Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive164

Richard Cohen (columnist) is nothing more than an attack piece on the article subject
Richard Cohen (columnist) is, to put it bluntly, a terrible article. It is basically a hit-piece on Cohen--with a bit of biographical information thrown in--and has probably around 80% of the article devoted to "criticism" of him. I've honestly never seen anything like it. I would link to a diff to prove it, but the entire article is basically the "diff" in this case. I would fix it myself, but all I can think to do is completely stub it, and before I do that, I wanted to report it to here, to see if you guys can figure out the best way to do it. LHM 16:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ugh. I've started on it, but I don't have any more time right now.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Several editors have trimmed it down today, removing everything, I think, that violates WP:BLPN. It could now use some additional biographical information, as the focus on his opinions is WP:UNDUE. I do believe his opinions belong in the article, however, and I would be inclined to revert any attempt to remove them. They are well-sourced, they are neutrally presented, their inclusion does not appear intended to make him look bad, and, more importantly, it would be odd to have an article about an opinion columnist that did not survey his work. He has taken some controversial and even unconventional positions--he must be the only columnist in the world who both denies the right of the state of Israel to exist AND supported the Iraq War. There are people who could read either of those views in this Wikipedia article and decide they don't like the guy. But censoring his opinions so that people won't hate him is not our job per WP:BLPN. Our job is to remove the personal attacks against him, and I think that has now been done. Qworty (talk) 21:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with that approach in principle (and in fact I think the removals might have been taken too far especially in taking out "Criticisms"). The remaining question re "Opinions", though, is: how do we select what to include?  Often when editors add stuff in sections of this sort, the goal is to select stuff that the editor thinks will make the guy look bad.  Of course, since the material selected in this mode is usually controversial, it has also usually received more attention -- so perhaps all is well in Wikipedia terms.  Still, it's an issue for us to give further consideration.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. It is possible that somebody who doesn't like him chose to include the most controversial of his opinions, but I don't know that that's what happened.  Perhaps someone ought to dig around and find opinions of his that are more conventional and include those in the article.  That would make the opinion section even longer, however, and we still need more biographical information to counterbalance the WP:UNDUE of the opinion section. Qworty (talk) 21:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I read his work on a semi-regular basis. Trust me when I tell you, whoever crafted that "Opinions" section had an agenda. Also, the "Media Matters" sourcing seems suspect to me, since it is all one-sided in its viewpoints, and that group has a particular POV that they don't try to hide. They are not a true journalism watchdog, but rather a liberal watchdog, and since Cohen--an avowed liberal himself--has strayed from the "ideological fold", you might say, he has found himself in their crosshairs from time to time. LHM 02:34, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Cher
The section Plastic Surgery needs to be reviewed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cher&diff=520554802&oldid=520554551

I don't think gossip about plastic surgery belongs in the article.

Neosiber (talk) 07:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * That's not gossip. These are referenced opinions about her plastic surgery, which Cher herself admitted having. Lordelliott (talk) 07:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * See Michael Jackson, which is a featured article. His plastic surgery rumours are cited because they are relevant, people talk and want to know about it.


 * By the mid-1990s several surgeons speculated that he had undergone various nasal surgeries, a forehead lift, thinned lips, and cheekbone surgery—although Jackson denied this and insisted that he only had surgery on his nose.


 * It's pretty the same with Cher. It shows the rumours and it shows her point of view. That's the point of impartiality. Lordelliott (talk) 07:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree with Lordelliott. It's well covered in multiple RS. It's relevant to the article. -- Cycl o pia talk  17:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The only issue with that it that it is gossip and libelous. Claiming that she has had ribs removed is libelous, sources don't automatically equal proof. Neosiber (talk) 08:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody says they're proof. We're simply saying that several sources have discussed that, with subject's acknowledgement. As such, the existence of this discussion is information worth having in the article. Please read WP:WELLKNOWN, which is part of WP:BLP. -- Cycl o pia talk  14:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Except it's not just discussion, the section alludes that she has had ribs removed among other things.
 * "Cher admits to having had her breasts 'done', her nose bobbed and her teeth straightened; reportedly she has also had a rib removed, her buttocks reshaped, and cheek implants ... Her normalised image"
 * "There is no public record of when ... Cher chose to have her plastic surgery"
 * It's libelous gossip, not a discussion, they make allegations with no foundation, I looked at the sources, one of which is a blogger who wrote a book. In both the allegations were unsourced and used weasel words like "reportedly".
 * To me that says rumor/gossip. WP:BLPGOSSIP
 * I looked at WP:WELLKNOWN "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out."
 * Two bad sources aren't multiple reliable third-party sources.
 * If better sources are found or the section is rewritten it's one thing, but it is currently poorly written gossip.
 * Neosiber (talk) 16:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Bad sources? Because you don't like them? They are two academic books on aesthetics, culture and philosophy; one of them from Indiana University Press, and the other from the notable academic publisher Routledge. They're not gossip trash books, even if they talk about gossip. A big difference. And the very fact itself there is a discussion about her surgery on serious academic books makes the quotes worth of insertion. That Cher herself has denied the rumour is also empathically written at the end of the paragraph, so we acknowledge in full her version of the issue. If you want to discuss how to emphasize the fact they're just rumours, I'm all for it, but please leave such quotes and informations in the article: they're relevant, and you have no consensus so far to remove them. -- Cycl o pia talk  20:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * My problem is that all they are doing is repeating gossip, they aren't talking about gossip in a discussion, they are just repeating it, as it stands right now the article libelous gossip.
 * It's not her version, it's reality.
 * Again multiple sources are needed, two isn't multiple, in addition only one of the sources talks about rib removal, is there anyone who isn't an inclusionist who can weigh in on the issue?Neosiber (talk) 13:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

John O. Stinson
This guy is a city manager. How on Earth is he notable? I might be missing something...but there's a bunch of sources, from one newspaper. But, he is/was a city manager. Please help as I think he is not notable and would like input here...Thanks.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 00:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Good question. See also Town Manager of Saugus, Massachusetts - there seem to be a lot of similar bio's... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Dear Sir, indeed, all of the names on that page you linked to seem to fail WP:BIO. I am requesting a deletion if other editors concur. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 16:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * If there are sources I'm inclined to think he's notable -however the appropriate place to discuss this is WP:AFD. -- Cycl o pia talk  21:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Sir, I'm not sure I agree that sources automatically make an article notable. Or should even make someone inclined one way or the other. Seems like we need more than one independent and verifiable source. Not just a source and that's that. For example, for John O. Stinson, he has one source. One newspaper. Plus, he was a city manager. So what? Jimsteele9999 (talk) 13:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Alan Jones (radio broadcaster)
Is an "unauthorised biography" a strong enough source to report rumours of homosexuality?


 *  'Jonestown: The Power and the Myth of Alan Jones' (Allen & Unwin), is an unauthorised biography of Jones by Australian journalist Chris Masters. Extracts of the book published in The Sydney Morning Herald concentrated largely on Jones's sexuality, his questionable behaviour while Senior English Master at The King's School and an alleged "cottaging" incident in a London public toilet. The book claims that Jones is a homosexual and that his denial of this is "a defining feature of the Jones persona". 

I suggest that an "unauthorised biography" not backed by any other source is insufficient per WP:BLP to make a contentious claim, and that the report of "alleged (homosexual behaviour) in a London public toilet" is, in fact, contentious. How say ye all? Collect (talk) 02:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And yet, if it was a respected national Daily Blah saying the exact same thing, unsourced, we wouldn't use it? Just asking. Moriori (talk) 03:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP suggests that rumours != fact. Even if it made the Daily Mail.  What is needed is strong reliable sources, which a book quoted in a newspaper does not reach. Collect (talk) 03:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * For background, David Marr has a reputation for quality left-leaning journalism, the newspaper, The Sydney Morning Herald, is one of Australia's highest-quality newspapers, with a reputation for fact-checking, and the author of the source book, Chris Masters is one of Australia's most highly-regarded investigative journalists. There probably isn't an adult alive in Australia who hasn't heard about the London "outraging public decency" charges, but most probably don't know the scant facts, including that the charges were withdrawn by the Crown. That incident really should be mentioned and covered accurately, in a neutral tone. The rest, no. It's gossip and somewhat nasty innuendo. Not what an encyclopedia is for.


 * This version (with "police" changed to "Crown") is enough, in my opinion. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Since calling a person a homosexual is not an insult, it cannot be a violation of WP:BLPN. Rather, if the statement is poorly sourced, it should be removed on that basis and that basis alone. Far more troubling is a 1950s mindset that would presume that terming a person a homosexual is in some way a slur. Qworty (talk) 06:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree with that latter point entirely. As for "strong sourcing" -- Collect has gone off the rails here with the implication that only an authorized biography would be usable for something like this.  That view gives disproportionate influence to the subjects of biographies and is thus inconsistent with NPOV.  A good biography is not to be rejected simply for being unauthorized; if anything, it's the authorized ones that deserve some skepticism.  As for how to move forward, especially in relation to the claim that there is only one source: have a closer look at the references in the bibliography of the biography, to determine whether the issues in question were discussed by Marr on the basis of multiple sources, and if so use those.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Note also that similar comments, in more detail, are mentioned on the Jonestown:_The_Power_and_the_Myth_of_Alan_Jones page- this would also need to be reviewed.(not a key issue here, but I strongly disagree with the suggestion that calling a person a homosexual is never a slur or 'contentious'- in this case it is, just as calling someone a Muslim/ transsexual/ non citizen/Jew would be a slur if they deny it, and their public persona is diminished by it.)WotherspoonSmith (talk) 08:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * If you were addressing me, Qworty, I am not saying that calling someone a homosexual is insulting (it may be, though, if they have denied it, since you are then calling them a liar and a hypocrite). I was referring to the innuendo about inappropriate behaviour with schoolboys in the content that User:Collect removed. Whether we should report that Masters claims he is a closet homosexual, I'm not sure. If we were ever going to report such a contention, Masters is as cautious and highly-regarded a source as we could hope for. Obviously, we won't be saying he is homosexual, using Masters as the source, but there may be a case for saying this multi-award-winning investigative reporter made the claim in his award-winning and highly-regarded biography. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

