne's legitimacy to lead."
 * "Previous BP Accidents Blamed On Safety Lapses", 6 May 2010, All Things Considered, PBS. Despite Browne's having promised to address safety issues, "BP fought to deflect blame down the chain of command while denying there were any larger issues about the company's corporate culture and its approach to safety."


 * I cannot see any concerns related to BLP in telling the reader that Browne was responsible for taking BP into an era of cost-cutting and safety violations. Binksternet (talk) 17:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * At no point have I suggested mention of Browne itself is inappropriate in this article or that criticism of Browne cannot be included on Wikipedia. It is the manner of mention in an article on the corporation that matters. Source-bombing does not change any of that and only makes responding to your claims more difficult because most are not willing to pour over nearly three dozen sources to suss out which ones are even reliable or support your position. Why do you insist on mentioning Browne in the lede, the top of the environmental record section, and the top of the accidents section? This is a company with over a hundred years of history and it has seen environmental disasters and accidents well before he became CEO and has seen them since he resigned. Given that, this is clearly the appropriate venue as BLP explicitly mentions WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK in the Balance section at the top of the policy page. Undue emphasis on negative material regarding a living person in a page on the corporation where he used to work is a BLP issue.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 17:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I read every one of the linked stories plus a boatload more. I brought here only those ones which identified Browne's leadership as causing BP's change in corporate culture, the change which resulted in so many fines and accidents and violations. If you don't want to read these sources then that is your prerogative. I submit that a failure to read them is the reason one might think three mentions of Browne's influence on cost-cutting as corporate culture is three mentions too many. I submit that anyone who has not read the sources should not be expected to understand proper weight and balance in the article. Binksternet (talk) 18:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Demanding that I read all of that only makes it seem like an attempt at stonewalling discussion. I have read some of those sources, but I am not about to read the whole lot and some I can already recognize as not being reliable sources or as being misrepresented.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 21:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * This issue might raise BLP concerns only insofar as it connects to a living person, but I do not see a BLP violation here. There's no way to avoid the process of hashing it out on the article talk page.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't simply "connect" to a living person. The material is all about a living person and that much is made clear from the comments by Binkster insisting on its inclusion. Binkster's comment on the article talk page about those sources consisting of "writers telling the world that Browne was responsible" clearly illustrates that this is about singling out a single living person as the source of all ills concerning the company's activities. Binkster made a new edit that actually went further by adding "Browne's corporate culture of cost-cutting at the expense of safety was even said to have extended beyond his resignation in 2007."--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 04:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

John McCarthy (Australian rules footballer born 1989)
A number of users are adding unsourced information regarding the possible death of this person. At the time of writing this, there has been no confirmation in reliable sources. Hack (talk) 06:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This has now been confirmed. Hack (talk) 07:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Tim Donnelly (politician)
This article has a section about an appearance in The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Too many quotes, and I'm not sure if that's necessary for a biography. --George Ho (talk) 07:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Patrick Haseldine
user:Patrick Haseldine is saying that there are factual issues in the article about him. I started to working through the points he raised, then noticed this comment that he's placed on the talk page:
 * "I then consulted the edit history of my Wikipedia biography and found that the offending edit which introduced the misleading quote was done by User:Socrates2008 on 3 June 2008 [2]. It is perhaps not too surprising therefore that Socrates2008 is now saying he doesn't see the rationale for removing from the intro a referenced quote that is misleading. Ideally, I would prefer to have the intro corrected by an independent editor to reflect the fact that I was dismissed for writing a letter to The Guardian (and for no other reason!)"

I'm not inclined to assist any further if he's not assuming good faith, and is unlikely to be happy with anything I do here to help anyway (the bad blood goes back to me outing all his sock accounts some time ago). So I'm going to step aside and let someone else to do the BLP check from here... Socrates2008 ( Talk ) 11:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Stephen Kinnock
There is a discussion about the permissibility of a source at Talk:Stephen Kinnock.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

aaron moores
was not born in Trowbridge Wiltshire, he was actually born in Singleton Hospital Swansea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.128.216 (talk) 21:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable source to confirm that? -- Jayron  32  21:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

How Alicia Silverstone feeds her baby
Discussion at Talk:Alicia_Silverstone.

Editors removing the information 17:41, 3 May 2012‎ 20:51, 2 September 2012 16:50, 3 September 2012 16:57, 5 September 2012 argue that the material is not encyclopedic (WP:NOTDIARY and WP:NOTGOSSIP) and WP:UNDUE.

The material was recently rewritten to resolve WP:V and WP:OR violations.

Editors adding the information argue that the topic is widely covered by reliable sources and that if the current source is not reliable that others can be found. --Ronz (talk) 17:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This appears to be a content dispute. What administrator action are you requesting? Black Kite (talk) 17:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)  Oops, sorry, had 2 windows open and thought this one was ANI.Black Kite (talk) 18:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps they should have also pointed to WP:RECENTISM. Just because something gets "widely covered" in the news cycle doesn't make it encyclopedic. Tons of outlets covered the fact that Justin Bieber got a car on his last birthday, but that doesn't mean it belongs in a bio. This looks more like novelty than notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)There is no BLP issue possibly here. This was explained on my talk page User_talk:Dream_Focus as well as on the talk page of the article in question. She mentions on her official website what she does, she has the video posted there, and she is quoted in the news media for saying its natural, etc. I also explained that the Daily Mail was a reliable source, and just because one editor doesn't like that major newspaper personally, doesn't change that fact, and that if he wanted to use a different source, I provided him to a link to 35 Google news archive search results, most of them about her chewing food to put in her baby's mouth. Every issue I believe I have addressed. Listing what a famous person believes in and promotes, and which she also gets ample coverage for in print and television news, is not gossip or a diary. Nor is there any possible undue weight here, if the information is confirmed by the actress herself, in her own words, on her official website, which I did add as a reference also to the article. More input please. Was any rule violated?   D r e a m Focus  17:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Just because she said it herself doesn't mean there isn't an undue issue. It's trivia, a novelty, not encyclopedic information. When she talks about potty-training later, will we put that in there too? Your reasoning seems to consist of "it got covered" and "lots of people covered it". Again, just because it got covered in the slow news cycle doesn't mean there is lasting notability. Forget the 10 year test the recentism essay suggest, try 5 years. No, nobody will care in 5 years.Niteshift36 (talk) 18:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe it will still be of interest to people to read in her article years from now. Others on the talk page seem to agree, have found additional sources.  Consensus on the talk page of an article determines what should be and should not be in an article.  The policies and guidelines have weight, but essays have none whatsoever.  We list her political beliefs, her animal rights beliefs, her belief in being healthier from a vegan diet, so why not her belief about feeding her child like this?    D r e a m Focus  19:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know the difference between a policy, a guideline and an essay, but thanks for acting like I don't. I honestly considered putting a note in parenthesis that I know it's an essay and not policy, but I decided that I shouldn't presume someone would be anal snarky enough to try to use that tactic. It still sums up the reasoning pretty well. While you are convinced that 10 years from now, people will care, I'm not and apparently I'm not the only one. Has she actively campaigned to make this technique more common or simply said she does it herself? I can see adding animal rights activities when she is out actively doing ads etc, but when she is just giving a glimpse into her child-rearing, I don't see the lasting notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement, nor has there ever been, that something must be of interest to people 10 years in the future. Lasting notability is not required for this content.   D r e a m Focus  20:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You're so hung up on a "requirement" that you are missing the boat as to what is encyclopedic. Even if you can do something, that doesn't mean you should do it. Literally hundreds, if not thousands, of media outlets will tell us what Taylor Swift wears at the next Grammy awards. However, unless something happens (wardrobe malfunction etc), it will most likely not be encyclopedic. (Yes, 10 years from now, 5 people might care). Now, to address your rebuttal specifically: WP:NOTNEWSPAPER (which is a policy, thank you very much) addresses that people and events need "enduring notability", so why shouldn't trivial facts at least be looked at in that light as well? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe it is material more worthy of the TMZ than the Wikipedia. Tarc (talk) 19:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There are some completely bizarre policy arguments being thrown out here. Miss Silverstone uploaded a video of her parenting practices, these practices were subject to considerable media coverage and she defended her parenting practices with that also being subject to considerable media coverage. In light of the considerable media coverage, how is this not the kind of information we would expect to find in a comprehensive bio on the actress? Rather than regurgitating the alphabet soup how about you answer that simple question?--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 05:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with his infernal majesty, esquire. We have dedicated coverage from the Christian Science Monitor, CBS ABC News , Fox News, TV Guide , International Business Times  and the Vancouver Sun. Another Christian Science Monitor article is titled "Alicia Silverstone: new poster mommy for pre-chewing baby food?" Reliable sources, not just tabloids, think this is important. It may not have risen to the level of Jenny McCarthy, but it's surely worth a sentence. --GRuban (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The concerns are WP:NOT, specifically WP:NOTDIARY/WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:NOTGOSSIP. Nothing bizarre about them. They are policy. Additionally, BLP tells to focus on high-quality sources and our core content policies.
 * Simply, the topic is trivia not worthy of mention in encyclopedia article. It's exactly like the example given of Taylor Swift' outfit for the next Grammy's: personal interest topics that the news picks up and echoes that have absolutely no lasting impact in the individuals' lives.
 * Contrast with Justin Bieber's change of hairstyle, which just barely goes beyond trivia because of the financial ramifications. --Ronz (talk) 18:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Really? Are you going to respond to my question? Stop rattling off policy like it means something and present an actual argument. How does widespread coverage of her parenting practices not merit a single mention in her bio?--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 20:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Ronz, those examples are totally unrelated to this situation. And specifically what part of WP:NOTDIARY/WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:NOTGOSSIP do you believe affects this?  We're not listing what outfits somewhere wore, or anyone's haircut, nor what they had for lunch on Sunday, or other such nonsense.   And the sources found are high quality.   D r e a m Focus  21:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

There appears to be a disjoint between the stated concerns about the material WP:NOTDIARY/WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:NOTGOSSIP, and the actual responses from those who support the inclusion of the material. The responses simply don't address the concerns. --Ronz (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No offense, but I think the response that you're simply throwing a lot of links around is valid. You don't seem to have read where all your links actually go, and seem to just be using them for the value of the word in the link itself. For example WP:NOTGOSSIP says "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing." Are you saying we're trying to include this information with any of those goals in mind? Presumably not. It looks you're using that link to say that Wikipedia is not for gossip. Well, this isn't gossip (idle talk or rumour about the personal or private affairs of others) - this isn't a personal or private affair since the subject brought it up herself, publically, on her healthy lifestyle blog, publically endorsing the practice, then she had an interview with a national publication specifically to defend that. It isn't rumour, since it's pretty clearly established. And it isn't idle talk since it's pretty clear all these publications, many quite respectable, have spent some serious effort to publish multiple articles about it. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER seems more to the point, but we can only make a judgment call as to whether this event will be of lasting value - we think it will be of sufficient lasting value to be worth a sentence or two. We're not demanding fourteen paragraphs. Finally I think it's ironic that the people objecting to a sentence about a controversial way of feeding a child use as counterexamples of things that would be of lasting value or encyclopedic: a wardrobe malfunction and a change of hairstyle. Surely a controversial way of rearing a child is of at least equal, if not more encyclopedic value, than those. --GRuban (talk) 19:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Ronz please don't dodge the question. Quote where in those places you linked to, where it says something relevant to this topic.   D r e a m Focus  23:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC. Multiple editors have responded here. I believe I've summarized the comments of multiple editors on both sides. Additionally I elaborated upon an example given by another editor. Multiple examples have been provided, both appropriate and inappropriate for article inclusion. Sorry that these few examples are causing confusion.

The WP:NOTGOSSIP concerns have been limited. Sorry for having caused confusion by bringing it up. I believe it more correctly applies to the content that was rewritten that was not verifiable and original research.