No problem with Chris Masters as the author of the book to be used as a source, but as per Anthonycole above, the innuendo stuff shouldnt be there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Question
Is this image of Jack O'Dwyer performing a "witch hunt" of the Public Relations Society of America a BLP problem? O'Dwyer is complaining about it and it is a rather demeaning image, but it also articulates an important POV on a substantial controversy. Both the PRSA and O'Dwyer have actively sought publicity about their dispute and are public figures in the scope of the public relations niche. Corporate 20:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * We're not commenting on the image, are we? It's basically an editorial cartoon.  It should be removed forthwith. Morwen - Talk 21:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. Corporate 21:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Hopsin
Hello. I am having a hard time here--this barely verified BLP is suffering from too much friendly attention--people keep adding non-notable people, unverified millions of YouTube views, and they're namedropping famous people without proper verification. Considering that he's hardly notable, the fact that he has a template suggests that it's not just neutral editors working on him. Thank you for your time. Mindy Dirt (talk) 23:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't everybody jump on this at the same time. It's worse: editors keep reinserting accusations against the record label, and specifically the owner, without any kind of verification. Mindy Dirt (talk) 14:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Alistair McAlpine, Baron McAlpine of West Green, Kenneth Clarke and Leon Brittan
Lots and lots of IP edits making very similar accusations on Alistair McAlpine, Baron McAlpine of West Green, Kenneth Clarke and Leon Brittan, and there seems to be a bit of a storm on blogs and twitter which is spilling on to here. Could we have a semi-protect on these three articles for two weeks or when a story mentioning the person comes on a reputable news source, whichever comes sooner? JASpencer (talk) 08:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Better to report this at RFPP, not here. January has already protected the first two; you could ask them to do the same for Leon Brittan. Mindy Dirt (talk) 14:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This is spreading to the talk pages. Should we lock down those and revdel as necessary on those, too?  Morwen - Talk 12:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Rosie O'Donnell
Other editors continually delete verified information from The View section. Information is properly cited and needs to stay on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.193.242.180 (talk) 01:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a content dispute, which you need to work out with the other editors of that page. This page is really more for reporting violations of the WP:BLP policy. KillerChihuahua ?!? 14:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Johann Hari
Cross posting from Reliable Sources Noticeboard, as the question is about sourcing for extremely negative information about the subject of a BLP. See RSN. Thank you for your kind attention. KillerChihuahua ?!? 14:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Liz Kershaw
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liz_Kershaw&diff=521339473&oldid=517111117 Some speculation and weaseling going on here, "evidence" seems slim, and source does not seem to support claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.134.16 (talk) 23:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

jacob thoomkuzhy
Please check the editing history of this page. Most of the content has been simply deleted. People who respect the person find it very discouraging that someone can simply delete everything! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neelankavil (talk • contribs) 03:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Deco
Somebody tries to edit the page and put a wrong current club for Deco. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milad621 (talk • contribs) 08:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC) --Milad621

Deco
Please check his current club. Somebody tries to change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milad621 (talk • contribs) 08:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC) Thanks a lot. Well done — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milad621 (talk • contribs) 09:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Peterffy


I am concerned about new material that the editor has added to the article. (See the "Peterffy's Hungary" and "Criticism of Peterffy's political ad" sections in this version of the article.) I think that the current material falls foul of WP:SYNTH, as it is attempting to connect general material about socialist Hungary with criticism of Peterffy's ads in a way that isn't really present in the sources. I'm going to try and write a version that follows the no original research policy, but I would appreciate it if people could help to keep an eye on things. (If anyone could help with the rewrite that would be great too.) This is a contentious issue right now with the US election so close, so in my opinion the more editors that watch this, the better. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 09:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Stradivarius, Please; your assistance in making the additions more compliant with Wikipedia's guidelines are appreciated. I have attempted to point out how Peterffy's views questionable, as he himself has admitted. My biggest objection to previous removals of my comment was that the comments were removed wholesale, rather than simply edited. I'm not, I'll admit, very experienced at this. Regarding the comments about communist Hungary ("socialist" doesn't at all accurately describe Hungary as it existed at the time), since Peterffy's ad attempts to conflate socialistic policies in today's democratically governed, mixed-market economies, with the conditions extant in the dictatorial communist Hungary of his youth, some review of the historical situation as it existed during Peterffy's residence is appropriate. I've no doubt that it could be incorporated in the article in a more elegant fashion, though. Cordially, Kenwg (talk) 20:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)Kenwg

Frank L. VanderSloot
is being represented as a source on this BLP.

On its face, it is labelled "Reader's Opinion" which I think means it is a "reader's opinion". Essentially a "letter to the editor." The writer of this letter has also editted the BLP.

Is a "reader's opinion" a valid source for a BLP? Also the link to "may-chang.com" was inserted at one point, and it looks to me like it is an SPS. Is that site an SPS? Is it a blog? Does it meet WP:RS for a BLP? Is the author of that site properly described in Wikipedia's voice as a "journalist"? Thanks. Collect (talk) 17:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Bruce Replogle
Could I request a second opinion on Bruce Replogle, as I'm really unsure about this one. I can't find mentions in any kind of reliable source, and removing the material that's cited only to his own website or press releases would literally leave the article as one sentence long. However, if the article is accurate he clearly sails through WP:N and it's certainly possible that, if he was big in the 1980s but unknown now, all the coverage of him is in print sources that just aren't available online. I don't really want to nominate it for deletion as if everything in this is true deletion is clearly inappropriate - however at the moment it's a BLP sourced only to the subject and his company. Does anyone have any pointers for this kind of situation? Mogism (talk) 21:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

(adding) I've not notified the original author, as they're indefblocked. Mogism (talk) 21:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The original creator was a sock of banned user . Looking at ML's deleted contributions there's a few BLPs which have been deleted for lack of sourcing, and as suspected promotions. I'm going to prod this. If it is de-proded without a good source, I'd suggest afd.--Scott Mac 22:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that - I really wasn't sure how to proceed here. Obviously if all the claims are true we're going to look stupid for deleting this, but I really can't find anything to back any of these claims up - and if he was really this close to John Lennon I'd expect to find it, as just about everything pertaining to Lennon has been documented somewhere or other. Mogism (talk) 22:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Victor Sajeni
Name is incorrect. His name is 'Wictor', not 'Victor'.

Should read Wictor Sajeni. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kathstone (talk • contribs) 21:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I've poked User:Dr. Blofeld, since he created this. You may well be right.--Scott Mac 22:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'm seeing both spellings of his name via google, not sure which is correct, both both show up, so Victor or Wictor may turn out to be right.  KoshVorlon . We are all Kosh ...  17:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Ted Yoho
Point of view is not neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.180.6.47 (talk) 07:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is a "political campaign article" due to silly season. Campaign material removed. Collect (talk) 13:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Frank Scarabino (mobster BLP)
I was about to speedy this as a poorly sourced negative BLP (G10). But it is borderline. Sources look like primary sources hosted on some site. What do folks think?--Scott Mac 09:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * -- produces this and this, for starters. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup. They show he existed and was a bad man and a witness. But each contains only one sentence on him, not really enough to support this bio.--Scott Mac 10:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Reliance on primary sources for a fairly negative BLP is unwise - as was the assertion that he was a "New York mobster." In point of fact, he appears extremely un-notable for a Wikipedia "hit piece."  Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Collect, while I agree with your removals, we now have a negative BLP with no sources whatsoever. That'd be an instant speedy deletion. What do you think?--Scott Mac 14:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I left a "cn tag" -- but if no one steps up to fill the void, I think deletion on non-notability grounds is more likely than deletion as being negative.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at the sidelinks at the bottom, it appears there is a massive potential problem with large numbers of articles of this type. Bernard NiCastro has no secondary sources at all, for example.  I dread to think what else might be lurking. Morwen (Talk) 17:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