Seems the best response we've got on WP:NOTNEWSPAPER is that individuals feel that it will in the future be seen as such appropriate. When that time comes, we can address this again. --Ronz (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * One person agreed with you it somehow violated NOTNEWSPAPER, and three people said it did not violate that, and one additional person said they didn't think it belonged in the article. Now then, the coverage for this event was in major news sources over a month apart.  She bringing this to the public's attention, resulted in a Fox News article titled "Should you chew your food like Alicia Silverstone"  explaining the situation.  Many news sources have mentioned the healthy and unhealthy aspects of it because of her.  Seems rather notable to me.   D r e a m Focus  22:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it is important for you to explain why you think this specific piece of material is inappropriate in this specific instance since comparisons only have relevance if they are obviously similar to an outside observer or you can point out how the situations are similar. WP:NOTDIARY is the only applicable part of WP:NOTNEWS and what it is describing ("Not every match played, goal scored or hand shaken is significant enough to be included . . .") is clearly not equivalent to what we are talking about here. If a match or play was particularly significant in that individual's life *cough* Bill Buckner *cough* then it clearly belongs. Similarly, if a parenting practice is particularly significant either due to a large volume of contextual coverage, i.e. coverage that discusses the significance or relevance of the fact rather than simply reporting the fact (the comment above about Bieber getting a car probably falls under "simply reporting the fact"), or it has had a major impact on that person's life then it should be mentioned. This material at least satisfies the requirement for a large volume of contextual coverage--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 04:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Since no one can actually site anywhere in a specific rule violated by this, consensus is still what it was before someone came here apparently to forum shop. If someone who hasn't been reverted yet will kindly undo the last removal please, we can just end this.   D r e a m Focus  23:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Image at Down Syndrome
A picture of a ] is being used in an article on Down syndrome. Since we have no way of verifying the boy's identity, and, specifically, whether the boy has Down syndrome, this seems to violate BLP policy. It is basically non-reliably-sourced information (self-published and self-verified) about a living person in the form of a photo instead of text. Meets WP:BLPREMOVE. Churn and change (talk) 17:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It is totally useless as an image for the claim being made. Thus it falls into editorial discretion as to whether an image which does not help readers is utile. Collect (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The argument is not whether the image is suitable for the page - that argument for removal has been discussed ad nauseum on the page itself. Churn and change wishes to know whether it breaches BLP and Original Research boundaries and rules.  I don't think it does.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "ad nauseam". In my defence, I am a former Latin scholar.--ukexpat (talk) 19:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair point - I suppose spelling itself could be discussed add norzium as well... Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see how a picture of a boy for whom we have no name could be construed as a biography. Mangoe (talk) 13:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Kristen Stewart
Should we including details about her relationships with two men, or anything about this in their biographies, particularly since this all has implications for the marriages and relationships of a number of people? This is an encyclopedia, not a gossip column. PatGallacher (talk) 13:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, my two cents as a non-people/celebrity magazine gossip hound, this information has been something of an earthquake (yup i'm here in France, so it's been quaking around the globe).
 * I have not read or seen a single Twilight thingy, but I do know these people/this franchise have an obsessional/devoted fanbase and that lil ol' me is aware of the devastation etc that this has caused to a) their personal lives b) the Twilight franchise c) the sequel to Snow White and Lord Noggins or whatever d)and the public perception of the said stars. Hey, some wag even coined a new word "trampire" to celebrate all of this inanity, I just read the KS article and found that the info was very low-key and unsensationalist. It should stay, there have been public announcements and lots of associated drama with far-reaching consequences, this goes well beyond the confines of gossip, and into the realms of "life-changing, earth-shattering betrayal and deception for twilight fans all over the globe" ;-)  Captain Screebo Parley! 19:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * keep - its a classic case of WP:WELLKNOWN, has had major impact on the careers and relationships of those involved. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Richard Fowler (naturalist)
Some of the references on Richard Fowler (naturalist) are dubious; they're review sites which contain comments bordering on personal attacks. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hrm, it doesn't look so bad to me. But, we don't want those sort of sources - I've trimmed them out. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Reb Beach
Per the Reb Beach official web page, he did not graduate from Berkley School of Music. He only attended 2 semesters then quit. I would assume partly due to the fact never learned to read music (also from his official web page). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.94.80.178 (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Paolo Petrocelli
This page is an advertisement for its subject, probably written by himself, repeating word-for-word (and with the same tone) much of what is posted his own web site and that (as I have seen) he sends around in emails as unsolicited self-publicity. I am concerned but don't know what Wikipedia ordinarily does about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susiebaby (talk • contribs) 22:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It certainly looks more like advertisement than biography, and much of it is unsourced. I suspect it needs attention from someone familiar with musicology etc to determine whether Petrocelli meets our guidelines regarding notability, but meanwhile I'll tag it for inappropriate tone, lack of proper sourcing etc, and remove the more blatant puffery. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Michel Debré
This article contains these unsourced sentences: "He proceeded to create numerous canteens in schools that distributed free powdered milk for children." and "He personally fought to get Paris to create a second high school on the south of the island, in Le Tampon, when at the time there was only one, the Lycée Leconte-de-Lisle, that catered for many thousands of inhabitants." . Based on that we are led to believe he is a nice guy who helped the children of Réunion. In reality children from Reunion were transported by the French government to rural France during the 1960s and forced to work as slave labourers. Their parents got promised the kids would be looked after, would go to school, would be able to return to Reunion on holiday and would get jobs. Shouldn't that be mentioned in the article? Watch this YouTube movie for more info. 77.166.70.218 (talk) 00:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't know anything about this topic. Could you provide a WP:RS for this?  a13ean (talk) 00:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have, the YouTube movie was uploaded by Journeyman Pictures. 77.166.70.218 (talk) 00:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Reading French is hard for me, but if someone wants to confirm if other reliable sources confirm what this reliable source says you can find a list of newspapers and magazines on Jean Jacques Martial's website. He is one of the victims, and somewhat famous because he sued the French government. It doesn't matter if you read VSD or Libération or Le Figaro or France Soir or Le Nouvel Observateur; they all tell the same story. 77.166.70.218 (talk) 00:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Debré died in 1996. Why did you bring this issue to this noticeboard?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Did he? Oops, sorry, I should've checked that. Anyway, I think it is a sensitive and difficult subject, relatives of Debré and most of the victims are still alive, and I am hoping to get some help from the experts who make sure BLP's are correct. 77.166.70.218 (talk) 00:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Gerontas Pastistsios controversy
Could someone take a look at Gerontas Pastistsios controversy? It looks to me like this is an obvious BLP violation - taking accusations from a Facebook attack site and giving them a Wikipedia page. A bunch of other edits by User:Spartacus Marat look dodgy as well. I would like a second opinion; BLP problem or not? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The article itself appears rather ridiculous (and is up for AfD), however as the monk who is purportedly being satirized died in 1994 it appears it is not specifically a BLP concern.--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it from reading the archives of this page, specifically [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_31#If_he.27s_dead.2C_we_don.27t_care ], there are no special rules regarding the living and the dead as regards falsehoods or undue negative content or unsourced material - the difference is that the various policies are more quickly implemented in the case of living persons. To my way of thinking, this implies very fast action for the living, a bit slower for the recently deceased, and at some point it ramps down to no particular hurry. I do realize that this is a minority viewpoint, and that many people seem to think BLP only lasts until the body cools. (But does BLP apply to zombies?) :) --Guy Macon (talk) 18:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Psy (rapper)
Special:Contribs/Socomsniper33 has been repeatedly adding a statement that the subject (Psy) is dead, without citing sources, and I can't find anything that supports it. Notice left on his talk page. He's up to 7 reverts by now. --Robert Keiden (talk) 08:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

William Chace
An anonymous IP user keeps adding contentious info to the article William Chace about unethical conduct done at Emory University during the years that Chace was president of the school citing sources that do not mention Chace at all in any way. Said user claims the article only mentions positive things that happened at the school during Chace's presidency. This is true, but those are from sources that mention Chace by name. I myself have (previously declared) conflict of interest on this article, but the new material is clearly a violation of WP:Synthesis. I have just reverted this editor for the 3rd time in 24 hours, which would put me in violation of WP:3RR, except the material is clearly in violation of WP policy.

My last revert of material here. Talk page dispute with editor here .--WickerGuy (talk) 02:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

rani hamid not only women international master in bangladesh.
rani hamid not only women international master in bangladesh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.169.59.167 (talk) 00:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * According to Bangladesh Sangbad Sangstha, Bangladesh National News Agency, she is. http://www1.bssnews.net/aboutsportsgames.php Do you have a source that says otherwise? --GRuban (talk) 20:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Alicia Esteve Head
Hi. Can someone please take a look at this article? The IPs have been repeatedly removing sourced information regarding the facts that Head's claims have been exposed as fraudulent. In this most most recent edit, a few IPs have replaced the sourced claims with other claims about her whereabouts and state that she only worked in real estate. The real estate information is unsourced and If our BLP policy is correct, contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed, especially if potentially libelious. More information can be found by checking the article history and on this discussion. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, sourced one bit, removed some unsourced. Dougweller (talk) 09:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Edward Adamson
This article needs further amplification 10:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC) for example

"When Adamson started at Netherne Hospital his salary was just over £1,000 P.A. This was never increased to keep up with inflation. The excuse given was that his post was not 'officially recognised' as it was 'not on the official establishment'. A benefactor from the MRS Smith's Charitable Trust offered to double Adamson's salary and build storage space for the growing collection of patient's work, This offer was refused by the Hospital authorities. saying "It would put his salary above the doctor's" * Edward was therefore obliged to shoulder this growing financial deficit and subsidise it personally for many years. Had he not done so, the profession Art Therapy could well have atrophied and disintegrated later into Occupational Therapy*"


 * Documentary evidence to support this is now held by the Wellcome Trust. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kensingtonjohn (talk • contribs) 10:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * OK but is it published anywhere? If not, we cannot use it as a source.--ukexpat (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Leo Melamed
This article contains several unverified claims and there seems to be evidence of self promotion. The subject's consultancy firm is mentioned and several claims as to his importance and influence are unverified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.48.57.36 (talk) 11:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Terri Bonoff
Please help at Terri Bonoff, a local politician whose article has become an edit war zone. One user is taking pictures of her opponent's campaign literature, posting it to Flikr, and using that is a ref. Thanks, Abductive  (reasoning) 16:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've removed YouTube and Flickr being used as sources - unsure about American political websites so not sure what other ones are questionable. GiantSnowman 16:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Redsbest, LiteralTruth99, and 71.220.92.117 are all single purpose accounts, focused only on this article.  D r e a m Focus  16:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Payal Rohatgi
Issues over the birthdate at Payal Rohatgi have been going on since at least 2008 with debate over birthyears ranging from 1973 to 1985. At least 2 of these editors have claimed to either be, or have a close connection to the subject of the article (, ; the hotmail address in the second reply is also used on the subject's twitter feed, although that feed is unverified (although I have no reason to doubt it)). In 2010 the ensuing controversy left the date blank. Since then it's been added back and this wrangling over the date continues.

The 183.87* IP has been editing back to the 1984 (although in one case 1985 ) since at least July. The previous conclusion was to leave the year out.

The 1980 date is supported by an India Times bio page, and the IMDB page. I know the latter isn't generally considered a reliable source. The only sources I'm aware of that are still up are these two.

This article apparently has a 4 year + history of problems with this particular date, so it would be nice if we could get a satisfactory answer to this. In the meantime I've removed the date seeing as how that was the prior consensus, and there seems to be some controversy over it. Shadowjams (talk) 19:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Famous women often lie about their age trying to pretend to be younger than they are. So you can't trust the official source.  Do they have birth records online somewhere?   D r e a m Focus  19:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * As you can see from the message they left on my talk, they claim to be able to supply some information, but that seems more suited though to IMDB or some other source, rather than us, of course. And if they did that and someone else wrote about it, even in passing, great, we have a source now. I removed the date because it's under debate and I'd rather err on the side of caution, however it would be nice if we could settle this. I don't know how easy it will be to communicate with the IP because they're changing IPs, however I did leave a message notifying them of this discussion. Shadowjams (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula
Is being a Democrat a) relevant here and b) most importantly, is being a Democrat part of a Criminal Career? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see this as controversial. Consensus has agreed to the removal of the content and it was just removed by another editor. Lets wait and see if this is an issue needing to be dealt with at all.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have a question. Is there enough sources to redirect Sam Bacile to this page at this time?--Amadscientist (talk) 02:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Jay Thomas


Considering a recent spate of unsourced BLP violations, trivia and nonsense, and since there's a lot of unsourced content remaining, this could use a once-over from anyone who's knowledgeable on the subject. And perhaps some eyes on this in the future.... 76.248.149.47 (talk) 01:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Joseph Berrios
I noticed a level 4 warning to an IP (see User talk:68.250.73.249) followed by a very formal response from that IP complaining about the article and about Cluebot's reversions and warnings. Several highlights:


 * "I am writing with regard to the article on Cook County Assessor Joseph Berrios. After reviewing the article posted on Wikipedia we have found that much of the material posted is pejorative at best and most of the cited sources are editorials written by supporters of political rivals."


 * "We have also found that large sections of the text on Mr. Berrios’ article page have nothing to do with Mr. Berrios and are indictments of other people some of whom are deceased and cannot object to the material written about them."


 * "Please feel free to contact me so we might discuss the options of this office provided through your foundation. We look forward to hearing your response and stand ready to work with you to remedy this problem post haste."

I have not been involved with this article and know nothing of its history, Mr. Berrios or this IP; I just happened to notice the IP talk page.

Looks like a serious issue.-- A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Uh-oh. Took a 15-second look at the article's lede and it is very POV. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * This is the material the IP kept removing that HughD kept restoring. I have removed it for now. Some looks very inappropriate, some looks sourced and some is probably in a gray area. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * (ec) FWIW, I blocked User talk:68.250.73.249 for disruption and edit warring, and not necessarily because I think the material that he was removing shouldn't have been removed. That being said, I think there is a likely conflict of interest (the editor refers to his edits as the actions of "this office") and I agree with A.B. that the attention of some neutral, uninvolved editors on this article would be helpful.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Conflict of interest, yes, but there are special rules for this in the case of BLP issues; see WP:BLPEDIT. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with all the above - I've temporarily semi-d the article to encourage the IPs to discuss rather than keep blanking - I also note that there seems to be some missing sections already, someone may want to get the article cleaned up. I am open to unblocking the most recent IP that I've blocked if they are willing to discuss, any admin can feel free to undo that particular block. – Connormah (talk) 19:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * "most of the cited sources are editorials written by supporters of political rivals" Not true. The article is a fair representation of reliable sources. The article is very well referenced. Every sentence in the article is based on the lede from a reliable source. The main sources are the Chicago Tribune and Sun-Times, and other sources include the newspapers of record in Chicago, as well as Chicgo Magazine and the Chicago Reader, perhaps te 4 most significant print news in Chicago. Editorials where cited are indentified in text as editorials. In this subject preponderance of reliable sources may lead to a non-neutral, negative impression in any conformant wp article. Hugh (talk) 19:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * for the record may I respond to the IP ad hominim, I created thiss article and have editted it and i am not a political rival of the subject, what I am is an experienced wp editor with extensive blp experience, I am familiar with the issues. Hugh (talk) 20:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * "large sections of the text on Mr. Berrios’ article page have nothing to do with Mr. Berrios and are indictments of other people some of whom are deceased" The article mentions Mr. Berrios' mentors and predecessors in office by way of providing context to explaining his appointments and elections to office. Hugh (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Ironicaly, included in the IP's multiple page and section blankings was coverage from reliable sources of formal ethics investigations into the subject of this article and in particular Berrios' use of government resources for personal use, ironic since the IP maps to Cook County's main offices and during normal working hours. Please note that no contact information was provided. Hugh (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Quoting from our lede (before this material was deleted):
 * "Berrios shamelessly hired relatives and friends to government jobs under his control, complemented elected office with a private lobbying practice, used ballot access law to political advantage, and vigorously defended accepting campaign contributions from those doing business with his elected office."


 * Hugh, I thought the rule was that Wikipedia drew no conclusions and expressed no judgements of its own? That's a pretty hard-hitting finding on our part and it was smack in our lede. Am I missing something?


 * I don't know if this guy is a good guy or a bad guy. Even Kim Jong-un gets an article that meets our policies (WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR) and I suspect that, whatever your opinions, Mr. Berrios is no Kim Jong-un.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know if he is good or bad either and don't care. I know what rs sez. I know what the subject sez, the article has many direct quotes from the subject. There's no conclusion, no judgement, no OR. That sentence is in the intro and it is a composite from multiple rs. Is the word shameless over the top? I can find it for you in multiple rs wrt the subject, tho refs are not required in the intro. It is accurate. It is the crux of the notability of the subject, which is the goal of the intro graph. The subject not only hires relatives, divides his time between lobbying and elected office, keeps an election lawyer in his cabinet on the public payroll, and accepts campaign contributions from those doing business with his elected office, but also aggressively and vocally defends his right to do so, in court in person and in the press, which the word shameless was meant to capture. I will remove the word shameless, but I am going to revert to the most recent blanking. Most of the refs are links, please my fellow editors take a few moments to skim a few refs before you form judgements of the neutrality of the POV. thanks. Going forword I ask support from my fellow editors that we take it by cases and invite our IP to be more specific in identifying "large sections" and writing by political opponents and more favorable rs, etc. I say this recognizing this IP will take considerable coaching wrt wp culture, but i've dealt with worse and I'm up for it. thanks. Hugh (talk) 22:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * POV template added, POV discussion started on article talk page. Hugh (talk) 22:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I am writing with regard to the article on Cook County Assessor Joseph Berrios. After reviewing the article posted on Wikipedia I have found that much of the material posted is pejorative at best and most of the cited sources are editorials written by supporters of political rivals. I am extremely concerned that the editing process monitored by ClueBot NG has prevented this office from removing content that in one breath states that Mr. Berrios was the first Hispanic to hold office in the Illinois House then adds a quote from a less that reputable publication and author that negatively describes Mr. Berrios. Such slights and factual inaccuracies are pervasive throughout this article and most of the sources used or cited are editorials, written by individuals who have supported opposing political parties and candidates. I have also found that large sections of the text on Mr. Berrios’ article page have nothing to do with Mr. Berrios and are indictments of other people some of whom are deceased and cannot object to the material written about them.

I understand that monitoring of such a large body of work that is designed to be globally accessible and editable can be difficult and I also understand that the ClueBot NG system is not perfect. Our concern revolves around issues of fairness and accuracy and we hope that we will be able to work with your team to remove the false, derogatory, and in one section raciest tone and content currently posted in the article on Mr. Joseph Berrios.

Mr. Berrios is a public figure and as such, a certain amount of information should be readily available to the public and I am more than happy to provide such information. Our primary concern is that Wikipedia in this case is being bent to push a political agenda and thus the accuracy of much of the information contained in the aforementioned article is without merit and provides the public with a skewed view of Mr. Berrios.

All attempts to remove the derogetory information have been met with undo edits by the same administrator who created the negative posts HughD, even when the artical was placed in protect mode.

Please feel free to contact me so we might discuss the options provided through your foundation. I look forward to hearing your response and stand ready to work with you to remedy this problem post haste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.23.145.150 (talk) 03:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It looks like User:Orlady is dealing with the worst problems in the article.


 * User:HughD is not a Wikipedia administrator and has not claimed to be one. I am a little surprised that HughD was fortunate enough to escape being blocked for egregious edit warring (to 9RR in around five hours) against the IP and others. WP:BLP concerns are a potential exception to the WP:3RR rule - "I wrote the article!" is not such an exception. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * FYI:
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * This is morphing into a larger conflict over content in articles about Chicago politicians. I'd like some additional eyes on the articles before things escalate.
 * After working on Joseph Berrios (where User:Reaper Eternal followed up after I left off), I looked at several other articles about Chicago politicians and family members (mostly articles that HughD had worked on, as Chicago politics seems to be a major interest of his), and I found some other instances of serious BLP concerns -- articles that are largely compilations of accusations and innuendo against the article subjects. There is no disputing that Chicago politics are seriously corrupt, but IMO these articles have been WP:UNDUE. I've excised some content that I found excessively negative for BLPs and I've worked on revising/rewording some content to make it more balanced. However, User:HughD seems to feel strongly that his content is appropriate because it is reliably sourced, so he is restoring the content that I remove.
 * The current focus of contention is the article Edward M. Burke and Talk:Edward M. Burke. The article has had section titles like "Attorney in Burke law firm convicted of ghost payrolling on Burke's Finance committee" and "Campaign fund chair accused of running Hired Truck firm as woman-owned business" and text full of details of each incident. Here's some history of the article from the last 2-1/2 days, in chronological order (note that most of the early changes were small; the most recent reverts are the biggest):


 * 1) diffs of edits by Orlady; in the middle of this series is  one edit by HughD helpfully filled in a ref where I said one was needed
 * 2) HugoD diffs]
 * 3) Orlady diffs
 * 4) HughD diffs
 * 5) Orlady diffs
 * 6) HughD diffs
 * 7) Orlady diffs
 * 8) HughD diffs
 * 9) diffs of edits by Orlady and a bot
 * 10) HughD diffs
 * 11) Orlady diffs
 * 12) HughD diffs
 * Other articles that concern me include Joseph Berrios, where there has been no meaningful talk-page discussion since the page was full-protected; Patrick R. Daley; and (to a lesser degree than the others) John Rice (alderman). --Orlady (talk) 04:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Craig McEwan
My name is craig McEwan and i have never created a Wikipedia page although someone has and put libellous information on it. Could this please be removed ASAP

Thanks Craig McEwan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.248.84 (talk) 08:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * If you were referring to this edit, it's been reverted. Jonathanfu (talk) 08:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

dustin rhodes
They have in his personal life that he is married to John Cena as of December 18, 2002..... dont think that is correct — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.15.217.196 (talk) 14:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Where does it say that? Can you challenge it with a reliable source that says otherwise? Electric Catfish 17:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Nyron Dyer


Someone claiming to be the subject, editing under both and, continues to edit this article, introducing unreferenced information. I have tried explaining WP:RS, WP:V, WP:BLP and WP:AUTOBIO - no luck. I am at 3RR and would like wider eyes please. Oh, and I say "claiming to be the subject" because they seem more concerned with trivial information i.e. correcting a sporting position and height rather than adding information I, personally, would see as more important such as sports club history. Some of the claims added by "Mr. Dyer" are also factually inaccurate i.e. claiming that he played in qualifying matches for the 2010 World Cup - he didn't make his debut until a year after the tournament! GiantSnowman 14:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll help you out, and report if necessary. Electric Catfish 17:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Vik Muniz
Review request for Vik Muniz

His wiki page was previously created by his fun but contained inaccurate information, and references without proper citations. Request by Vik, we've edited this page, let us know if the update is appropriate.
 * No, it is not. Please read wp:COI and wp:SOCK. LeadSongDog come howl!  00:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Andrew A. Frank
Being edited by, a self-evident wp:COI violation. Some eyes are needed.LeadSongDog come howl!  00:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Being a COI editor does not actually exclude the figure from editing their own page. Just edting the page IS NOT a violation. More eyes is a very good idea, so that he knows he cannot get away with anything that would be a violation, but just editing in general isn't.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is the dif showing the changes he has made . I am not sure that there is anything wrong with these additions but will leave that to others.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Pre-adoption information
Some personal detail about Jessica Long's birthplace and biological parents, which IMHO might be a violation of the privacy provisions of BLP, has recently been added to the biography. An online source in Russian has been cited to support the added material. Firstly can someone fluent in Russian please verify the claims, and secondly we need to consider whether such information should be included in the article at all. Roger (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Doesn't anyone have anything to say about this? More detail has been added, in bad English, since my post above. Roger (talk) 17:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at the source via google translate, I'd say the source does verify the claims. I don't see a problem w/rt privacy, myself, at least in principle; I don't mean to endorse every detail of the current version, but the source seems okay and I don't see reason to object to having something about her adoption.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The name of the TV show is not relevant, nor are the names of her parents relevant absent stronger sourcing. Collect (talk) 20:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The Price Is Right (U.S. game show)
I wonder if we need such controversial detail about living people in this article. The article Mike Richards (producer) does not say anything about the lawsuit, yet Bob Barker articles does say much about lawsuits. --George Ho (talk) 15:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Alan Roberts (filmmaker)
From 2009 to 2011 Alan Roberts (filmmaker) was involved in production of a film called Desert Warrior. After the project completed filming, it was revised without knowledge of the participants as the 2012 film Innocence of Muslims. Lines and scenes were edited and altered from a story about "Master George" to a story about Islamic prophet Muhammad that many consider insulting. Some people online are calling for Roberts' death, so I feel his bio and the Innocence of Muslims article should make it perfectly clear that he was not involved in the version currently circulating. "Sam Bacile" has taken credit in 2012 interviews as director of the inflammatory version. BLP is crystal clear on this, and how we describe Roberts' earlier involvement has significant real-world implications for his safety. I'd appreciate if a few other editors keep a watch on the articles on the film and on him. Several editors insist on naming him director of the inflammatory version, but this is nether fair nor accurate. Wikipedia should not be making statements that could put his safety in jeopardy. Jokestress (talk) 23:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * VICE magazine is not RS for biographical claims, and, in fact, does not make claims of his name as "fact." The material purporting to give his "real name" is thus improper under WP:BLP especially considering te contentious nature of the claims. There is no reliable source given for him seeking anything inflammatory, thus such claims are not allowed by WP:BLP Collect (talk) 00:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Barry Pepper

 * Not a major thing, but an IP has been adding an unsupported ethnicity to this bio. Not replying to talk page prompts (even these new and very pleasant user talk templates we have now).  I'm at 3rr, and they seem persistent.  A few more watchers should suffice. (Pepper may well be Jewish, of course.  Haven't found anything to support it though).  The Interior  (Talk) 22:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Added to my watchlist - ping me if you think I've missed anything. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 03:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Heritage Internet Technologies
I stumbled across what appears to be a credible complaint made at Talk:Heritage Internet Technologies of malicious, libelous editing. I don't have time now to do it myself but someone should investigate it.

-- A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I have semi-protected Heritage Internet Technologies for one week. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Soledad O'Brien
Recent edit appears to rely heavily on blogs and non-neutral sources. The appearance is that a non-neutral user, with the purported agenda of amending a perceived liberal bias, is constructing a controversy section from a mixed bag of references. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 01:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So it is your assertion that a user must be neutral in order to participate in Wikipedia? Silly me, I thought it was our contributions to Wikipedia that were required to be neutral. Perhaps you can point me to the policy which requires that Wikipedia users think and feel "neutral"?  Bobinisrael (talk) 05:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * ...and in the process, violating WP:BLP policy on the talk page - see the not-really-very-NPOV-named Talk:Soledad O'Brien section. And yes, it's User:Bobinisrael at it again... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Troublesome, per this talk page section, in contrast to the article, which looks pretty decent, and even-handedly cites charges of bias from both sides. In the rush to take offense numerous articles, editors, and subjects of biographies are being pilloried. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 02:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's quite "troublesome" that a user is here to challenge the dominant leftist bias of Wikipedia. Not as troublesome as completely vandalising an article and deleting an entire section filled with legitimate sources derided as "conservative blogs".  Breitbart.com, Dailycaller.com, Humanevents.com, Huffingtonpost.com, PBS.com, Mediaite.com, Theblaze.com, Nationalreview.com, Townhall.com, and Washingtonpost.com, and Redstate.com are all legitimate news sources. Bobinisrael (talk) 04:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If you believe that Wikipedia has a "leftist" bias, then the correct approach is to get the policy changed rather than inserting edits that you know are in violation of current policy. TFD (talk) 05:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, The Four Deuces, please point of specifically where my edit to the Soledad O'Brien article violates current policy.Bobinisrael (talk) 05:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Frank L. VanderSloot
Edits are being made with justification as follows:
 * Your lone objection does not constitute a consensus. The source in question was not discussed on this page prior to now. Furthermore, there was also a second source that I cited (also never discussed here) which you deleted without explanation, along with the accompanying text. If you are debating the reliability of one particular source, than begin a discussion here about it and see if you have consensus to delete it. In the meantime, you have no basis for edit warring over the text in question that refers to the company as an MLM. Furthermore, you hamfistedly deleted other information (such as the text about the DSA) that was completely unrelated to the MLM "issue" (and the source you are questioning) without offering any reason whatsoever. If you have an issue that you think requires any further discussion, then you can state it here and see if it gains any traction. In the meantime, I'll ask you nicely to stop deleting the text, because if you keep doing it, I;ll have to request that you be blocked.