All the linked articles should have the primary soure basis removed, as well as the non-neutral language. Collect (talk) 21:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Theodore T. Jones
Died last night — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xestim (talk • contribs) 13:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you point us to a reliable source for that?--Scott Mac 14:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I found a ref in BusinessWeek [1] and have added it to the article.--ukexpat (talk) 18:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Derek Laud
A newly-registered account, and an IP (probably the same person) have been repeatedly adding an unsubstantiated rumour to this article, citing a very dubious site [:http://the-alternative.co.uk/]. I have removed the defamatory edits, per policy, but more eyes are needed, and possibly page protection. And similar possibly libellous edits can be expected on other articles. RolandR (talk) 18:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There are several experienced editors watching the page. We will all continue to remove any poorly sourced information. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 20:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Gabrielle Union biography
Please remove the following information. (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.254.194.91 (talk) 02:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ (and from the article too). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Oliver Stone
A new editor is making considerable changes to the article, not all of them according to our guidelines. Your attention is appreciated; their user name also might be out of line with policy. Mindy Dirt (talk) 19:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you be more specific? It's a big set of diffs, and I can see cause for concern, but the new user doesn't seem to be adding unsourced/inadequately sourced negative information, which is the primary concern for this noticeboard?  Morwen (Talk) 19:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it cites tweets, it adds undiluted praise by Gorbachev and others for the book, and it removed a Guardian article--and the username spells "Untold History of the United States". Mindy Dirt (talk) 20:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds like an ordinary content dispute, then. I would suggest you discuss the matter with the user in question, on their talk page or the article's take page.  Morwen (Talk) 20:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Mindy, just revert the bad edits. (Note to Morwen: the editor in question was a single-issue probable proxy sock-puppet with no user page.)--Mike18xx (talk) 21:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Most new editors start out as SPAs. (Technically all start that way, but 22 edits in is still early.)
 * What evidence of proxy sockpuppet do you have?
 * What does having or not having a userpage have to do with anything?
 * Side note: No messages to their talk page to discuss anything about the issue or tell them it was being discussed? --Onorem♠Dil 07:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * UHOTUS's level of knowledge at editing Wikipedia is too advanced for a first-timer (i.e., adding references, including comment remarks with his changes so other users who track the article's "history" will view a list of seemingly innocuous reasons for alterations, etc. -- the kind of stuff even a smart noob never does on his initial run). "UHOTUS" is short for "Untold History of the United States" (a novel ghost-written for Stone to accompany the Showtime series of the same name). Conclusion: sock-puppet created for this single issue. ...I will stipulate that the bulk of UHOTUS's edits, all minor (small grammar old link fixes, etc) slightly improved the article (though these did not off-set the first major edits marginalizing notable criticism -- which the score of minor edits then attempted to "snow over"). The user has not returned to contest reversion for about 24 hours now.--Mike18xx (talk) 00:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose I didn't know how to format my ref, but I included it in my first edit summary in 2006 never having edited by IP before that. Unusual? Maybe. Unheard of? Not even close. The name stands for something? So what? They picked a name that had something to do with the first topic they chose to edit...and you admit that most of their edits were improvements. WTF? WP:AGF. Prove it...and use a F'n talk page. --Onorem♠Dil 22:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you save the swearing for your talk page, please. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm very sorry if I offended you by saying WTF and F'n. Please accept my most sarcastic apologies. Other than that, do you have a comment related to this topic? --Onorem♠Dil 22:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Luke Stricklin
This page does not follow the guidelines of being worthy of a page. There are no link backs and this person is not 'famous' as the article claims. I in fact know this person in real life and he is not famous within our small town.

I found this page after he had added himself to our town's "Noteworthy People". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.39.180.2 (talk • contribs)
 * This person appears to have released an album that appeared on a significant music chart - therefore, I'm unwilling to speedy-delete. If you wish to look for community consensus to delete, AfD is thataway. polarscribe (talk) 17:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Boris Malagurski
Also Talk:The Weight of Chains. I'm a regular volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard and last night in this edit removed some material from an editor's response there under WP:GRAPEVINE and WP:BLPTALK. A quick scan through the talk pages of the affected articles suggests to me that there may be a considerable number of similar violations there; while I've NIMBY'ied this at DRN, I'm kicking the ball to you for the rest. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Robin Lane Fox
There has been two rather insulting entries (12:36 and 12:34, 7 November 2012) earlier today. I think these entries are unfair for both Robin Lane Fox and Greece.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robin_Lane_Fox&diff=521816237&oldid=521816068

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robin_Lane_Fox&diff=prev&oldid=521816068

Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.132.249.244 (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * This is just simple nonsense, it has already been removed.--Scott Mac 00:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Myra Bairstow
I'm requesting help: The biography appears weak on reliable sources, most of them being primary, and wobbly re: notability. I also suspect COI may be an issue, but prefer not to continue one-on-one, reverting the article's founder. Would appreciate further thoughts. 99.155.206.28 (talk) 01:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Alcohol enema
Alcohol enema is currently linked from the main page in the DYK section. Both the article itself, and the hook, focus heavily on controversial or negative allegations about living people, neither of whom have been convicted of anything. I'd welcome thoughts on how appropriate this is.

Addition: Did you know says that "Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals or promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided " (emphasis in original). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on what you quoted above, I would not have this hook on the main page. Who is watching the story and was this properly vetted? With the 1,000s of possible hooks, is this really necessary? Maybe err on the side of caution? I'd rather see a Gilbrater hook than this. --Malerooster (talk) 03:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * A helpful IP editor has added a link about Mayan use of alcohol enemas on the talk page of the article. If some of that could be put in the article properly ref'd, then an admin could swap in a hook like "... that Mayan depictions show how they used alcohol enemas in ritual?" or something like that. Unfortunately, I don't have time to make the changes to the article (and I'm not aware of any documented instances of alcohol enemas that involve Gibraltar).


 * The stronger option would be an admin removing or replacing the hook altogether until it can be sorted out. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I have excised most of the offending content for the time being. Gatoclass (talk) 05:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I see Demiurge1000 already raised this at DYK, if Gatoclass hadnt removed the content I think any number of others would have. This should have been picked up at the review stage at DYK. I think they need to be reminded they need to be looking at more than just the DYK criteria. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * What I quoted is in the DYK criteria, so really you mean "they need to be looking at more than just the basic DYK criteria". It's easy to forget the small(ish) print when confronted with the relative rarity of a genuinely striking or unusual hook, so yes a few reminders would probably be a good idea. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Doug LaMalfa
This reads like a campaign attack flier. There's a lot of negative accusations cited to opinion pieces and blogs and given undue weight, especially the raccoon damage section. -LtNOWIS (talk) 04:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Scott Mac has rolled back to a version with much less partisan editorializing. polarscribe (talk) 09:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Erin Harkes
I do not think this person should have a Wiki page. This person is not famous. I am from the area in which she now lives and I have never heard of her before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.154.11 (talk) 08:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If you feel that way you could read WP:AFD - and WP:Notability and if you think the article subject fits then nominate it for deletion discussion-  You  really  can  08:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with the first person. She seems to be only a local celebrity.  However there are quite a few sources provided, although they all seem to be local.  I'll start the AfD within the next few days if someone else doesn't.  Don't feel like doing that right now. Borock (talk) 02:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Paul Gorman
Ebay vendor taken to this page to air grievances? Reinstates the paragraph when it was removed... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.110.214.242 (talk) 11:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Removed, thanks. Will keep an eye on the page. polarscribe (talk) 11:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Francis Maude
Insertion of uncited material suggesting link to Jimmy Savile JRPG (talk) 16:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Libelous vandalism. You reverted, which is usually all that's needed. However, this case was so outrageous, and there were no other useful contributions, so that it gets an indef block. If you need an account blocked try WP:AIV next time.--Scott Mac 19:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Is WP going back to the old highly-political days? Borock (talk) 02:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

marisa tomei did not cameo or have any role in the 2011 film grown ups
marisa tomei was not in the film Grown ups, which starred adam sandler, kevin james, chris rock, and david spade — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.112.158 (talk) 03:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Darrell Issa
Bbb23 and an anonymous web address (which may be a sock puppet of Bbb23) object to mention being made of Darrell Issa calling an emergency meeting and while chairing the meeting, broadcasting on C-SPAN details of a secret CIA base in Libya.

Numerous media sites reported that C-SPAN broadcast the secret information live. Some are listed below:
 * http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-letting-us-in-on-a-secret/2012/10/10/ba3136ca-132b-11e2-ba83-a7a396e6b2a7_story.html
 * http://www.nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/milbank-did-a-house-libya-hearing-reveal-classified-information--20121011
 * http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2012/10/cummings-rips-issa-over-libya-probe-138175.html
 * http://www.politicususa.com/investigating-security-leaks-darrell-issa-puts-libyans-lives-risk.html
 * http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/10/11/991231/republicans-reveal-cia-base-libya/
 * http://inagist.com/all/256361960076099584/
 * http://www.newser.com/story/155607/congress-just-blew-the-cias-cover-in-libya.html
 * http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/10/21/issa-puts-more-cia-operatives-in-danger/


 * Bbb23 believes none of these are reputable enough sources to be mentioned in "Criticism and controversy".
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Darrell_Issa&oldid=521249805

PeteBobb (talk) 22:24, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Bbb23's puppet is not an "anonymous web address", but User:Anonymous209.6, a registered account. Bbb23 believes the material PeteBobb wants to add is WP:COATRACK.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Sources which say '''Addicting Info started as a resource to discredit all the lies and propaganda that the right-wing spreads.  might appear on their face to be propaganda/polemic sources more than they are 'reliable sources." Using souch sources in a BLP especially during silly season is contrary to Wikipedia core principles including BLP policy, and NPOV, RS, SYNTH and more.  Other sources include "pure blogs", etc.   In the meantime, this editor who seems not to comprehend why WP:BLP exists seems intent on attacking one of the most valued members of the community.   I iterate my position here: Articles which make "allegations" make bad encyclopedia articles, especially when any sort of POV can be attached thereto. I suggest that articles subject to WP:BLP in any manner which make allegations be strongly constrained.''' Collect (talk) 23:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there some reason that the editor Casprings, who is clearly disruptive and editing from a clearly politically motivated stance has not been permenently blocked already? --Malerooster (talk) 23:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Does anyone contest that it is fact that 1) Darrell Issa called an "emergency committee meeting" which was broadcast on C-SPAN, and 2) that during the "emergency meeting" the classified information with details of a secret CIA base in Libya was part of the C-SPAN broadcast?
 * If this is NOT disputed, perhaps it is the wording that is at issue.
 * Would it be better to use as a primary source Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings' letter to Issa, Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) instead of the Washington Post? (I used the Washington Post, believing it is less politically motivated than a letter from a Democrat Representative.)
 * Specifically, Cummings complained that no classified briefing was held for lawmakers on the Oversight panel – giving them no guidance as to what information was classified and what was not classified before the public broadcast on C-SPAN.
 * Does anyone contest that this issue is a 'Criticism and Controversy' about Issa's public work in Congress, no matter which side of the controversy you feel is right?
 * PeteBobb (talk) 00:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes.--Malerooster (talk) 00:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes what? You do not believe this is controversial? Yes, You do not believe that Classified Information was broadcast? Yes, it would be better to use Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings' letter to Issa as a source? PeteBobb (talk) 00:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I contest this issue is a 'Criticism and Controversy' about Issa's public work in Congress. Just because political talking headers and politically motivated editors are mentioning this, doesn't mean we automatically parrot those opinions, especially in BLPs. If something really comes of this, or its some really huge deal, then maybe revisit it. In 6 months will this even be a blip on the radar?--Malerooster (talk) 01:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Clearly should be part of the article. Well sourced from many RS.Casprings (talk) 01:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Almost none of those are RS's you should read up on WP:RS and rethink your position. Arzel (talk) 01:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Clearly should be part of the article. Well sourced from many RS.Casprings (talk) 01:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Almost none of those are RS's you should read up on WP:RS and rethink your position. Arzel (talk) 01:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The sources being used are terrible sources for factual statements. If you read through the original posting by Dana Milbank, he assumes that a classified peice of information referred to was in fact a CIA base.  We cannot make a factual statement that Issa accidentally leaked the location of a CIA base unless we have rock solid sources that in fact identify the site as a CIA base.  This is pretty straight forward.  Arzel (talk) 01:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It looks questionable to me too - the Washington Post piece is clearly a blog, the NationalJournal piece attributes it to the WP, but doesn't assert it as fact, etc. And we aren't supposed to have 'Criticism and Controversy' sections in articles anyway. If such material is of any lasting significance, it needs proper sourcing, and inclusion in the main body of the article. Separate 'criticism' sections just attract unencyclopaedic junk. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah think? Look at the first section there, the Industry insiders on his oversight team. Its linked to a non notable group and a Huffington post blog. How is that even in the BLP? --Malerooster (talk) 01:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely other sections of the Issa article need BLP cleanup. For someone alleged (or in ThinkProgress language, reliably reported) to have a hand in one of my uncomfortable places, Bbb23 seems reluctant to let me proceed.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 02:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