The problem is that the sources include such wonderful expositions of "fact" rather than "opinion" with names like Get-Rich-Quick Profiteers Love Mitt Romney, and He Loves Them  which might possibly not be  a reliable source for contentious claims of fact, which the other editor does not seem to accept. The BLP was stable from 27 July until this new editor appeared, and I suggest that the discussions n the topic did, in fact, reach a "consensus" and more specifically that it is up to him to get a new consensus if he wshes to make contentious claims using opinion pieces. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a straw man argument -- it's not a contentious claim that the company is a multilevel marketing company. I've cited 4 sources that all refer to it directly as such, and yet for some unfathomable reason, you're using your objection to only one out of those four references as a reason for removing neutral text from the article (i.e. simply referring to the company as an MLM). The company has also long been listed on WPs list of MLM companies (along with an appropriate citation). I wonder how many sources that refer to the company as an MLM would be needed to placate you, as there many available -- even the FTC refers to the company as an MLM. And what "new" consensus are you talking about? There was never an old consensus. And why sarcastically use quotes around words like "wonderful", "facts", and "opinion" to gin up your argument about that one source? That's not being neutral. The lone source you're disputing is Mother Jones magazine; they do excellent investigative journalism and have a respectable reputation, so objecting to the title alone seems like a mighty thin premise. This all looks a bit whitewashy and like WP:OWN to me. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, did you notice the part at the top of the page where it says you should notify other editors if you talk about them? My invitation must have been lost in the mail eh? Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The post is about the article, not about you, although you do seem to have made an awful lot of edits to it.  And I would note that the other editors on that article seem to also dispute your edits, which suggests you do not have WP:CONSENSUS on your side for the stuff you added (including clearly political silly season articles).  Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The current edit being pushed is:
 * VanderSloot, in a newspaper advertisement,[19] devoted several paragraphs to establishing that Peter Zuckerman, a reporter who had written articles about pedophiles being permitted to work with Boy Scouts in the Grand Teton Council,[20] was gay.[21]

Where the [20] is the link to the lost of articles by Zuckerman, and does not mention VanderSloot in any way whatsoever. I suggested the list of Zuckerman's articles belongs in the Zuckerman BLP and was greeted with:
 * Despite the overwhelming evidence I presented above,[36] Collect came along today and just decided to delete "MLM" from the article anyway without any further explanation on the talk page.[37] There's a very disturbing pattern of partisanship and WP:OWN on this article, and Collect's latest actions are a stellar example. This doesn't come across well, particularly since several reliable sources have described Vandersloot as been being overly aggressive in his attempts to stifle criticism. He's gone after several journalists and bloggers several times, and when he did, it made national news. It's a sensitive issue, and the optics of a few editors here trying to game the system could generate adverse PR for Vandersloot, so it is completely unacceptable. It could be perceived that they are acting on behalf of Vandersloot, regardless of whether or not they truly are. If these shenanigans continue (such as the earlier vote stacking using SPA/sock puppets and Collect's latest edit), I won't be pussyfooting around and wasting time with WP:3 or WP:DR; it;s a serious enough matter that I will be compelled to take this straight to WP:ArbCom and request that the offending editors be permanently blocked. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC) 

Which I consider to be a teensy bit tendentious on his part. Especially the silly claim that I am exerting "ownership" on an article or that I am an SPA. The issue here, however, is whether the Zuckerman list of articles is properly stuffed into the VanderSloot BLP. The editor also inserts such wonderful cites as  "Get-Rich-Quick Profiteers Love Mitt Romney, and He Loves Them Back", Right-Wing Billionaires Behind Mitt Romney and  "Pyramid-Like Company Ponies Up $1 Million for Mitt Romney" as sources for claims of fact about VanderSloot and his company. I have the funny feeling that such named articles are opinion pieces . Collect (talk) 16:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears the link to a list of articles has been replaced with a link to the relevant article by Zuckerman. Are there any other outstanding content related concerns?  a13ean (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you saying the Zuckerman article refers in any way to VanderSloot? If not, then it is a really bad source for any claims in the BLP on VanderSloot.  Meanwhile, I consider the use of "opinion articles" in general to be of dubious value in a BLP.  Collect (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I said that you’re behavior constitutes WP:OWN and I stand by it. I didn’t say that you were an SPA, I provided specific links to who the 3 SPAs/socks were and you weren’t among them. Not only that, but I already corrected you on this scurrilous charge on the talk page, and yet here you are repeating the same histrionic lie.


 * Furthermore, despite your claim that I added the following -- “VanderSloot, in a newspaper advertisement,[19] devoted several paragraphs to establishing that Peter Zuckerman, a reporter who had written articles about pedophiles being permitted to work with Boy Scouts in the Grand Teton Council,[20] was gay.[21]”, in reality this has been in the article since at least June without being contested. All I did was identify the reporter by name (Zuckerman) and added the link Zuckerman’s article. The obvious rationale for including the link to Zuckerman’s articles was already explained to you -– Zuckerman’s articles were already mentioned as the focus of Vanderslot’s attack ads, so of course it only makes sense that there is a link to them. Nonetheless, for some unfathomable reason, you unilaterally deleted the link.


 * Nor did I insert "Pyramid-Like Company Ponies Up $1 Million for Mitt Romney"; that article, published in Mother Jones (a well respected source) has been linked in the article since May 27 and I didn’t put it there. Not only that but you know full well that I didn’t put it there because you immediately tried to revert the edit back in May when it was first added and you were arguing with the editor who added it, (I didnlt make any edits on the article until a few days ago), and your reversion was undone. Why do you think it’s OK to continually tell lies? And why are you still chafing so about the title “Right-Wing Billionaires” – it’s neutral, it describes Vandersloot to a T (he is a right wing billionaire), and there is no basis for your arbitrary deletion of the link. This too was explained to you already, and yet you didn’t hear it. Your dishonesty truly sucks. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Deletion required by WP:BLP is not "arbitrary". You added Zuckerman's name and the link to stories which have no relation to VanderSloots's biography.   As for your personal attack for continually telling lies I ask you to redact that scurrilous and uncollegial post per WP:NPA.  Collect (talk) 12:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Deletion is certainly not required and merely repeating it over and over again doesn’t make it so. Zuckerman's name and his article have a very obvious relation to Vandersloots's biography. The WP article refers to Vandersloot’s attack ads against the author of the Boy Scout case -- the author was Zuckerman -- so of course it’s warranted to identify him by name and include a link to the article that was the focus of Vandersloot’s attack. As for your other comment, it was not a personal attack but a simple statement of fact, and I made the case to clearly support what I said. So rather than asking me to redact my comment, you should be acknowledging that your charges were erroneous and apologizing for having made false statements about me. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

judicial elections
Is this edit proper in a BLP? It appears to me to seek SYNTH in making a sideways allegation that the person has "bought judges". In short, I suggest it may violate BLP both for VanderSloot and for the judges named. Will someone have a closer look please? Collect (talk) 21:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear on what the problem would be. The sources name VanderSloot and the judges.  Why wouldn't we do so?  And, the article doesn't say anything about Vandersloot buying judges.   Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you not read how the edit is worded? Cheers.  The section is SYNTH seeking to tie VanderSloot to improper buying of Judges pretty clearly -- and I know of no other BLP where such contributions are so linked. frinstance:
 * In 2000, VanderSloot was the primary contributor, donating $50,000, to Concerned Citizens for Family Values for an attack ad campaign against incumbent Idaho Supreme Court Justice Cathy Silak, who was running against Republican challenger Daniel T. Eismann
 * Where the source is  specifically labelled as editorial commentary, and is not a "news article."   In fact the payoff for the editorial is How can anyone expect to get a fair day in court if he goes up against VanderSloot or his company before a judge whose campaign benefited from VanderSloot's support?  which I consider likely to be opinion and not fact.   is also an editorial with the tagline of If you buy radio stations, who needs attack ads?,  also used as a "source" here is not even a "reliable source" at all -- it is a pdf of an ad -- and essentially can only be used to prove the ad exists - but other than that, it is not a source for "fact" in any case.   Its use here is strictly in the cause of SYNTH and not in the cause of an encyclopedia BLP.    So we are down to the final "source"  which  manages to have VanderSloot being surprised that a group he gave money to did not comply with all regulations.  Not really a lot to hang the entire section about buying of judges on, really!  Collect (talk) 01:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The text of the WP article doesn't say or imply that VanderSloot "bought" judges, so there is nothing that could have been synthesized. It says that he financed ads on behalf of certain candidates. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * While the only "synth" taking place here is happening in Collect's own head, he is correct that these are opinion pieces and so cannot be used for statements of fact (or, rather, can only "rarely" be used in this way, per WP:NEWSORG). So, unless better sources can be found I'd agree that most of this passage should be removed.  (No-one would want Fox News commentators to become reliable sources here...)  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, understood. There are a few good additional sources that address the issues, so with those, a few tweaks, and proper attribution of statements, WP:NEWSORG shouldn't be a problem. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Earl_Dixon_(musician))
The individual represented in this article does not appear to meet the required Wikipedia guidelines of 'notability' as to merit the creation of a dedicated article. This article does not appear to be about a singular individual whom has yet to achieve any notable or significantly profound achievements. I presume this articles only function is most likely that of self-promotion.

List of Hindus persecuted in Pakistan
and the 3 people named in the list, Asha Kumari, Rinkle Kumari, Lata Kumari appear to be likely BLP violations that probably should go to AfD as failing WP:NOTE. Any other opinions? Dougweller (talk) 13:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Barry Sanders
Article seems unreliable. It says he resides in West Bloomfield, MI. A few sentences later, it says he lives in Oklahoma City. Huh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.11.209.168 (talk) 01:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The unsourced information has been removed. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Lisa Miller (Psychologist and Scientist)
Maybe some of you are also interested in spirituality. Perhaps you'd like to have a look at the complaint on the talk page linked above, where a problem with Lisa Miller (parapsychologist) is signaled. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've moved it to Lisa Miller (psychologist), see talk. Fences  &amp;  Windows  09:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me, Fences. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism of the Soledad O'Brien biography page.
I have added a paragraph to the "Controversies" section of her page, originating from an exchange she had with Joel Pollak on her show. AndyTheGrump has vandalised the page by completely deleting the section, while deriding the sources I've used to cite facts as non-neutral. The facts are not in dispute. I have warned him not to vandalise the article again, but predictably he has. The sources used to cite the facts and opinions were Breitbart.com, Mediaite.com, Dailycaller.com, Theblaze.com, Washingtonpost.com, PBS.com, Humanevents.com, Huffingtonpost.com, Townhall.com, Nationalreview.com, and Redstate.com. It should also be noted that opinions regarding critical race theory rejecting Soledad O'Brien's false characterisation of it (the core of the controversy) come primarily from two lawyers who graduated from Harvard Law. Bobinisrael (talk) 05:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Will someone please explain to this halfwit how WP:BRD works, what WP:VANDAL says, and why we aren't interested in his bullshit. His entire brief editing history consists of nothing but a string of attacks on the integrity of Wikipedia contributors, along with a crusade against a 'leftist bias' that apparently includes everyone on the planet... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In other words, you cannot address a single problem with the entire paragraph you continue to delete. If you have a specific point to make, make it.  Since you don't, however, you just continually vandalise the article despite it being diligently written in an NPOV manner with legitimate sources.  You can have a problem with my demeanour and candour, I'm not here to make friends.  What you cannot do, however, is vandalise articles because you have a personal grudge against me.  Either raise specific issues about the paragraph I composed, dispute facts and opinions that are sources, or cease and desist from your continuing vandalism.  Whining about my dissenting political orientation DOES NOT justify vandalism.  Bobinisrael (talk) 05:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Go boil your head. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * To whom it may concern, I composed the paragraph in question in the same manner as this paragraph. I am confident that an honest review of these paragraphs will instantly reveal that they are well-written while closely adhering to all relevant Wikipedia guidelines and polices.  The composition of both paragraphs is NPOV, the facts are not in dispute (the actual relevant videos are sourced), and the analysis of the subject matter at the core of the controversy regarding Soledad O'Brien, critical race theory, primarily comes from two folks who are qualified to do so.  Cheers.  Bobinisrael (talk) 06:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Whatever the merits, Bob's wandering into 3RR territory. I also find it funny there's a reference to an "edit war" back in March, which there was some apparent new accounts and IPs coming in, although it was hardly a notable edit war by the standards of many political/news person articles. If there's consensus for a criticism section then a smaller version of that issue would seem to be relevant, however the treatment given it by bob seems to violate WP:UNDUE as is.
 * Basic advice about Criticism should be noted here. Discussion of it in the article is relevant, but it's pretty obvious why Bob's POV pushing ended up here. Shadowjams (talk) 06:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You realise the reference to the Wikipedia edit war that occurred after Pollak's appearance on O'Brien's show is the least important sentence of the entire paragraph, right? If you think there's undue weight given to that entire ONE SENTENCE which is cited and described as such by a legitimate source, then please try to substantiate your statement by comparing this event to other edit wars that arose under similar circumstances.  Otherwise, the sentence should remain.  More importantly, the persistent deletion of the entire paragraph without ANY specific criticisms constitutes vandalism.  You can't just throw around Wikipedia policy acronyms to justify deletions of entire sections without specifically connecting them to a grievance with either the way the content is composed (and I composed it in a perfectly NPOV, which is evident) or the sources cited (all are reliable sources).  Of course, AndyTheGrump and his sidekick 76.248.149.47 have not done either.  Bobinisrael (talk) 07:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not "POV pushing", it's a desire to add an entirely relevant controversy to a media personality's page that is conspicuously absent. I am not obligated to pretend to be "neutral" in talk pages, what matters is whether or not the content I contribute to the body of an article complies with Wikipedia policies and guidelines.  Unlike many others on Wikipedia, I do not feel compelled to maintain a false veneer of "neutrality" (which doesn't exist, anyways) about who I am.  My contributions to articles, on the other hand, are NPOV and compliant with Wikipedia guidelines and policies.  Nobody has yet to provide any specific justifications for the deletion of the paragraph demonstrating where either the composition of the paragraph or cited articles violate any Wikipedia guidelines or policies.  The real POV pushing is coming from those who wish to cleanse the article of this controversy, while cynically projecting their own motives onto me.Bobinisrael (talk) 07:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't have to be neutral, only your edits. For the record, I don't think your edits are "vandalism" by any stretch, nor do I think it's appropriate to call the removal vandalism either. It's more like a low-grade edit war. My undue comment applied to the point as a whole, not to the edit warring part, that was more of a curious aside. I should have made that more clear.