As to the "reports", they have sufficient degrees of separation from Issa to be WP:COATRACK. The person alleged to have revealed secrets is a State Dep't employee who was testifying (and, like all government employees, are required to ask for closed session when National security issues are raised), and the person alleged to have brought attention to the State Dep't employee's possible mis-step and tried to stop proceedings was also NOT Issa. This may or may not be a controversy; we still do not have confirmation that the now destroyed annex/safe house was classified; even if it is a controversy, it isn't really an Issa controversy.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 02:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz, another top Republican investigator who traveled to Libya last weekend, at one point interrupted a State Department official’s testimony to argue that a satellite image of the Benghazi consulate on display at the hearing was classified information." Arzel are you contesting that Republican Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz knows what portion being broadcast was Classified Information? After Republican Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz interrupted the discussion of the classified information, Darrell Issa finally agreed to take the information down and stop the broadcasting of the map on C-SPAN.

It seems to me that it was either incompetence on Issa's part to have classified information broadcast, or it was deliberate treason in aiding and abetting America's enemies by telling them where the secret CIA base was. BUT, in accordance with wiki's rules on presenting information in an impartial manner, this belief was not part of what I included in the brief, factual presentation of what occurred. PeteBobb (talk) 02:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, if there is an allegation that someone screwed up during a hearing, it is an allegation that a State Department employee screwed up, and that committee members were in a position to try and stop broadcast once that screw-up happened. We don't actually have confirmation that the State Department employee DID screw up, the CIA has not confirmed the information was classified. If it was, the State Department employee should not have brought it to the Hearing, at least not without informing the whole Committee that classified info would be presented. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 12:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Silly season redux. It is not "treason" or the like - and it is part of the US Constitution that a member of Congress has absolute privilege over what he says in Congress -- vide Harry Reid saying Romney had "not paid any income taxes."   (for any Speech or Debate in either House, [senators and representatives] shall not be questioned in any other place )  The courts have interpreted this to include any formal Congressional meetings.  As for what is "classified" my dad told me that bathroom locations at bases were once "classified information."  Cheers - and let reliable sources argue this one - but right now it appears to be COATRACK incarnate. Collect (talk) 03:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

PeteBob, in response to your question above, I am asserting that there is no factual evidence that this was a secret CIA base. I know that Dana Millbank claims that it must have been. That, however, is not good enough for a BLP statement that Issa in fact revealed the location of a secret CIA base. Dana does not know the facts, you do not know the facts. Do not purport to know the facts because you believe that Think Progress's assertation is correct. Arzel (talk) 14:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No one questions that these are reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
 * The question appears to be whether these are "Blogs'.


 * Wiki only publishes the opinions of reliable authors, and these are written by reliable professional authors.
 * So, we are considering whether these statements are opinion or fact.
 * Will it please the posters here if a notation is added that attributes the opinion to the author in the text of the article as per the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources guidelines? :::WP:WELLKNOWN PeteBobb (talk) 16:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, several editors are questioning the reliability of the sources. Generally, blogs are inherently unreliable. And I'm not sure that all of these opinions were "written by reliable professional authors". Nor would it help to present the material as opinions. There's no justification for that sort of material in this article.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Arzel Thinkprogess is one of the supplemental sources to the main source of the Washington Post which was used as the source. Criticism of a selected supplemental source you personally don't like doesn't really seem relevant to this discussion.
 * Newser, for example, writes:
 * "Rep. Jason Chaffetz, for instance, objected to a satellite photo of the site, saying, "I was told specifically while I was in Libya I could not and should not ever talk about what you’re showing here."
 * "Rep. Jason Chaffetz, for instance, objected to a satellite photo of the site, saying, "I was told specifically while I was in Libya I could not and should not ever talk about what you’re showing here."

Darrell Issa belatedly ordered the photo hidden, since it "may still in fact be a facility of the United States government." Lawmakers revealed that there had been a "rapid response force" run by some "other government agency," which, Issa revealed, was not the FBI."
 * Would this be a better source to quote?
 * WP:WELLKNOWN PeteBobb (talk) 16:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have difficulty in understanding why the Washington Post is being questioned as a reliable source.
 * If major publications are considered unreliable sources, does this mean that only Fox News is a reliable source when discussing Right-Wing politicians?
 * The author is a paid staff member of the Washington Post.
 * IMHO, the question SHOULD be whether the professional author writing on the editorial page is a 'Blog'.
 * There are other sources which are not on the Editorial Page which could be used IF the issue is whether the facts are being presented in a Blog.
 * There are other sources which are not on the Editorial Page which could be used IF the issue is whether the facts are being presented in a Blog.

PeteBobb (talk) 17:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * PeteBobb, this is what happened. It is quite clear if you read the timeline of the sources.  Dana Milbank is an opinion writer for the WaPo, and tends to be from the liberal position.  He connected the dots as he sees them and made the claim against Issa.  Naturally, the left internet picked this up an ran with it in order to attack Issa.  TP is not a supplemental source to the Milbank opinion, they simply parrot the claim.  Arzel (talk) 18:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, if the source is the TRUE issue and not political posturing by people banned from posting on Political Pages, then may I propose:
 * http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/12/us-usa-libya-intelligence-idUSBRE89B1EU20121012 as the source?
 * "U.S. intelligence efforts in Libya have suffered a significant setback due to the abandonment and exposure of a facility in Benghazi, Libya identified by a newspaper as a "CIA base" following a congressional hearing this week, according to U.S. government sources.
 * "The publication of satellite photos showing the site's location and layout have made it difficult, if not impossible, for intelligence agencies to reoccupy the site, according to government sources, speaking on condition of anonymity."
 * PeteBobb (talk) 19:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * PeteBobb (talk) 19:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The Reuters article says nothing about Issa. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The Reuters article mentions the 'committee' which is clear to those familiar with the incident as being the 'Emergency Committee meeting' called by and chaired by Darryl Issa. So, do we need two sources, one that identifies Issa as calling and chairing the meeting and Reuters as the second source? OR is the partisan intent to protect Darryll Issa from any criticism?