 * Anyway, like I said bob, I think if the criticism section is to stand, some coverage by the National Review (I didn't check if it was just the blog or the magazine... that distinction probably matters as far as RS goes) suggests there might be something there worthy of some small inclusion. But that paragraph outshadows everything else in that section, and many of those sources are to political blogs. Make your argument on the basis of reliable sources and notability. This discussion about personalities doesn't help reach consensus.
 * The paragraph DOES NOT overshadow everything else in that exception, outside of it being much better written and sourced. It is not any longer than the other two segment under the same section.  NONE of the sources I cited are simply "political blogs", they ALL have editorial oversight.  Bobinisrael (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Should I mention I've never edited that article (unless it was run of the mill vandalism reversal... i haven't checked. certainly I haven't recently). Shadowjams (talk) 08:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, the "edit warring" doesn't bother me that much, at least not at the level it's at right now. I'm not a stickler for 3RR, but that also assumes some attempt to engage. I know there are talk page discussions going on, but they don't seem to be going very far towards consensus, which if we want to have any semblance of order on politically charged topics, is critical. Shadowjams (talk) 08:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no point in me undoing the vandalism from AndyTheGrump, since he will only vandalise the article again unless he is warned by some sort of administrator not to do so. That is why I am here, to solicit the assistance of an administrator to compel compel AndyTheGrump to cease and desist with his vandalism.  Otherwise, this is an entirely fruitless endeavour.  There is nothing controversial here, I composed a high quality segment written in line with all relevant guidelines and policies and it is being deleted by another person committed to vandalism.  Bobinisrael (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

- Bob, I suggest you read Bombardment, and I also suggest you stop descriving other editors who have a different opinion to you as "vandals." I suggest you both use the article talk page to discuss content disputes. GiantSnowman 14:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have something specific to say, then say it. Clearly demonstrate where I engaged in bombardment. If you can't do that, you're throwing around allegations that I am violating Wikipedia guidelines by invoking each one you can remember and hoping one of  them will stick.  The fact with the most references supplied was that Soledad O'Brien was criticised for mischaracterising critical race theory, and the source WERE NOT redundant.  Up to this point, not ONE person has demonstrate any clear reason why ANY part of the segment I composed should be deleted, let alone the entire paragraph.  I have seen other comments you have made about me, and you are not here to assist in improving the quality of the article, rather to join in with your ideological allies to assist in silencing me.  Bobinisrael (talk) 15:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * With this edit you added 7 refs in a row - that is the bombardment I talk about. Did you even read the essay I linked you to? GiantSnowman 15:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * From the Wikipedia policy of bombardment - "Adding additional references is good when each source has a lot of information of its own. Since one of the purposes of references is to provide the reader information beyond what the Wikipedia article says, providing more sources of information is a good thing. Use of the same source to verify different information in different parts of an article may be necessary.". Even if part of my edit did constitute bombardment (and it most certainly does not), you need to be specific.  Which sources have I used that are redundant?  Moreover, how does that justify deletion of the entire segment?  If you were honest, you'd be chastising AndyTheGrump and the rest of my entourage of detractors for unjustifiably deleting an entire segment with nonsensical invocations of Wikipedia policies that have STILL not be specifically and appropriately connected to any component of my contribution.  Anyways, it is clearly a waste of time continuing down this path with the rest of you, I find an administrator to have a look at this and make an honest judgment.  Bobinisrael (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I like the 'ideological allies' business, as well as being referred to as another account's 'sidekick'. The conspiracies multiply..... 76.248.149.47 (talk) 15:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It makes a nice change from accusations of "leftist agenda." GiantSnowman 15:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Should we tell him that we're sitting around an artificial wood fire at Starbucks, dressed in LLBean outerwear and plotting the demise of venture capitalism? 76.248.149.47 (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Marcia Falkender, Baroness Falkender
An edit war (slow but sustained over years) about Marcia Falkender, Baroness Falkender includes edits apparently made by or on behalf of the subject herself, removing allegedly defamatory (but sourced) content. There is a risk either that defamatory content remains in the article history (if the removed material is indeed inaccurate); or that conflicts of interest affect WP:NPOV (if the removed material was in fact accurate). — Richardguk (talk) 13:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Many of the changes refer to libelous material, like this one: that specifically refers to previous litigation in the UK over the material. I think this needs to be taken to WP:ANI immediately per WP:NLT. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 19:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * IP notified. GiantSnowman 19:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think the historical position is settled on the allegations, and we should report on the controversy. They are still written about and debated. I would find it a bizzare situation if the "Lavender List" allegations could be written about by reliable sources, yet the debate not covered on Wikipedia. I second 2001:db8 per NLT, but the "defamatory" accusation seemed to be aimed at The Independent article. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 17:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Tim Blixseth
In the article several people are linked to the following comment under; Litigation, bankruptcies and defaults, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Blixseth&diff=513404319&oldid=513404017 Changes has been made but not to satisfaction. Although some might be true, this still reads as if all parties are a part of the above. Which is simply not true and certainly defamatory. I have tried to edit but to no avail.

Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptinitin (talk • contribs) 21:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I just took a quick glance at the article and dont have time to do any deep dive now, but it looks like there are some serious issues that need to be addressed here if anyone has the time. -- The Red Pen of Doom  22:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Ankit Fadia
Previously reported here, looks like a lot of the material that was removed has been restored to the article. I've just removed a link to a Facebook page called "We Hate Ankit Fadia" from the article, this Facebook page links back to the Wikipedia article so that's probably what's bringing the subject's opponents to it. January ( talk ) 15:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you need any more help with the article? Electric Catfish 16:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed the worst of it but if others could take a look and see if they think any more clean-up is needed that would be great, also any help keeping an eye on it would be appreciated. January  ( talk ) 18:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed the three tags at the top of the article as they were all added by the same editor without the corresponding talk page discussion opened. Tags of this nature can themselves introduce a negative POV to the article, so its important that they are used properly.--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Fathali Oveisi
All information posted about this Iranian actor (Fathali Oveisi) are false. I am part of this actors immediate family and find this a mockery of him. From his name, to his birthplace, to his parents, family and career - the whole thing is false. I have tried deleting this before but whoever has posted this keeps reposting it so I would appreciate if this false biography would be deleted. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.232.249.114 (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Regardless of whether such information is false or not, there is no reliable source cited. The only 'source' given is a link to IMDb, which doesn't meet out reliability criteria, and it is thus questionable whether the actor meets our criteria for notability. I'll look into this, and if I can't find proper sources to justify the article, move it for deletion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Justin Verlander
✅

Under Minor Leagues section, third sentence it reads "Verlander balled a woman when he was in the minors."

Huh? I'm assuming someone snuck an offensive comment on his page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.217.37.58 (talk) 20:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It has been removed. -- The Red Pen of Doom  20:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Bruce Braley
A vandal posing as the article's namesake made a lengthy, biased edit to the article. This editor, BruceBraley, is not the living person about which the article is written. This editor is new and has only made one contribution in total. I have already removed the POV content and have requested page protection for the article, which is about a living politician currently running for office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by H acton (talk • contribs) 23:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What you removed seems like properly verified content to me. If you wish to claim vandalism, you'd better prove it, and the same goes for the socking accusation. Drmies (talk) 02:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, that editor is now blocked as a sock. But that doesn't mean that what you removed is POV vandalism--as far as I can tell it's a list of what was done by the subject in Congress, which I believe is acceptable in such articles. What is the problem? Drmies (talk) 03:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Anti-Serb sentiment
G'day, I have placed some material on the talk page of this article here which is an indictment by a well-known historian Marko Attila Hoare of some of the contributors to a website being used as a source in this article. Another editor has implied that I may have strayed into the WP:BLP redzone, and I wanted some guidance. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Klemen Jaklič
More eyes on this, please; we have a user edit-warring to remove his nationality despite clear evidence, and also edit-warring over his name. (It appears in sources both with and without the diacritics, sometimes with one source using both versions; to me, it seems that the version with diacritics is more common and that some of the use of the version without is due to web formatting stuff, but other input would be good.) –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The venice.coe.int document, the only one which mentions his citizenship (the Harvard one doesn't), is a primary source. It is his CV. In other words, he claims Slovenian citzenship, but we have no independent confirmation of that. That is probably because most secondary sources don't consider it relevant. Then neither should we.
 * The name, yes, a Google books search does show more entries with the mark over the last 'c.' But there is no BLP issue involved in either usage. The article's talk page is empty, and this should be discussed there. Churn and change (talk) 23:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Why would we disbelieve him about his own birthplace without any compelling reason to do so? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * People often make mistakes in their bio; at times, they lie (plenty of examples at all levels and in all professions); an encyclopedia cannot take information provided by people about themselves at face value. We believe only secondary sources. Of course, they can also make mistakes, and maybe even lie. But with reliable secondary sources such mistakes are presumably rare, and hence the policy of depending on them. Note that WP doesn't explicitly prohibit using self-published sources talking of themselves (see WP:SELFSOURCE); however the moment an editor disputes a claim, you end up with no support from guidelines. If you are adding material, the burden of proof is on you, and WP:SELFSOURCE is only for undisputed material. Churn and change (talk) 05:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That's completely not how WP works, especially with regard to BLP identification. The word of a random editor does not supersede reliable sources from the subject. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:SELFSOURCEs are not really reliable sources. They are acceptable in restricted circumstances. True reliable sources are largely secondary sources (and sometimes tertiary sources). In your case the "restricted circumstances" in which WP:SELFSOURCE applies have ceased to hold (there are many conditions listed there&mdash;check them). If you believe that is not so, and that the editor's questioning the source's accuracy is not in good faith, take it to dispute resolution. There is no BLP issue in removing the material; there is potentially one in adding it. Churn and change (talk) 06:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * These are exactly the circumstances that allow us to use SELFSOURCEs. It is a source about the subject, contains no extraordinary claims, no claims about third parties, no claims about events unrelated to the subject, is clearly authentic, and is not the main source for the article. As well, there is no BLP issue in using a source written by the subject to write about the subject - if there were an issue, it could be a neutrality issue (say, if the source was self-serving), but there is no issue. Editing under the belief that a random WP user knows more about the subject than the subject himself knows is the BLP issue. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Primary sources are allowed for info about the subject. "I was born in X" is something that is perfectly fine to be backed up by a primary source (Absent any secondary). Whats the issue? Because any opposition to that comes down to 'I dont believe you'. Which isnt how we work. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

No more comments on this? Perhaps that's because it's just obvious that a user's personal opinion is not more reliable about a subject's birthplace and nationality than a source coming from the subject. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * With this edit, Mcsngrca claimed that there has been a change of citizenship, and that Jaklic's page at the Venice Commission is out of date. The latter claim might actually be valid, see the current list of individual members without Jaklic. I'd like to see a source though that confirms his changing the citizenship. De728631 (talk) 12:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sometimes an Afd discussion can have very useful side-effects. Someone has pointed out that the Slovenian daily Delo has just recently called Jaklic the "most prominent Slovenian jurist abroad" link in Slovenian, try Google translator. De728631 (talk) 16:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Tony Samara (3rd nomination)
I've got some history with one of the editors involved, so I think it would be more productive to bring it here. I saw this on the AfD discussions (it is hard to miss), and it seems to be heading into some rather nasty BLP territory, especially in regard to another editor. Could well do with some neutral eyes. - Bilby (talk) 00:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. That AfD needs a couple of editors to just shut up. I dropped a note on Qworty's talk page asking them to refrain; asking the other editor is probably useless but I'll do it anyway. I'm loath to delete this speedily, though spammy it surely is, and the COI is pretty clear as well. I looked at an older version and find no reliable sources there--but this AfD might as well run its course, and if it ends in delete I have no problem salting it. We can figure out how to deal with the promoter later. Drmies (talk) 03:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, someone with some experience with WP:OUTING should look at what's going on there. Especially toward the end I'm wondering if this is still OK. Drmies (talk) 04:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yikes. Getting very close to outing, although there has been some disclosure also. All in all, not an example of how to do an AfD.  The Interior  (Talk) 07:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I have deleted the offending material which amounted to outing, had a look at WP:RFO, bit complicated, if anyone wants to take this further by going for suppression feel free to do so. PatGallacher (talk) 11:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you. The sooner that AfD closes the better. The Interior, it's par for the course: an AfD with a COI (thus a lack of AGF following by violations of NPA, hopefully not leading to ANI) often spells FUBAR. TTYL, Drmies (talk) 14:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's an AWOL SNAFU, IMHO, but YMMV. FFS, you use a lot of acronyms Drmies.  The Interior  (Talk) 16:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The article was just deleted and salted. I'd say this episode is now closed. Qworty (talk) 02:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Maung Zarni
There is a sentence under the education section

He claims[1] to hold a PhD

Linking to http://burmesewithfakephds.blogspot.sg/

The reference of this appears to be one persons personal blog, with a couple of emails that are by no means official documents. I find it hard to believe that one personal opinion is relevant to the biography of this person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.32.163 (talk) 09:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There's actually something that looks like a dissertation written by one Zar Ni. This is referred to by a report of the Free Burma Coalition written by "Zarni" and May Oo . I'm not an expert on Burmese naming standards, so the question remains if this is the same person. De728631 (talk) 19:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * A blogspot reference is categorically unacceptable as a source to discredit or call into question anyone's credentials. See WP:BLPSPS. Having said that, almost nothing in the article is sourced at all despite several apparently direct quotations. I've removed blogspot and tagged most parts as needing cites. JFHJr (㊟) 22:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Gibraltarpedia
BLP issues, regarding a Wikipedia editor, are emerging on both Gibraltarpedia and its talk page. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at it. Electric Catfish2 18:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Peter DeLucia


This is a low profile individual that mainly speaks to the public as a function of his job. It is also poorly sourced, he quotes appearances, where he attributed facts and background about himself, to verify this self-publicity, which is basically unverified spin and inflation. Many of the statements, such as being a team leader, and training inspectors are not independently verified by a reliable, verifiable source that does not report to him or benefit from him.

Wiki regulations

Low-profile: May have appeared on or been featured on such a show without their consent – e.g. "ambush journalism". May have been quoted or even profiled in a local or special-interest newspaper, website, magazine or other publication. May have been interviewed by a major news source as a "mouthpiece" – i.e., as part of his/her job as a spokesperson for an employer, representing that party not him/herself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrMontmorill (talk • contribs) 17:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with your assessment and I've found several cites that don't support the claims they make at all. More eyes would be helpful. JFHJr (㊟) 23:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I've also nominated for deletion. JFHJr (㊟) 00:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Vik Muniz
My Bio has been edited and my name changed in a defamatory way.My name is being shown as someone's lover in my google search page. When trying to correct it and add truthful and verifiable information to the article, it is edited back to its defected version. I am a user and a supporter of Wikipedia and I am considering now taking legal action to fix the situation because everything else that I tried to do over the site has been cancelled. please can someone help me or guide me in a way to fix this problem? I am a public figure and this is damaging my professional status and reputation. Vik Muniz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.60.101.164 (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that before you do anything else, you should probably read No legal threats. As a matter of policy, we may be obliged to block those threatening to employ litigation from editing. With regard to the article itself, it seems currently to be somewhat lacking in sources, which clearly needs to be addressed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Previous report here. The article was vandalised on 3 July and this stayed in the article until a representative of the subject edited it on 12 September. Editors reverting these edits based on the previous report have reverted the vandalism back into the article.  January  ( talk ) 15:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't figure out what the current issue is. An account with a name corresponding to the subject has removed a maintenance tag but has not tried to make other changes.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The IP that started this thread has twice removed vandalism that other editors had inadvertently reverted back into the article. January  ( talk ) 16:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks -- I was only paying attention to what the named account did... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Inadvertent, yes. My apologies for frustrating the matter. JFHJr (㊟) 19:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Cory Kennedy
Please remove this page. This person is not a relevant person, it appears as though they created this article themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.124.80.100 (talk) 01:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks pretty well sourced. Qworty (talk) 02:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Vern Buchanan
I would like to propose that the section "Alleged ethics and campaign law violations" be removed entirely.

Every allegation in the section has been investigated and the Congressman has been cleared on every one - by the FEC, the House Ethics Committee and the FBI. In our country, a person is innocent until proven guilty -- in politics, however, it is often the other way around, and the mere allegations in this case have tainted Congressman Buchanan's reputation (and their continued presence on his Wikipedia entry perpetuates this guilt-simply-because-he-was-accused stigma).

The accusations carry a lot of weight, and the fact that they have been completely discredited should warrant that this section be removed in its entirety. If there were still open investigations, or one agency found wrongdoing, then I would say that this is all fair game. But since he has been completely cleared, the continued inclusion of the charges here will cause unwarranted damage to his reputation in the future because, as I mentioned, the mere insinuation of wrongdoing - though investigated and disproved by three Federal agencies - will be enough to taint the opinion of anyone looking him up on Wikipedia in the future.

Links to articles on each investigation concluding he committed no wrongdoing:

FBI: http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/article/273082/8/Department-of-Justice-clears-Buchanan

House Ethics Cmte: http://thehill.com/homenews/house/236975-house-ethics-committee-clears-rep-buchanan

FEC: http://www.rollcall.com/news/vern_buchanan_new_fec_records_clear_campaign-211557-1.html

I believe I would be justified in removing the section myself, but rather than start a battle over it, I wanted to lay out my reasons here, and seek your advice.

Thanks. jmaiella (talk) 14:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of allegations there, all of them with WP:RS, and it's not true that the legal system has cleared him of all of them. He's been partially cleared, but that does not justify scrubbing out the entire section.  I understand that his partisans would be interested in doing so, but any unilateral move in that direction would cause all hell to break loose around here.  I think the section is fine as it stands--well-sourced statements about the allegations and what he's been cleared of, and well-sourced statements regarding what he hasn't been cleared of. Qworty (talk) 02:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Celia Heller, dead or not?
I've created Celia Stopnicka Heller based on an academic database entry, but it turned out we had Celia Heller already, except she is declared dead in the latter, but I can't find a source to confirm it. What's the procedure in this case? Tijfo098 (talk) 16:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked for a source. The death claim was added without explanation here. If you can't find a source to support it, you remove it from the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've removed the unsourced death claim. BTW, I note that your new article and the old article have different birthdates. Yours is at least based on the one source you have.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've noticed that too. It's unlikely there were two Hellers both doing the same research though. That's why I put up the merge tag. Hopefully someone can sort this out. I don't have easy access to the ASSJ paper publications. Given that she got an award from them and was their president for two years there's probably a profile/obit of her somewhere in there. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Simon Zadek
The individual represented in this article does not appear to meet the required Wikipedia guidelines of 'notability' as to merit the creation of a dedicated article. This article does not appear to be about a singular individual whom has yet to achieve any notable or significantly profound achievements. I presume this articles only function is most likely that of self-promotion. Also note the long list of publications he has placed...his website...seems like an ad for his consultancy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommacao (talk • contribs) 09:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I have added a notability flag to this article, may go further depending on how things work out. PatGallacher (talk) 01:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it's safe to say the article is a PR job. Check the edit history and then this. JFHJr (㊟) 04:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Almost all of it is sourced to ... Simon Zadek. I removed the worst of the puff. Collect (talk) 11:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Jakob Aungiers


Starting with this edit, two new editors appear to be adding material attacking the subject of the biography. I have reverted once but the changes were restored. The changes include unsourced name changes and misleading use of citations. There may also be some other issues (such as borderline notability), and it might conceivably be argued that parts of the changes are acceptable, so more eyes would help. --Boson (talk) 10:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I reverted - the idea that calling a living person a "troglodyte" would pass any rational editor is incroyable. Collect (talk) 11:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Respectfully stating some of us have knowledge of the specifics of this subject - the content does not reflect a fair and unbiased view. This topic is simply an autobiography, written as a CV in an attempt to gain the subject some credibility. Not a purpose wikipedia is designed for. I will concede some edits were overlooked in my haste (e.g. "troglodyte", and "Clapham common") however I must stress, its content are incomplete. I have attempted to rewrite personally, and hope my efforts will be seen as constructive. Awaiting feedback. Kellja2001 (talk) 22:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Sent to AfD -- notability is entirely lacking. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * An account claiming to be the subject has commented at the AfD. They have made some statements of a legal nature.  I'm requesting an admin or editor familiar with WP:NLT to take a look. Articles for deletion/Jakob Aungiers  The Interior  (Talk) 00:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and removed the comment as it was not germane to the deletion discussion. If any admin cares, it was clearly a block-worthy legal threat. JFHJr (㊟) 00:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Margaret Wente
Could I have additional eyes regarding this. The sourcing is inadequate for such contentious material, and a problem of WP:UNDUE is apparent. Thanks, Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 21:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Plagiarism charges, when they appear to be as open-and-shut as these are, are very difficult to defend against. It's like a bank robber running out the door with the cash in his hands saying "Who, me?"  I've taken a look at the comparisons on the blog and they do appear damning.  Many of the liftings are word-for-word, while others are paraphrases that are too close for comfort.  Of course, rather than doing WP:OR, our primary concern should be, "Is the material well sourced?"  Generally speaking, a series of blog postings are inadequate for the purpose of ruining a person's reputation on Wikipedia.  However, I think we should wait on this one.  Given the stark similarities between the prose examples, I think WP:RS will be arriving quickly.  And, certainly, if she denies the allegations, the denial should be included in the article. Qworty (talk) 21:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * There's not enough sourcing there to say anything on this issue right now. I've pulled the whole section.  The blog is out of the question - it is dedicated to Wente criticism.  Openfile is user-generated.  The third ref is now dead.  We need much better sourcing, and if this any of this story is true, it'll be big news in Canadian media pretty quick.  Talking gibraltar big.  The Interior  (Talk) 02:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I agree with all that. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 04:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I think this source probably meets WP:RS and pretty accurately reflects the unfolding controversy. Also, the GM has responded to the controversy. Keeping in mind this ain't the newspaper, the accusations are of rather heavy import given the subject is a journalist; plagiarism might matter less if she were a movie star. So depending on further developments and coverage, the issue may merit more or less WP:WEIGHT in the article as the lasting significance is easier to determine. JFHJr (㊟) 21:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with your comments and edits. Qworty (talk) 08:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Maureen Dowd
This is about a new section which was added today and I removed it per several policies including BLP, UNDUE, NPOV and NOR. I didn't bother to open a talkpage discussion since I wanted to bring this to the attention of as many editors as possible because, this being a US election year and all, I wanted to clarify the issues so as to diminish the likelihood, as much as possible, of any future edit problems. There are claims reflected in the section title that this is an "anti-semitic column controversy". There is no reliable source calling it that way. IMO, it is not actually a controversy but criticism and spin, rather mild at that, about "unintentional" anti-semitism or stereotyping directed at Dowd. Some claims that Dowd's column "met with heavy criticism" most probably are OR fillers. In addition the size of the info makes it WP:UNDUE. Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM this piece, at least IMO, does not belong in the article and definitely does not belong in the article in its current form, i.e. a bloated section dominating the relatively small article. Any thoughts or advice are welcome. I submit the removed section, complete with its references, in hatted form for convenience.

{{quotation|

Anti-semitic column controversy
A column that Dowd wrote for The New York Times in September 2012 regarding the role of neo-conservatives in the Republican election campaign was heavily criticized as expressing anti-Semitic sentiments. Politico criticized Dowd's claim that Jewish neoconservatives, mainly Paul Wolfowitz, were responsible for decisions regarding Iraq in the Bush administration, while ignoring individuals such as Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, or Condoleeza Rice, who were also influential in this regard and were not Jewish. In addition, experts on American-Israeli relations said that her column was an inappropriate appeal to anti-Semitic stereotypes, and the column was even more offensive because it was publiched right before Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year. Steven A. Cook, a senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, criticized the column, saying that "Dowd's use of anti-Semitic imagery is awful." Jeffrey Goldberg, a columnist for The Atlantic and a leading American journalist on Israeli affairs wrote, "Maureen may not know this, but she is peddling an old stereotype, that gentile leaders are dolts unable to resist the machinations and manipulations of clever and snake-like Jews." In addition, Blake Hounshell, the managing editor of Foreign Policy magazine, wrote, "[A]mazing that apparently nobody sat her down and said, this is not OK." }}

Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 09:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Should be edited, but is not a BLP "violation" to be sure. And should be discussed on the article talk page.


 * Dowd wrote a column for the The New York Times'' in September 2012 which has been criticised for stressing the fact that some advisors to the Romney campaign are Jewish. Politico said her opinion that Jewish neoconservatives, such as Paul Wolfowitz, were responsible for decisions regarding Iraq in the Bush administration, ignored the others  who were also influential and were not Jewish.  Some experts on American-Israeli relations said that her column was an inappropriate appeal to anti-Semitic stereotypes, and found this offensive as being issued right before Rosh Hashanah.  }}
 * How does this look? Collect (talk) 12:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * At a minimum, it is "undue" for having a separate section heading. I suggest considering how many columns Dowd has written over the years and then asking, why would we give this one such prominence (on the basis that it has apparently provoked all of two objecting responses/articles).  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The new heading is NPOV AFAICT - and as to why Dowd who has has so many columns in the news does not have mre columns - that is more likely the question here. Or do you feel she has been so un-interesting in her views that very few columns merit a mention?  I trust you find my wording sufficiently neutral? Collect (talk) 13:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see the discussion at the talkpage of the article where there is consensus that this piece is spin directed at Dowd and the allegations look manufactured at best. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 17:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK (Ashley van Haeften and Roger Bamkin)
This used to be a redirect until a day or so ago it was expanded into an article using titbits of web news; some of these date from the last few days. I am not an expert on BLP policies but it would seem that there are various problems with this article, focusing as it does on very recent news events related to wikipedia and individuals involved in its financing organisations. Could an expert please look at the "controversies" section? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 09:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Is the group "notable"? Are the specific claims contentious and unsupported by strong sources?  Any which are not strongly supported which refer to individuals should be removed, but if the sourcing is strong per WP:BLP and not just rumour and allegation - then they can stay. A first reading does not show criminal allegations that I can find, but it likely should be edited a bit to avoid WEIGHT issues.  Collect (talk) 11:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Something reported on the web on 17 or 20 September 2012 would not appear to be notable, per WP:NOTNEWS. Perhaps the article could be deleted or reverted to a redirect. Its sole purpose seem to be make statements about what happened within the internal workinga of the English wikipedia to one editor and to repeat tittle-tattle about somebody in the news related to wikipedia and it financing organizations. That's normally what a blog is used for, not an encyclopedia. Neither Ashley van Haeften nor Roger Bamkin are notable enough to have separate articles. In fact articles on both those people did exist and were deleted as attack pages within the last two months (September and Augusr 2012). This fork article appears to be yet another way to mention them in a completely negative way that is of no interest to the readership and is unbalanced. It has very little to do with Wikimedia UK. Why should we have articles naming and shaming those sanctioned by the arbitration committee? Mathsci (talk) 15:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * "Neither Ashley van Haeften nor Roger Bamkin are notable enough to have separate articles." - That's actually a subjective, close call about which honest people may differ. Both are close. The correct procedure would be for a challenge to AfD, where debate and evidence would resolve the question with some sort of consensus. I don't object to salting Roger Bamkin for now because there seems to be an effort going to kneecap him with a bio. I suspect that a proper bio could be sourced out and successfully defended at AfD for him. Ashley van Haeften is probably not defendable at AfD — but that is just an opinion of one frequent AfD participant. Carrite (talk) 03:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * There are undoubtedly enough sources and notability for an article. It may require watching for BLP issues, but at the time of writing, it looks okay. One thing that should be covered in more detail is the Monmouthpedia project, which received very favourable write-ups in the press. (Disclosure: I have been involved in community discussions of the events described, both here and off-site.) -- J N  466  15:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Accuracy? Ashley van Haeften's surname is "van Haeften" not "Haeften," as appears currently in the article (even after later edits by folks like Cla68). Certainly writers on the Daily Telegraph call him Mr van Haeften. Mathsci (talk) 03:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Style issue, not an actual "error". A noted composer is called "Beethoven", remember?  Dutch names are not alphabetised using the "van" and it is considered somewhat like the word "of" in English.  Seems of de minimis importance here. Collect (talk) 12:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not a "style" issue at all, just a careless error. John von Neumann's particle is never omitted. (The only issue, if any, might be about capitalising the "V" if it appears at the beginning of a sentence.) The same is true here: there is no choice. This is a Dutch or Flemish name. On wikipedia names like van Eyck or van der Weyden are not shortened to Eyck and Weyden. Mathsci (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for correcting it, but you could be a bit more polite when noting such things.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I am still working on the article and was actually planning to add more about Monmouth. I have tried to keep the article focused on the aspects of the controversies relevant to WMUK and that does mean mentioning the living people involved to some extent so that people understand the nature of each controversy. The biggest problem was material added by another editor, though I am planning to address that tonight or tomorrow when I have time.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 04:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Misha B