PeteBobb (talk) 20:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for demonstrating your cluelessness. As anyone familiar with my editing history will know, I am no 'partisan' supporter of the Republican party (or of any other US political party for that matter). I suggest that rather than engaging in personal attacks, you spend some time studying Wikipedia policy - particularly WP:BLP and WP:RS. If you need to cite two different sources to show that the criticism from one article is directed at the individual named in another, you are engaging in synthesis. Incidentally, I note that the Reuters article also notes criticism of Democratic committee members. Do you intend to add this to their articles? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * No, it means that any material related to this doesn't belong in the Issa article because, as I've said repeatedly, among other reasons, it's WP:COATRACK. This is my last comment on this issue. There's a clear consensus against inclusion of the material.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Arzel: You state "Dana Milbank is an opinion writer for the WaPo".
 * To quote from wiki Dana Milbank, "Dana Timothy Milbank (born April 27, 1968) is a columnist for The Washington Post. ...
 * Milbank writes "Washington Sketch" for the Post, an observational column about political theater in the White House, Congress, and elsewhere in the capital. Before coming to the Post as a political writer in 2000, he covered the Clinton White House for The New Republic and Congress for The Wall Street Journal.
 * Milbank was criticized for a July 30, 2008 article[6] in which ... he portrayed Barack Obama as being presumptuous.[7][8]
 * A few days later MSNBC's Keith Olbermann stated that Milbank would not be allowed back onto his show ... until Milbank submitted "a correction or an explanation."
 * This strikes me as a reputable reporter. PeteBobb (talk) 20:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This strikes me as a reputable reporter. PeteBobb (talk) 20:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Bbb23, will you agree to mediation? PeteBobb (talk) 20:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Above, I said I wouldn't comment again, but I don't want to be rude, so the answer is no. This thread is worn out; if it were at an administrative noticeboard, it would've been closed by now. I'm not going to spend more time on this issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * As a rule, "COATRACK" claims turn me off, because this essay usually means only that someone disagrees with the politics of a cited fact. In this case, however, this surrounds a general need to cite the facts fairly and completely.  I don't think the removed edit really got there.  It is obvious that several different politicians and a State Department official collectively managed to create some sort of fiasco about the site - though apparently, given the context in which it was raised, there was already much compromised.  But who was responsible for briefing committee members what not to talk about, who was responsible for the photo shown and for what questions were answered without protest?  The sources don't have this as a headline all about Issa, who "loudly objected" to the photo and wanted it taken down ASAP (though already too late).  The question is then whether Issa should have quietly left the photo to run on C-SPAN in the perhaps justifiable hope that nobody was really watching. :)  It is definitely worth unraveling the whole story and getting it set down from beginning to end in an article, but this isn't the article for that - by the time you have it all set down in a way that is fair to each of the people involved, it'll be a huge chunk of text.  If Issa is unaffected politically by the incident, all that is needed is a link to the article about the committee itself, but if it affects Issa noticeably in polls or future appointments, then in a link to an article about this specific incident with a modest summary of how it did so. Wnt (talk) 16:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, no. It is clear that the responsibility for clearing articles that the State Department employee was going to present rests with the State Department, and the State Department may have been right, that the photos and identification was no longer classified, having been bombed out and abandoned by then(and we don't currently know who is right). Committee members raised concerns that the State Department had not checked the cleared information properly. It may or may not be a Controversy, but if it IS, it isn't an Issa controversy.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 03:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Allen West
At one point (Elections) the article states that Mr. West and Congressman Tim Scott are the first African-American Republicans in Congress since Oklahoma Congressman J.C. Watts retired in 1973. In another place (Tenure) of the article he is described as the first Republican member of the Black Caucus since Congressman Gary Franks retired in 1997. These two statements do not seem to correlate. Gary Franks was a Republican, and African-American.

More generally, the article needs updating to reflect the 2012 election, and to correct verb tenses, especially present to past tense. Sorry I don't quite understand how to do that editing.

K Maddox — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.110.201.92 (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Watts retired in 2003, not 1973, and never joined the Black Caucus. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 03:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Melanie Phillips
There's some fairly absurd crap (two different pieces) being added to this article by an inexperienced editor and an IP. In addition, the registered account is claiming that there is consensus for one piece (the award) on the talk page. There is a VERY long discussion back in 2011 about it, to which the editor now declares consensus, but it's not clear to me whether a consensus was ever reached. Plus, apparently it was dropped and now brought back by the editor. Then, there's the Obama piece, which is way out of line - Wikipedia is not a platform for Phillips's extreme views. Three editors (including me) have reverted on or both of the pieces, but that doesn't seem to stop the editor.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The editor in question has made an attempt to discuss these issues on the talk page. No-one has yet responded to him/her there.  The Stonewall awards get a lot of press in the UK; I don't see the problem.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Stonewall are an activist group. Their labelling someone a 'Bigot' is certainly problematic from a BLP point of view. Regardless of the (possible) accuracy when it comes to columnists like Phillips whose job is to court controversy and attract readers. Its what she is paid to do. The secondary sources which would be relied upon to include a contentious claim in a BLP are pretty much all from activist/partisan sources. Diva, Pink news etc. (The BBC one was quite light on content) Despite that, they are still reliable sources as far as it goes when reporting that an award was given by Stonewall to Melanie Phillips. So the RS arguments are pretty weak. We expect secondary sources that deal with issues relevant to their readers to focus on things that impact their readers. Claiming this disqualifies them as a RS on that matter is an extreme viewpoint. Their intentions behind reporting it could probably be questioned but it doesnt alter the fact she was declared a bigot by stonewall and it was reported as such in secondary sources. The strongest arguments to not including it are variations on UNDUE etc. (Which I do agree with) However Phillips writing work (especially with regards to homosexuality) is controversial. It wouldnt be out of place to have mentioned as part of a section on her writing that a prominant gay rights group finds her bigoted on the issues she writes about. Consensus was not achieved because the arguments for not including it were weak but in a strong policy area (BLP), and the arguments for including it were fairly strong given what she is actually notable for. And so it stalemated. Which in the BLP area means 'do not add'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Addition - My preferred option would be to cull the 'views' individual section completely and replace with 'Melanie Phillips is known for her controversial views on subjects such as [X]' with a source for each, but not go into the detail that is currently there. As it stands, every time she comes out with another piece on a new target, another paragraph will be added until that section pretty much overshadows everything else. Its already unreasonably big given the length of the bio. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It's only getting worse. A newly registered account, in their first and only edit, has added a new section called "Accuations of racism and Islamophobia" (misspelling in original).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Andrey Borodin
It is a biography of a living person. One user posted content which does not meet WP's standards. The material is poorly sourced by quoting one online newspaper in Russia which quotes an anonymous source. Research shows that no other media confirms the stories. One story is plain wrong which makes it libel. Nevertheless, changes are constantly deleted by original poster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatwort (talk • contribs) 08:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Gebran Bassil
Issues with possible OR/synthesis sourced to dead link, statement with BLP implications in Wikipedia's voice that shouldn't be. Would others please take a look? Rivertorch (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Removed. Any negative statement that lacks a proper reference, or any statement that is an unattributed opinion, you can simply remove it.Scott Mac 21:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I know, and I did, but I wasn't willing to edit war over it. Rivertorch (talk) 21:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

patrick ryan elkins
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Elkins#Personal

Innappropriate personal attack on the last paragraph of this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.223.21.66 (talk) 21:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Generic vandalism reverted. --Onorem♠Dil 21:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And I'm about to head to work so don't have time to search for sources..., but given the current state of the article, I'm guessing I'll be nominating it for deletion tomorrow. --Onorem♠Dil 21:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like Orange Mike beat you to it. De728631 (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Zvezdan Jovanović
err...filth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CapsicumChinense (talk • contribs) 00:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Scott Desjarlais
To Whom It May Concern,

The reports in this biography are not accurate. The recently reported information about Scott Desjarlais is not proven to be factual. They are claims and allegations made during his political campaign. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboy76 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Blueboy, it looks like you are engaged in edit warring, see WP:3rr. Please do not do this. Use the article talk page and try to gain some kind of consensus. Thank you. --Malerooster (talk) 01:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

This article is a mess of personal allegations. All sourced, but probably given quite undue weight, and coming in an US election cycle from political reporters, the neutrality is heavily suspect. I've no time or inclination to get into this, but the whole article needs looked at by neutral careful eyes.--Scott Mac 11:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Tennessee,_2012 should also be monitored. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  15:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Eyes are needed, but as long as it's covered (by us) neutrally, I don't see an issue. He can lose his license to practice medicine over this. As far as the impact on the election, he was going to cruise to an easy victory until these allegations came out, but instead won by less than he otherwise would have. This wasn't exactly supposed to be territory where Stewart could compete. I think Des Jarlais' article handles this appropriately, but the election article needs to be pared down. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

BLP of RTI Activists
I have to bring to your notice User:RobertRosen who has blanked many sections related to India Against Corruption movement. Should this be regarded a libel? This is saddening too. morelM William  01:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This user has simultaneously initiated 2 ongoing WP:DR's against me at WP:RSN and WP:ANI  for the same/similar incidents. He has consistently refused to first discuss the matters with me saying "I would rather spend time adding valuable content on the article space than chit chat with you upholding niceties such as politeness, good faith and courtesy." and also "This discussion would be moved to the article's talk page once resolved. Let us get to WP:DR when there is a dispute. Like when both of us believe that earth is flat", Hence, it is impossible to discuss the matter with him in a WP:CIVIL manner, leave alone arriving at a consensus. At the other WP:DR fora he has been rebuked by at least 4 admins. I am also offended that he has not cared to inform me about bringing this dispute to this notice board or even placing the dispute tag on the article's talk page. He is also confused between "RTI activist" and "India Against Corruption". Salman Khurshid is India's Foreign Minister and not an RTI activist. Pray tell, which other RTI activist's BLP page have I allegedly "blanked" ? Insofar as the 2 instances of "blanking" he has given are concerned, the High Court of Delhi issued defamation notices (4 days after I deleted the matter per WP:LBL) against persons making and spreading those very same libelous allegations.  I was also thus protecting Wikipedia from being roped in. RobertRosen (talk) 19:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Lance Armstrong
/ Since he has been stripped of his titles and banned from the sport, there have been serious issues at this article. For one, well over 50% of the article deals with the minutiae of the doping claims against him, despite the fact that there is already a sub article for most of this content. I believe that this is an WP:UNDUE amount of coverage that runs afoul of the BLP policy.