The unsupported and conclusively denied Bully allegations are being raised again against the singer Misha B on her page...in a little ongoing edit dispute... Zoebuggie☺ whispers  13:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Section 2011: The X Factor... Zoebuggie☺ whispers  13:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It would be more helpful if you would have notified me about raising this issue here, as I am the user who is adding the content. I think one of the problems may have been your wording of the dispute, your recent attempts at including it (or rather, editing mine) seem to portray Bryan in a more than positive light. The controversy itself is notable; the artist is prominent because she partook in a national competition, during which she received accusations of bullying by two judges, receiving signficant media attention both during and after the show. The fact that two judges accused of her bullying can be verified, and I think that this should be included, whether the bullying is or isn't true is irrelevant, and up to the reader to decide upon. What is difficult is the presentation of these facts, as you insist on adding original research and editorializing the conflict. Stating things like "there is no evidence for bullying", "the majority of contestants said that it didn't happen", etc. mean that readers can't form their own judgments upon the issue, so much so that your pushing for one side to be heard and not the other.


 * Should the fact she was accused of bullying be included? Yes, because it's verifiable and did happen. What shouldn't be included is original research and unsupported attributions. I understand it's annoying or even upsetting that an artist you like has been accused of "bullying", but Wikipedia articles aren't fan pages. Controversial statements need to be presented neutrally and verifiably. Jennie | ☎ 14:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I have notified you, as you are here ! just give me a few mins to do so.


 * I strongly believe that the whole false accusation should not be included on her own page, it is covered on the relevant XFactor page.


 * What is said on a reality/soap TV series by celebrities (in the spirit of making headlines and publicity) and subject to a UK gutter press media circusshould be taken with a pinch of salt.
 * *"Accusations" on "reality shows" and tabloid press are not of actual biographical value here.


 * The remains absolutely no verifiable evidence about her bullying on the show, in fact the is very strong evidence of the opposite, If it did not happen then why raise it? again and again. To mention it again gives the false accusation UNDUE WEIGHT and as it did not happen totally irrelevant for Wikipedia..


 * As it was a false allegation, surely it's better to not even include it. If she had been accused by someone of a crime to which the was no evidence or no witnesses, the main accuser apologies the next day and all the witnesses say she was innocent would a reputable source still print the story?... Zoebuggie☺ whispers  14:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * seem to portray Bryan in a more than positive lightseem to portray Bryan in a more than positive light
 * .... citing independent and verifiable sources is not showing bias, but to disregard them to paint a person in bad light is???


 * Stating things like "there is no evidence for bullying", "the majority of contestants said that it didn't happen", etc. mean that readers can't form their own judgments upon the issue, so much so that your pushing for one side to be heard and not the other.Stating things like "there is no evidence for bullying", "the majority of contestants said that it didn't happen", etc. mean that readers can't form their own judgments upon the issue, so much so that your pushing for one side to be heard and not the other.
 * ...are not my words...to raise the accusation but not mention the counter defence is not NPOV, and is likely seriously mislead the reader. ... Zoebuggie☺ whispers  14:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * What shouldn't be included is original research and unsupported attributions.
 * .....all statements were most definately attributed...I did have one part sentence which I agree now though true was original ...re: "'No evidence was ever provided to support either allegation," .... Zoebuggie☺ whispers  14:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Should the fact she was accused of bullying be included? Yes, because it's verifiable and did happen.Should the fact she was accused of bullying be included? Yes, because it's verifiable and did happen.
 * .... just because a false allegation by a celebrity is verifiable from a reality TV show, via the uk tabloid press and gossip rags does not mean Wikipedia should cover it and disregard NPOV record of the event.


 *  I understand it's annoying or even upsetting that an artist you like has been accused of "bullying", but Wikipedia articles aren't fan pages.
 * ....please do not resort to personal accusations...what brought me to this page/ artist in the first place was the false accusation directed at Misha B. ... Zoebuggie☺ whispers  14:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Follow your own advise please  Controversial statements need to be presented neutrally and verifiably... Zoebuggie☺ whispers  15:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why you've completely changed your view on this. Initially, you reconstructed my edits about this controversy, and now have come here to complain about a "breach of BLP" and think that it shouldn't be included. It's unfair to appear to support the inclusion of this information (albeit in a biased way) by changing around the content I added, and when you don't get your own way on the article, act as if you always wanted it removed. Trying to add controversies or feuds around biographies of living people is difficult, and I tried to ensure my inclusion was neutral and verifiable. If editors think it's not neutral enough or even unencylopedic then that's fine! I don't have a problem with this not being included (even though I think it should). What I did have a problem with was your editing, which, in my opinion, editorialized the conflict and that is why I restored my version. I reiterate that I understand that your a fan of this artist, but that doesn't mean that everyone else's edits have to go disregarded; accusations of "bullying" are certainly contentious, I tried to talk about the dispute neutrally, but you seemed hell-bent on ensuring that the accusations were "false". I'm not interested whether they are or they aren't true and that conclusion doesn't need to be on Wikipedia (even if you think there definitely is one). Bryan was accused of bullying people and I think it's important not to exclude it just because you feel so strongly that it didn't happen (especially when there is evidence to the contrary) - sometimes personal emotions should be set aside on articles. Jennie | ☎ 15:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * In case of doubt ...In the First Place I don't think it should be covered at all. But if it is, then it must be covered that clearly shows a NPOV. I do not consider your contribution on this point more neutral and better verification than my edit. At first I was willing to compromise, but your constant rolebacks made me remember that I was against inclusion of wrongful accusation as it is questionably  UNDUE and a matter for  BLP.  It is also increasingly irrelevant regards this artists notability. Again please leave out any personal comments about me, I am capable of  not allowing any personal bias to interfere in any way with their actions within the encyclopedia, as you are obviously trying to paint me in a bad light. ... Zoebuggie☺  whispers  15:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: I believe Jennie in relation to this article has made many very good contributions in improving the article.... Zoebuggie☺ whispers  15:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a record of Tabloid reports of seriously doubtful accusations made by celebrities on a reality TV show with viewing figure problems. An article based on such accusations would not itself be notable enough for Wikipedia. And it is increasingly irrelevant. ... Zoebuggie☺ whispers  16:08, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to paint you in a bad light at all. This isn't a tabloid report - she was accused of bullying on the show, with some sources saying she did bully people and some sources saying she didn't bully people. I included the fact that the accusations happened, the other judges criticized Tulisa and Louis for bringing it up and the considerable media attention it received. Head Judge Gary Barlow (and some of the media) claimed that this controversy jeopardized her place in the competition and actually caused her to "loose". For this reason (and the whole reason why she rose to prominence is because of The X Factor), I think that it should be included. Jennie | ☎ 16:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to paint you in a bad light at all ......why raise it then, what was your purpose.


 * with some sources saying she did bully people and some sources saying she didn't bully people....
 * The kind sources that said she did like the Star, the Sun, the Mirror, the Daily Express, Daily Record and Daily Mail are not reliable sources, but for some reason you seem to think that the clearly verified and considered witness statements from those closely involved and who were the supposed victims, that clearly show the inaccuracy of the allegations than the outburst on a reality TV drama show. Each year X Factor labels folks as bullies, rebels, underdogs, diva's its all part of the script. Barlow did more than just claim the controversy jeopardize her place in the competition, what he clearly said was it was untrue.  The some media was rags like the The Telegraph,  this shows your lack of NPOV ... Zoebuggie☺  whispers  17:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * There are many reasons why one may believe something is notable when they are not, a very large number of people believe in creationism, but that does not mean that Wikipedia would include it in a factual discussion of Earth's history despite Millions of people believe in the Biblical version.... Zoebuggie☺ whispers  18:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Why raise what?


 * Actually, Little Mix claimed in an interview that something had, in-part, gone on and defended Contostavlos' claims. This, directly contradicts Janet Devlin/Sophie Habibis' claims that it never. There are two-sides of an argument presented by the contestants on the show that I provided in my initial revision. The X Factor is, naturally, filled with drama and controversy, but it was Bryan's choice to use the show as her platform to launch her career - a choice that eventually involved something controversial. I think it's important to include the fact that she (arguably) lost a competition due to this controversy - a competition which set up her career and is (partially) why she has an article on Wikipedia in the first place. Neither myself or yourself know fully what went on, and I don't have an opinion either way, it's just your persistence she never - and there is no basis that she didn't, it's just your opinion, and that came through via your edits. Perhaps this issue is too contentious to be included, I just felt, however, written with neutrality, it should been included. Also, The Telegraph isn't a "rag". Jennie | ☎ 18:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that origins of the universe are the best analogy for a reality TV controversy, but Wikipedia documents Creationism quite well, and an increasing number of Christians believe that Genesis is to be taken for its moral value, rather than literally, giving way for scientific claims to be supported by Christianity. (Again, I'm not seeing the link) Jennie | ☎ 18:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * OK yep using Genesis was a daft thing to raise as an example.


 * Again you white wash over evidence it did not place by mentioning only two artists Janet Devlin/Sophie Habibis claims' ;)

[http://www.metro.co.uk/tv/879589-sami-brookes-louis-walsh-should-be-sacked-as-x-factor-judge
 * Sami Brookes ( Walsh's supposed victim)

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/tv_and_showbiz/s/1466324_x-factor-reject-janet-devlin-says-misha-b-bully-claims-are-absolute-lies/ says Misha B bully claims are 'absolute lies'
 * Janet Devlin (the tabloids victim)

http://www.unrealitytv.co.uk/x-factor/x-factor-johnny-robinson-also-claims-misha-bryan-is-no-bully/ : also claims Misha Bryan is no bully!
 * Johnny Robinson

http://tellymix.co.uk/news/56418-x-factor-2011-tulisas-groups-say-she-was-wrong-to-confront-misha-b-on-the-show.html
 * the Risk

http://www.metro.co.uk/tv/880410-x-factors-frankie-cocozza-tulisa-was-bang-out-of-order-to-misha-b 's:
 * Frankie Cocozza

[https://twitter.com/SophieWhoisthis/status/127856062337523712,
 * Sophie

"You have been wrongfully accused in the past of being someone that you are not.... I don't think you can win this competition because of that and that's a real shame".
 * Barlow

http://www.unrealitytv.co.uk/x-factor/x-factor-stylists-insists-misha-b-did-not-throw-any-diva-strops/"
 * Rikki Finlay, the X Factor Head Stylist


 * Kelly Rowland ...repeatedly

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/12/13/little-mix-x-factor-tulisa-misha-b_n_1145088.html/ They were not Walshes victims, he said it was one of his acts not Tulisa's. Read the article again where does it say she bullied them, they only claim it was a few words, that was taken out of context and grew into a mountain
 * LittleMix

What actually happened sounds like just like a bit of competitive/confident banter, bitchiness or whatever but certainly not bullying. Even if the accusation of boasting are at all true, the producers and chief stylist have said nothing like bullying occurred ...then at worst Misha's is only guilty of is expressing a positive belief she had better chance of winning than her rivals ...within a high pressure media crazy multi-mill­ion pound singing competitio­n...hardly a crime.