Also, Armstrong has repeatedly and vigorously denied all the charges brought against him. These denials have been frequent, and are covered in thousands and thousands of reliable sources. These denials also come regarding the allegations made against him by the USADA which were formalized in their decision to ban him. http://edition.cnn.com/2012/08/23/sport/lance-armstrong-investigation/index.html

However, two editors on the page will not allow a statement that Armstrong has repeatedly denied doping because he hasn't denied it since the formal report making the decision to ban him (which came a couple of days after he denied the allegations and stated he would never comment on them again). Please note, he denied the allegations specifically, and the decision was made by the same organization which made those allegations. The editors' reasoning is that he hasn't denied them in the last 10 weeks, so he doesn't deny them anymore. I believe that when we have so many sources that all agree that he has denied these allegations, he must include that fact in the lede, even if it is a very short sentence.LedRush (talk) 21:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course the article should say Armstrong denies the charges. The drug doping allegations section should contain two or three paragraphs, max; just enough to establish the basics and describe the current situation. All of the other material about doping should stay in the dedicated article on that topic. Binksternet (talk) 22:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Every year the Legal Studies students from my school get to visit our (Australian) state's maximum security prison. They get to speak with prisoners. Every year the students return, telling us that EVERY inmate told them they were innocent. Of course Armstrong denies the charges. That's simply not news. What he will now go down in history for is being a dope cheat. His previous achievements now legally and morally count for nothing. That he is now the world's most famous dope cheat is what the article SHOULD be emphasising. HiLo48 (talk) 22:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The article cannot say that, of course, because it directly contradicts the core principles of Wikipedia. Of course, when notable institutions say he's the biggest cheat ever, and reliable sources cover it, we can and should attribute that opinion to them.  But all that is off topic.LedRush (talk) 22:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh FFS, where have you been looking? Maybe it's different in the US, but in most of the world that's exactly what the major media sources HAVE been saying, that he is the most notable and biggest drug cheat ever. HiLo48 (talk) 22:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * For the record, we already have that opinion attributable to sources in the article. Of course, this remains off-topic.LedRush (talk) 22:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * HilO48, perhaps you are mistaking strong personal feelings for Wikipedia policy. The way to write a biography is to summarize significant viewpoints, one of which is the Armstrong denials of doping.
 * The way to deal with material in a split topic, such as the doping sub-article, is to briefly summarize the sub-topic and point the reader to the sub-article by using the Template "Main". Binksternet (talk) 22:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * My point is that all that needs to be said about Armstrong's denying drug use is just that. Maybe six words, "Armstrong denies that he used drugs." Any more than that is undue, and pointless, because, as I've already pointed out, of course he denies it. That he does it many times, and that it's reported many times makes it no more notable. Anyone who wants any more in the article is definitely letting their own feelings override what the sources say, and reality. And again, he is now primarily famous for being a drug cheat. That's not a personal opinion. It's what the sources say, and it's what the article must say. HiLo48 (talk) 23:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that's six more words than the editors currently allow, so that's a start. But just so you know, the RSs have gone into much detail about his denials.  He has a lot of evidence on his side as well.  It doesn't mean he's right.  (for the record, I think he probably cheated as well).  It just means that the reliable sources have gone through the very large amounts of evidence he has presented in his defense (number of tests passed, number of allegations proven false, number of investigations clearing him, etc.)  Of course, not all that needs to go in the lede.  But it seems very, very strange to me that something that so many RSs talk about would be omitted.  Also, just to be clear, this is about feelings.  This is about properly presenting what the sources say.  Almost every article that talks about the allegations gives substantial coverage to Armstrong's denials and mentions at least one or two of the reasons (usually that he never failed a test).  This doesn't make him right.  This doesn't mean that WP endorses that view.  It just means that we are accurately reporting what the sources say.
 * On an unrelated note, I've never read a non-opinion piece that says Armstrong is primarily known as a cheat. I have read tons of articles that say he is primarily known for being the best cyclist in the world, the 7-time tour champ, and for other things, though.  The article must reflect was the RSs do.  This being a BLP, it is even more important.LedRush (talk) 03:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * But he is not the best cyclist in the world, and quite possibly never was. We wouldn't want to tell lies in a BLP, would we? HiLo48 (talk) 04:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * While your opinion is interesting, it remains your personal POV. We say what RSs do on WP.LedRush (talk) 04:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Do they or you disagree with me? I've seen no sources that do. Now. I hope you're not suggesting that we should still be using anything from before he was found to be a drug cheat. Yes, many have said he denies it all, but surely none are still saying he's a great cyclist. If so, you'd better point us to them. HiLo48 (talk) 07:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you honestly saying that no sources now say he's a great cyclist? Wow.  And that doesn't even matter.  If RSs said at the time he was the best, we can say that at that time he was considered the best.  It's simple.  Can we please get back on topic?  Pretty please?LedRush (talk) 15:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Back on topic, it seems that despite the disagreements above, everyone seems to agree that at least a very brief mention of Armstrong's denials is warranted. Does anyone else want to weigh in?LedRush (talk) 15:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Let the subject have his say. That ought to be the starting point for any sane BLP policy.  I'm tired of having people try to muzzle a subject because his statements offend their POV, whether it's a comment that later draws criticism that people of his party want to forget about, or an accusation that they don't want to hear made, or a defense that they don't think is true.  It should be clear that Armstrong has never been convicted in a court of law - for outsiders this is a private dispute between him and some bicycle club about a referee's call.  If we want to go with writing what "everybody knows", well, all the other cyclists were probably doing the same thing and they just haven't retested them enough... no.  However, the precise disputed edit  could be reworded to properly summarize his denials without any impression of inaccuracy about when they were made. Wnt (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * That's an absolute bullshit post. Claims of "Armstrong has never been convicted in a court of law" are meaningless. He has been convicted by the highest GLOBAL authority possible in the sport in which he once claimed success. No single country's "court of law" counts for anything in this. I can't believe that some people still seem to want to proclaim his innocence. If what has happened so far hasn't convinced such people of his guilt, nothing ever will, so further discussion is pointless. Add a sentence saying "Armstrong denies that he used drugs." Then move on. HiLo48 (talk) 21:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * My point here is not to proclaim his innocence (as I just said, my suspicion is quite the contrary) but if it's not in court it's not a reasonable-doubt standard and a legal level of proof. It's an issue with two sides and we should treat both as potentially true.  For all I know the new USADA Epo test has something the matter with it, or the sample really was spiked (competitive sport...), or whatever.  No jury, no verdict, just recognize that. Wnt (talk) 23:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What local court could possibly have credibility on such a matter? An American one would not be seen as independent, and could not do the international investigation required. HiLo48 (talk) 03:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That may be true. The point is, Wikipedia isn't a court, and we don't have to deliver a verdict; we only have to describe the existing points of view.  We can leave the story as one with two sides, the USADA which believes firmly he's guilty and Armstrong who says he's innocent. Wnt (talk) 23:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that it was the global cycling body, the UCI which ruled on his cycling disqualification. HiLo48 (talk) 03:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Muna AbuSulayman
This edit is highly problematic. The subject of the article is a prominent television personality in Saudi Arabia and this well-written but completely false set of claims about her marrying an American prisoner could really impact her life. She has been described as "Saudi Arabia's Oprah" and so of course her personal life could easily be subject to intense scrutiny, particularly in the culture of Saudi Arabia. The defamatory claims lasted for several days.

A similar edit from a slightly different ip address (but therefore probably the same vandal) is this one on a different day.

Because of the critical nature of accuracy in all BLPs, but particularly in a sensitive case such as a prominent female in Saudi Arabia, I believe we should apply the highest standards in cases like this. The BLP semi-protection policy says "Administrators who suspect malicious or biased editing, or believe that inappropriate material may be added or restored, may protect or semi-protect pages in accordance with the protection policy."

I believe the editing in this case is malicious and biased, and likely to happen again unless we semi-protect the article.

I would have simply done this myself without much comment (as it strikes me as completely routine), but as is well known, I'm quite a stickler about conflicts of interest. Muna is a personal friend and therefore I think that someone uninvolved should do the actual semi-protection, if my argument above is persuasive.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There hasnt been any problematic editing since the 22nd of October, so semi-protection would seem a bit overkill at this point. However bringing it here will put it on lots of peoples watch lists (including mine) so anything that does show up will be dealt with a bit quicker than previously. I should point out that two IP editors were actually active in looking at the article and reverting/tagging the BLP issues, so semi/full protection might be a backwards step in this case. On a personal note - I do wish when people excise troublemsome info they take the time to reword whats left. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There's not enough recent vandalism to justify protecting the article - two IP edits from a few weeks ago? I've added to my watchlist, however, and also warned the IP for BLP violation. GiantSnowman 12:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I find neither of these arguments persuasive. The vandalism was dangerous and malicious and happened repeatedly.  The "two IP editors" who "were actually active in looking at the article and reverting/tagging the BLP issues" are associated with the victim - we do not, as a matter of ethics, leave it to victims to protect themselves from harassers in Wikipedia - BLP policy demands much more of us.  As to there not being problematic editing since 22nd of October is not persuasive because that vandalism - which could have a serious impact on someone's life - stayed in the article for several days.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "we do not, as a matter of ethics, leave it to victims to protect themselves from harassers in Wikipedia"? Sadly, we do. Or at least there is nothing either in policy, nor in normal BLP practice, to ensure that individuals aren't harassed in this way. There is no requirement that a BLP should be watchlisted by anyone. There is no requirement that BLPs should be subject to any preemptive control whatsoever. The problem is endemic, and to treat this as a special case, as a 'friend of Jimbo' would be entirely inappropriate . If this BLP needs protection from malicious edits, so do thousands of others. Now that we are aware of the problem, this article will be watched - but to go beyond our norms and give it special treatment,  while ignoring the larger problem is untenable. Jimbo, if you think that the unprotected state of BLPs in general is problematic, you are in a better position than most to do something about it, or at least to draw more attention to the problem. Shouldn't you be making the broader point , rather than looking for special treatment here ? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note I have struck out my implication that Jimbo was asking for special treatment: he clearly wasn't - he was suggesting that such protection should more generally be applied in such cases, as a matter of course. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Andy - He is not looking for special treatment, he is looking for treatment he thinks we accord every subject of BLP vandalism. Jimbo - Andy is right, in practice thats not how it works. The BLP policy only demands that semi-protection is placed in line with the protection policy. As such you would need to convince an administrator that the harrassment is ongoing and severe enough to require protection. I dont think that the small amount of edits (regardless of their nature) qualifies. If you feel they are that serious an issue given the circumstances, you should be pushing to have the revisions deleted. If they are not serious enough to require revdel, then the limited amount of vandalism isnt really serious enough to require protection of the page. That it stayed up there for 6 days is unfortunate, but thats what wikipedia gets for a)allowing anyone to edit, b)having little/no oversight on article creation, c)no flagged revisions. Personally I would quite happily semi-prot every single BLP on wikipedia in order to prevent vandalism. The statistics on who causes fly-by vandalism are well documented. Thats not going to fly with the community and the WMF have made it clear that 'anyone can edit' is non-negotiable. The result of 'anyone can edit' is that the protection policy has to be adhered to quite rigourously. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see any obvious reason not to semi-protect - certainly I've seen articles semi-protected for less. We should make sure that our priorities are arranged for the benefit of the reader, not our own convenience - i.e. our semi-protection should be based more readily on the potential for deliberate misinformation about the subject than the fact somebody is complaining loudly on ANI that an editors has got into a revert war with him.  In other words, when an article is changed in a way that is deliberately slandering a person repeatedly, that makes it pretty severe.  I don't see why the Revdel standard should apply - we're not trying to censor all trace of some bit of fabulous knowledge, just to keep somebody from messing with our article.  Therefore a long, but not indefinite, period of semi-protection seems justified.  (This article is also a Pending Changes poster child, but as I oppose that mechanism in general I'm more than content to second semi-protection) Wnt (talk) 15:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Semi-protection is applied in order to prevent vandalism. The longer the period, the more serious the vandalism has to be. At this point its been 3 weeks since the last instance of vandalism. Unless you can show cause that you expect the vandalism to continue imminently, protecting the article isnt really warrented. I would say given there is currently no BLP issue with the article, try RPP. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting permanent protection. The page has been edited 50 times in 19 months, including by five IP addresses (two the vandal).  Semi-protecting it for six months would give a real chance that November's vandal would forget about her, and would cost us one or two IP contributions.  Given that the vandalism can more or less completely change the interpretation of the article by making people think of her very differently, the cost to benefit ratio here seems acceptable. Wnt (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Only in death - semi-protection is applied to prevent current and ongoing vandalism - not vandalism from 3 weeks ago, and not vandalism that is suspected in the future. GiantSnowman 17:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems like now we're haggling over price. How many times should the vandal come back before we act?  My feeling is I'd rather semi-protect for a few months and be done with it, than wait for more trouble and then overreact have the thing semi-protected forever. Wnt (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What, lose plenty of potential good-faith edits because someone's scared of possible vandalism? EVERY article could get vandalised, let's semi-protect it them all. GiantSnowman 20:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec)Malicious edits are all-too-common on all biographies - especially any which concern themselves in any way with sex, religon, politics, or nationality. In the case at hand - all four problem areas are involved. Would that the WMF hired people to examine the problem in depth, and sought to prevent this sort of toxin from Wikipedia. We should not have to wait until "sufficient malicious edits" occur on any given biography.  And then be faced with "it was only a stray IP (or whatever) thus no protection is needed against such "vandalism" (I use 'vandalism' for what I consider sufficient reason here).  Collect (talk) 15:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protection would prevent good-faith IPs editing in order to 'protect' against vandalism that occured on 22 October. There is no justification for protecting the article, and certainly plenty of precedent against it. GiantSnowman 15:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Collect - I agree completely, we should not have to. Current policy and practice are not in agreement with this viewpoint however. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Protecting the article will not stop the previous vandalism having happened, will it? If Jimbo/WMF are that concerned, then make all editors have to register with a valid e-mail address. GiantSnowman 16:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well yes, I touched on that before with the 'anyone can edit' and flagged revision comment, sadly the WMF are not down with that plan. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Precisely - then there shouldn't be any complaints until that view changes at the top. GiantSnowman 16:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

A little confused by the problem and the appropriate remedy; there seems to be only moderate IP vandalism, so semi-protection seems inappropriate, or at least a response that would not be justified on any other Article page. The problem, if I understand correctly, is the PARTICULARLY libelous and damaging content of two particular edits. Wouldn't the best solution be to ask for Oversight, to more completely remove the content from view? If they are libelous and meant to cause particular damage, that would be appropriate, rather than restriction of all IPs; this entry seems to draw MORE attention and make the problem worse. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * While I am not terribly familiar with the rules here, I do notice that anywhere Jimbo comments there is a tendency to raise objections over "special treatment." Any article that is closely watched by any editor has the benefit of special treatment over articles that are not. Because BLP problems are prolific does not prevent us from solving BLP problems that are less severe. Corporate 18:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

This matter was reported to the Oversight group and the offending edits have now been revdel'd per policy - A l is o n  ❤ 05:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore (and sorry to disagree with some), I've semi-protected it for a period of time not because there hasn't been vandalistic/BLPvio edits since then, but for the fact that the offending edits were let stand for well over a week before reversion. That's simply not acceptable. And, though I'm sure the article is on more watchlists now, that's still not okay - A l is o n  ❤ 05:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oversight is welcome, but protecting is the wrong decision. How is semi-protecting the article now going to change the fact that vandalism left unstood? Completely against precedent, practice and common sense. By that logic, because there was undetected vandalism in the Andi Peters article for nearly 18 months, perhaps we should make that admin-only? GiantSnowman 09:19, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If it's against precedent, then the precedent sucks. Which, of course, it does. Cheers! Andreas JN 466 10:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Clearly, protecting the article now will not change what happened in the past, but it may well prevent a future recurrence, especially as history has shown that this BLP violation gets left unchallenged for quite some time. Also, precedence is not always a good standard on which to base one's decisions. There was a time where I was the most active admin at WP:PROT, and I've seen this sort of thing recurring again and again and again - A l is o n  ❤ 22:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * In less than a month we will again be permitted to apply pending changes protection to articles. This is exactly the sort of situation it was made for. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent! This is exactly what's needed - A l is o n  ❤ 22:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Living person mentioned at North Wales child abuse scandal
I'd be grateful for advice on this edit by User:Robofish. The material that has been removed is drawn entirely from this report, covering news which has been widely publicised today. The statement that was removed made clear that the person concerned made a statement that the allegations were entirely false. I do not understand the logic that says that we should not report that statement. This is under discussion on the article talk page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that the allegations are known to be false is precisely why they should not, in my opinion, be mentioned. Simply mentioning someone's name in connection with negative allegations is enough to associate them in the readers' mind, even if you go on to say such allegations are untrue; in such cases, I think the decent thing to do is not to sully their name by mentioning the allegations at all. Removing this content probably goes beyond what is required by BLP, but I think it falls within the same area of not doing unnecessary harm to living persons. Robofish (talk) 13:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * But in this case he has made a statement himself, specifically refuting the allegations. And you think we should not report that?  That seems perverse.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the seriousness of the allegations is relevant here. We're talking about a person being falsely accused of child sexual abuse, which is almost the very worst thing a person can be accused of in a modern society; if it were a less serious allegation, I wouldn't object to it being mentioned, but in this case it's so pejorative that I think even mentioning it to refute it is going too far. We shouldn't be associating his name with it in the first place. Robofish (talk) 13:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Having said that, perhaps there is a compromise solution here. We could say that a notable political figure was accused of involvement, and refuted these allegations, without actually mentioning him by name. I would find that acceptable. Robofish (talk) 13:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see a better defence of the position that - unlike the BBC, The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Independent, ITN, Channel 4, etc. etc. - Wikipedia alone should refuse to publish his name. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I would point out the subject of an allegation issuing a denial doesnt make the allegation 'known to be false'. It means merely that they deny it. Saying that, I am not comfortable in having it in unless its expanded to include the info from the guardian that they suspect its a case of mistaken identity with another McAlpine. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice initially, but the material removed by Robofish also included the material from The Guardian pointing out the possible confusion between individuals. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've partially reverted to restore this reference, as the compromise I mentioned above. His name is used in the Guardian article, but not in our text, so it's not prominent; that's acceptable to me. Robofish (talk) 14:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this is a reasonable compromise at this point. However I suspect it may need to be revisited later - this is going to go on for months and months. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * (to Ghmyrtle) Well, my view is essentially that Wikipedia is different from those media sources: they're temporary, while Wikipedia is permanent. Today's newspaper is tomorrow's chip paper; those web pages will be archived and forgotten. But Wikipedia pages will remain prominent and easily accessible for years; they're meant to provide a record for the long term. And I simply don't think this man should have to be tarred with this accusation by Wikipedia for the rest of his life. (However, if other editors disagree and consensus is against me, I'll accept that and won't try to edit-war to keep this content out.) Robofish (talk) 14:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd be grateful if someone could point to some clear policy or guidance where matters like this are addressed, rather than relying on individual editors' views. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT is probably your best bet (especially WP:NOT. And there is this in WP:BLP: Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. Also see WP:GOSSIP. Andreas JN 466 10:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The story has now moved on, with the allegations having been withdrawn.  But, the position yesterday was that many reliable sources in the media - not just the BBC - were reporting that a named person had made a statement that referred to the allegations, to explicitly deny them.  The reporting of that was not "sensationalist" or "titillating" - it did what the subject wanted to achieve, publicising his complete denial.  We would not have been a "primary vehicle" - we were simply reporting what The Telegraph, The Guardian, etc., were reporting.  How would we have "harmed" the subject, if we were simply reporting the very facts - his denial - for which he was seeking publicity?  In this case, the statements you have highlighted are at best extremely weak, and at worst irrelevant.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think they are irrelevant. Just think about what happened here: one day a named person was accused of child abuse, the next there were doubts whether it was the right person, and the next day it was clear it had been a case of mistaken identity. So this was gossip, which it took just a day or two to disconfirm. It was sensationalist, because there was really nothing of substance to it. Andreas JN 466 11:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Seven days in fact, from the Newsnight report to the BBC apology. But the wider point is that guidance and procedures relating to BLP and related editing need to be tightened up to cover circumstances like this.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: Support Robofish. I would say both views have merit but I do feel Robofish is the more correct. The truth is that this allegation has been around a very long time, I mean many years, repeated in blogs that no editor of Wikipedia would accept as reliable and part of a far-ranging conspiracy theory some details of which have already been settled in lawsuits where substantial damages were awarded. That the individual concerned has now felt it necessary to go public in a denial doesn't stike me as any reason at all to include it in North Wales child abuse scandal. FrontBottomFracas (talk) 14:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "it" in your last sentence? We are not talking about publishing the false allegations.  My only concern is over excluding any mention of his statement today, widely publicised in the media, in which he describes the claims as "wholly false and seriously defamatory".  It is the inclusion or otherwise of that statement that this is about - not the false allegations themselves.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I meant the allegation of abuse. You may think there is a distinction, but X's statement to the press, published in full in the Daily Telegraph today, doesn't distinguish between what you might describe as primary and secondary defamation. He makes it pretty clear he reserves the right to pursue his defamers, by inuendo or no, and that should concentrate your mind (while the Wikipedia Foundation probably ought to be telling you at this point to cease and desist). Seriously Ghmyrtle, this simply isn't worth it. As for Robofish his starting point is Wikipedia's own standards, and while I don't have paricular expertise I do think he's quite right about that.
 * I do admire your work at the article, but I think you're wrong-headed about this particular detail. FrontBottomFracas (talk) 16:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone is missing something here. I am not suggesting that the allegations of abuse should be included in the article.  How many times do I need to say that?  He has made a statement, very widely reported, saying that the allegations are false and defamatory.  Why should we not report the existence of that statement - a statement which he obviously made in the expectation that it would be reported, as it has been?  Incidentally, it's quite wrong to suggest that I am pursuing anything - the only edit I've made to the article in the last few hours was to revert an edit that went far further than anything I think should be included.  I'm simply trying to understand what seems to me to be a quite bizarre position that is being taken here, contrary to that being taken by all serious and reliable media outlets.  No one so far has suggested any legal advice, or even any WP policy, or guidance, or precedent, that addresses this particular situation.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Suggest that further discussions take place at the article talk page, the usual place for such relevant discussions. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Just flagging up that this is also been discussed here: Talk:Alistair McAlpine, Baron McAlpine of West Green. Also this does now appear to be a case of mistaken identity  which raises the question of whether a false accusation is worthy of a mention, despite it being newsworthy. Personally, it might be important for setting the record straight, as often allegations get a lot more attention than retractions. (Emperor (talk) 18:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC))