If Misha and Little Mix were arguing ( one teenager against 4 perfectly able entrants in a competition) then this should have been taken care of BACKSTAGE, not infront of the cameras. The whole outburst was notably unprofessional. The evidence is that Misha was not privately given a warning before Walsh/Tulisa's public assault... It was done to grab media attention.... Zoebuggie☺ whispers  19:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

They apologised the next night, while the other two panel members and several contestants leapt to Bryan’s defence.
 * The Telegraph supports the above sources ...http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/x-factor/8935329/Why-was-Misha-B-knocked-out-of-the-X-Factor.html


 * Only act not included is Kitty Brucknell, who did not get on with Bryan  but was no victim   http://www.sugarscape.com/main-topics/celebrities/669526/x-factor-kitty-brucknell-and-misha-b-%E2%80%9Chate-each-other%E2%80%9D?page=1a


 * Why raise what?Why raise what? you know your blatant attempt to brand me unreliable because I am 'a fan' and thus incapable of rational independent and neutral thought. My favourite artist of all time was/is Shane McGowan, I would not defend his flaws anymore than this artist...and you have not got a clue who my current favourite one is. You need to disregard personal swipes.... Zoebuggie☺  whispers  19:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, The Telegraph isn't a "rag"  ...alas that was in context a misleading joke, I using it to support my argument... Zoebuggie☺ whispers  20:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I actually agree with some of your sentiments about The X Factor and the controversy, the nature of reality TV is melodrama and things like this happen. I was interested in presenting the facts: Bryan was accused of bullying by two judges on the show, they apologised and it received considerable media attention. Disregarding whether the bullying took place, the former things I've mentioned are verifiable and that is what I included. It is up to the audience to form their own opinion about the situation based on evidence from sources only. My initial problems with you reconstructing my edits drew from the fact that you included things like "the majority of artists said there was no bullying" - until you can find a secondary source that says this explicitly, it can't be included, as you are making assumptions (original research), even despite the fact you have found several sources from these artists. Again, statements like "there was no evidence" - well, you may have interpreted a lack of evidence, but if reliable sources don't say so, it's independent thought. I appreciate the time you've taken to compile the above and understand that your opinion, but it is just that, your opinion.

Statements like "If Misha and Little Mix were arguing ( one teenager against 4 perfectly able entrants in a competition) then this should have been taken care of BACKSTAGE" are all your independent thought. I'm not branding you "incapable" of thinking in anyway, in fact, your position as a fan has been undoubtedly beneficial to the article. It's just that your opinion shouldn't sway neutrality on things that are sensitive in the article. We're not here to make opinions, just to present them neutrally, verifiably and with due weight. Jennie | ☎ 20:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Correct me if I'm interpreting this wrongly, but this "Again you white wash over evidence it did not place by mentioning only two artists Janet Devlin/Sophie Habibis' claims ;)" seems to imply you think that I think Bryan was a bully, and you couldn't be more wrong. Personally, I felt that Louis and Tulisa's comments were disgusting, and should have been conducted off-stage as I don't think Bryan had her chance to respond. Still not knowing what the actual situation was still makes me question the integrity of their claims. I was disheartened when she repeatedly fell in the bottom two and didn't become the eventual winner; her rendition of Nicki Minaj's "Fly" is still my favourite performance on The X Factor. However, my opinion doesn't matter to the article; I feel that the claims should be documented, whether or not the bullying occurred, as it (arguably) affected Bryan's position in the competition that made her "famous". The claims may not be something that anybody would want in their biography, but it undoubtedly affected the artist that Bryan is today. Jennie | ☎ 21:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I've mentioned are verifiable and that is what I included. ⓐ same here the sources I included are verifiable. ⓑ if you are going to include some why not the others.ⓒ If you don't include the other side of the argument...you are not leaving a neutral position from which the reader can come to neutral opinion.


 * '"the majority of artists said there was no bullying" was a shorthand because previously I had listed all the witness comments (that were still in that sentence citation) and was told it was too wordy. Please note that this subject has been on this board before and subject to half a dozen debates on the talk page on at least three separate articles.


 * I am guilty as charged re: "there was no evidence" except it was "No evidence was ever provided to support either allegation" which is a verifiable fact...find the evidence that disproves it.


 * The backstage argument was simply to show that the accusations were a not about any bullying but media attention at best...and that's not simply my opinion


 * You can trace it all back to Rock Week in October, when Contostavlos accused her of making “mean comments” to her rivals. Never one to bite his tongue, Louis Walsh then leapt in and used the word “bullying”. The two judges were unfair bringing up backstage matters on screen. Daily Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/x-factor/8935329/Why-was-Misha-B-knocked-out-of-the-X-Factor.html--... Zoebuggie☺ whispers  22:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * ''Actually, Little Mix claimed in an interview that something had, in-part, gone on and defended Contostavlos' claims. This, directly contradicts Janet Devlin/Sophie Habibis' claims that it never. There are two-sides of an argument presented by the contestants on the show that I provided in my initial revision. "
 * .... Tulisa never claimed that Misha was a bully, nor do Little Mix (you are putting words in their mouth) and to say that Little Mix and Janet Devlin/Sophie Habbis were on two sides of an argument is your invention.... Zoebuggie☺ whispers  22:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * appearing on X factor helped her notability, to say the allegations  (arguably) affected Bryan's position in the competition that made her 'famous'  is your opinion not fact...? .... Zoebuggie☺ whispers  22:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Bryan asked about her experience on X Factor said '"I one hundred percent appreciate the platform it gave me...but it's not for the faint-hearted lol. You have to remember that at the end of the day it’s an entertainment show for TV,"'  http://www.famemagazine.co.uk/2012/07/05/misha-b-interview-life-is-what-you-make-it/


 * I mean, it's a reality TV show. Things are said which are out of all of our hands as contestants. I don't know. Still to this day I'm quite unsure about why the accusations were made. It's all, for me, just a misunderstanding. I wasn't asked any questions, I was just accused. And that's it really. http://www.glamourmagazine.co.uk/celebrity/celebrity-news/2012/06/28/misha-b-confirms-missy-elliot-collaboration


 * What makes her notable for Wikipedia now is not the X factor at all ..e.g. your correct removal of her several month competition history under a drop down menu on the page...but her Debut Single and current media coverage about Bryan as a singer.... Zoebuggie☺  whispers  22:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Why is this being raised here straightaway and not on the article's Talk page? Shouldn't it be raised there first? Sionk (talk) 22:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry Soink...I realise I was at fault coming straight here but in the heat of the moment... I thought it had been raised so many times and had been subject to a discussion on here before. I also wanted to hear independent 3rd party opinion. I found some of the arguments on the talk page stressful and wanted to come to a more official forum. I did put the correct banner on the talk page to point towards this discussion.... Zoebuggie☺ whispers  23:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Jenny and I were having a discussion on my personal talk page mostly on another issue...is alas another (faulty) reason why I ended here... Zoebuggie☺ whispers  23:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The above is rather confusing to read at the moment, I'm not really sure what your points are and I'm seeing a lot of quotes and links. Do you want to compromise in attempting to create a paragraph on the article about the controversy, or have none at all? Jennie | ☎ 23:08, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Alas, I was trying to make my points and replies to your comments clear and backed up with verifiable evidence to help anyone reading this. I think it is simply too controversial and unreliable to be included on someone's biography page. It is already covered on the X factor series 8 page. If however it is deemed to be the sort of thing Wikipedia should be covering then my simple compromise is to present both sides of the accusation, those accusing and those defending.... Zoebuggie☺ whispers  23:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I was being deliberately obtuse, because I know the same issue has been raised on the Talk page at least twice in the past. Jennie in her last comment on the article said she was raising a dicussion on the Talk page, but this never happened. Probably it was because this discussion superceded events. To be of help, it really would be good to stick to the very basic question Jennie raises, namely should there be a mention on the article? Discussing what was and wasn't said (and where) in great detail will only confuse matters and discourage uninvolved editors from contributing. It may already be too late. Sionk (talk) 23:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I guessed that you would have been fully aware of this dispute from the initial edits. My approach is that any editor who hopefully contributes has a reasonably educated grasp of all the facts, how much they ( ... ) read or decide is relevant is up to them.... Zoebuggie☺ whispers  23:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * No. It gets raised here to try and get input from editors who don't know the detail of the subject, but have an interest in BLP issues. You want advice on the BLP implications of the issue, not the minutiae of exactly what is included or how it is worded, surely? Sionk (talk) 10:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Surely to comment about the a BLP issue an editor would need what the issue is basically about. Most of my comments above where replies to Jennie's points.

The Basic BLP point is:
 * Simply a singer was accused lat year on a popular Reality TV show by  1 celebrity judges of Bullying & 1 judge of being mean, the other 2 celebrity judges objected. The first two judges apologised the next night. 7 out of 8 of Bryan's competitors, a senior member of the backstage staff, one judge strongly later all denied that that any bullying/meaness took place. However the unreliable tabloid press and gossip media ran with the story and printed several denied/untrue stories.

Is that simply something that we should include in Wikipedia?

If it is should we just say she was accussed of bullying (the reader will think she was a bully)? I do not think anyone is suggesting this.

or say that some folks objected to the accusation and not include at least a suitable entry & link to the citations that say the bullying did not happen (the reader will think she was a bully, but it should not have been raised, possibly)?

or present the evidence simply and sufficiently supported by citations so that the reader can make an unbiased decision based on neutral reputable verified evidence.--... Zoebuggie☺ whispers  18:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

removal from this page discusion
I think I'll move this to the article talk page, as I think this is too complicated for any intervention, and no intervention is needed as it's been removed since then. If we need a third-party opinion we can RFC. Thanks. Jennie | ☎ 23:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC) (Moved)

whoooa bit unilateral dont you think? whoooa 'Is it appropiate for one side of an argument to delete the unresolved discusion hereIts not complicated just because you say it is, other wikipedia readers are capable of making their own decisions (moved back)... Zoebuggie☺  whispers''  23:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not deleted. As said above you can find it here. You previously said that you "were at fault bringing at here" and it will be much easier to come to a resolution over there without clogging up a noticeboard. Jennie | ☎ 23:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I was implying that maybe I brought it here too soon, but clearly from our discussion above it would end up here...even so you should not have removed it from here ...two wrongs dont make a right... Zoebuggie☺ whispers  00:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The thing is, nothing is getting done here. And I don't think anyone's going to sift through this whole discussion (and anyone who does deserves an award). It's becoming incredibly complicated to follow and is loosing it's original point; a comprise or discussion would have been much better suited to the article talk page. Jennie | ☎ 23:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * And it would be more likely resolved tucked away on the talk page...I have had several of these discussions before on the talk page and many personal attacks. I think you underrate your fellow editors, especially seasoned contributors who keep an eye on things discussed here. It has not lost the point here. Should it be covered No or Yes, if Yes what is a NPOV. Its really very simple compared to some other matters discussed on wikipedia noticeboards... Zoebuggie☺ whispers  00:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * My guess is that some folks might wait until our debate calms down before contributing. Night.... Zoebuggie☺ whispers  00:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Talking about past discussions, I have just noticed that you have copy and pasted a lot of comments from other users during past discussions (here), which is a little reductive. I wanted your opinion on the issue, not others' dug up from past discussion(s). I'm not "underrating" editors at all, I just think this has been drawn out, and it's place here is a little pointless considering both my addition (and your edits) have since been removed - and in the first place, nothing was "libelous". Jennie | ☎ 00:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * about 2 or 3 comments were adopted...I am allowed to agree with other Wikipedians. I am not sure I want either of our opinion but compliance to BLP, NPOV etc. Are you a legal expert to say whether it was libelous" I think Bryan would have had a good case. Brain says bed. Lets give other editors space to contribute. Maybe we are heading towards the various Dispute Resolution Processes & Board ... Zoebuggie☺ whispers''  00:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm currently working on re-working the controversy back into the article. The previous BLP issue came from your attempt at documenting it and I believe that it can be put in following the right guidelines. Looking over the revision history, you deleted my edits and replaced it with your previous version that had been deemed not to be neutral by other editors; you were welcome to build upon what I had added, but you seem to persist on being the only editor who covers this, or it doesn't get coverage at all. To suggest you need to be an "expert" in anything to edit Wikipedia is a strange claim, I think anyone is capable of understanding the definition of "libel" without having legal practice. In no way did I ever claim that Bryan was or wasn't a bully - if I had, this would have the best place to discuss this, as it would be libelous. I did, however, include the claims, the apology and the opinions of some involved - all sourced and verified. I have no interest in "heading towards various dispute resolution processes" as my edits didn't claim anything defamatory about Bryan; if you think it shouldn't be included, then this is a discussion for a talk page. Thanks. Jennie | ☎ 09:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually its not the same, it was somewhat reduced from the more wordy original.
 * No independent person from this board said it was not neutral. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive159#Misha_B_Talk_Page  but the editor/s who I was argueing on the talk page did obviously. Nor is the NPOV  brought up in the relevent  [[Misha B(Talk)|UNDUE] it was because the original was more wordier than the shorten version, nothing to do with NPOV in the section as it stood.


 * ''The massive "controversies" section went well past being undue weight. Further, I suspect that "Accusations" on "reality shows" are not of actual biographical value here - try finding NPOV language for a short mention? Possibly ok -- but not this melange. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:53 pm, 16 August 2012, Thursday (1 month, 8 days ago) (UTC+1)


 * Having just come across this article, I agree with this removal - that amount of content on fairly trivial 'controversies' was unnecessary. However it does now seem a bit odd that the lead describes her as being 'one of the more controversial contestants of the series', while the content of the article contains no further mention of that 'controversy'. Either something should be restored to the article, or that line should be removed from the lead as well. Robofish (talk) 2:52 pm, 16 August 2012, Thursday (1 month, 8 days ago) (UTC+1)'' ...we decided the bit in the lead


 * I never said you said she was a bully. I have not doubted your essentially good faith. The dispute resolution is about two editors in conflict, BLP is about defamatory etc. The matter for good or bad has gone beyond the talk page. The is currently  no greater likelihood that it would be resolved on the talk page than here.


 * My arguement is, that if you we do not clearly show the very strong verifiable evidence that this was a wrongful accusation ...the reader is likely to consider that accusation was true. It was  a bit of reality TV drama and unnecessary regards Bryan's current notability .... Zoebuggie☺  whispers  14:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)