 * It's perhaps worth noting that the BBC is now describing the incident in its sub-headline as "A former resident of a north Wales care home has apologised for making allegations of sexual abuse against a Conservative politician" - i.e. they are specifically avoiding naming the politician there, even though their Breaking News ticker and some of their other article titles still do. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Clearly the story has moved on in the last couple of hours, with the apology, and articles now need to take that into account. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That BBC article at this present time have the name all over it, including in its giant bold article title. The sub-headline is about the only paragraph that doesn't have the name in it.... KTC (talk) 19:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Support inclusion. That he has come out and declared his innocence is all over the news. It's something the subject himself desires to be public, and strongly and rightly so. He has came out publicly stating such rumours are wrong and defamatory, such a statement has been picked up by multiple reliable sources. To decide to stay silent on that for ethical reasons is a bit like telling him "we know better than you what's right or wrong to say in public". I also don't buy the "news are temporary, Wikipedia is permanent" argument by Robofish. We can trivially find online sources from almost 40 years ago. -- Cycl o pia  talk  18:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support inclusion - this was the top item at the 10 O'Clock News tonight, with supporting stories such as this and this. Definitely merits inclusion. GiantSnowman 00:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I see that the "let us relish in the publishing of known falsities" crew are in fine fettle. John lilburne (talk) 10:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support inclusion The allegations were widely published over the internet for several days. We rightly did not incluide them in Wikipedia, removed them from articles, and blocked some editors who persistently attempted to use Wikipedia to make libellous claims. However, the situatiion is now different, since the politician named has issued a statement, some media have suggested that this was a case of mistaken identity, and the identified victim has confirmed that the politician in question is not the person who abused him. We don't exist in a vacuum, the rumours persist and will permanently swill around the blogs and conspiracy sites, and many people look to Wikipedia for information about current affairs. In this situation, to fail to include any mention of the politician's statement could be taken as distrust of its veracity, and lend credence to the internet rumours. RolandR (talk) 12:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose and not up for a vote BLP is a policy, and the caae at hand woild be furthered as a rumour if we include it - the fact that the person has said "I never beat my wife" is not grounds for implying that he was rumoured to have beaten his wife.  I would point out that not denying a rumour  is also not grounds for Wikipedia purveying the rumour either. Collect (talk) 12:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Roland has it right. By failing to include a clear passage saying that the allegation was false we are likely to leave some doubt in the minds of readers who come to Wikipedia looking for clarification on the matter.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've changed my mind on this; I now support inclusion. As I just said here, the damage has already been done to Lord McAlpine's reputation and we're not protecting him by excluding his name. It should be included, as long as we make it absolutely clear that the allegations were false and have been refuted. Robofish (talk) 12:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As I was the one who removed the name in the first place, I've been bold and restored it: Robofish (talk) 13:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Good call. RashersTierney (talk) 13:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I admire an editor who is willing to change from a fairly robust position when the circumstances warrant it. Leaky  Caldron  13:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you Robofish! -- Cycl o pia  talk  19:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Raul Ruiz
Could someone decide if the "Thanksgiving day protest" section of this article needs adjustment for due weight? Thanks. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 03:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The first graf (arrest) seems defensible, but the second graf is entirely electioneering - "someone said something potentially remotely controversial and their opponent used it in a campaign ad." I removed it. polarscribe (talk) 07:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Lisa Howard
The wikipedia stub concerning the Canadian actress Lisa Howard includes the picture of a completely different Lisa Howard. The picture is of American actress and Broadway performer, also named Lisa Howard. (See www.lisahowardnyc.com) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.221.170.246 (talk) 16:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing this error out, and I have removed the picture from the article. A Google image search for "Lisa Howard twilight" confirms it. polarscribe (talk) 19:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

BLP allegations in the Lagarde list
Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 13:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC) Article: ‎ Our latest BLP-crisis regards the latest news witchhunt called the "Lagarde list". At issue is the following passage:

The question is very simple. Does the wife of a ex-minister and her husband deserve this trial by allegation where anyone on that list is suspected of tax evasion? I say no and per WP:BLP, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM, WP:BLPCRIME and per the ethical thing to do, is wait until the witchhunt goes through the legal route and we get convictions, but not before. Your considered comments are welcome. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 19:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Another user has edit-warred to add this information citing WP:WELLKNOWN. However imo this does not apply to the wife of the ex-minister because she is not a public figure. For her, as an unknown, WP:BLPCRIME applies and this info should not be allowed in the article. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 19:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think that sounds like a reasonable objection. She's named only as his wife; the allegation is about him; probably if Greece is like other countries it's actually his money.  The mere mention of the word "wife", required for accurate reporting, should not override WELLKNOWN.  From what I read there, waiting for a proper investigation may be as problematic as the hypothetical prosecutions for the U.S. debt crisis.  (note: this is a response to the above argument only - I haven't evaluated the overall reliability of the sourcing) Wnt (talk) 20:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * No. The allegation is not about him. It is about his wife. She is alleged to be on the list, not him. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 20:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * In any case even if WELLKNOWN applies we have to find multiple sources not just one. Per WP:WELLKNOWN: "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." I have reverted the latest addition because it relied on a single source. In my edit summary I added a request to find more sources: If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." Please find more sources. Thx. If as per policy multiple sources can be found I will not oppose this any longer. Otherwise it is a clear BLP policy violation. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * OK - Wnt (talk) 23:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I accept your second source because it provides extended coverage of the Papantoniou matter. But your first source only makes a fleeting mention that: "Former finance minister Yannos Papantoniou said the appearance of his wife’s name on the list did not correspond with reality." Do you think this qualifies as substantial coverage per policy quote: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented,"? Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 23:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It nonetheless is a confirmation; it's also useful for citing his response to the allegation. Wnt (talk) 23:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Your second reference also mentions something similar about Papantoniou's reaction. Both can be used to document Papantoniou's reaction, in a new version of the edit. If we could find a few more sources it should be policy-compliant. Δρ.Κ. λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  23:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yesterday I added the story line to the article, and now had time to chime in. We do not need additional sources to add the info in the article. We already have sufficient sources to back the story. Please note, that the story reported by my line to the article, is not about wether or not Papantoniou's wife is guilty of Tax Evasion. The main element of the story is, that a Parliament committee decided to order an investigation to check if the ex-minister Papantoniou might have used Tax Evasion tricks to build up his fortune . In Denmark and all around the Globe, it is a well-known problem that potentially people can use the so-called "wife-trick" to hide away their fortunes from the Tax Authoraties, and thus build up significant additional fortunes through Tax Evasion. In the context of the Greek government-debt crisis article, I think the essential info my reported story line added, was that the Greek parliament (contrary to many peoples opposite beliefs) in fact right now are taking the problem with potential political corruption very serious. And in fact already now have actively used the Lagarde list, to launch an investigation about a potential political corruption case. It does not matter to me (or to the story) wether or not Papantoniou is found guilty of charge. Because the story is, that the Parliament committee ordered an investigation to check if he might be guilty of the Tax Evasion charge, and by doing so the Greek Parliament acted in a good proper anti-corruptional way. The parliament did not cover up the case or reviewed the matter with closed eyes. My add of the story line is an addition to the article, to counter-weight the earlier info in the paragraph above, that seems to implicate/report that Greek polticians/authoraties did not in any way wanted to use the Lagarde list for combatting Tax Evasion, but instead only launched a legal case against the journalist printing the Lagarde list. This is not true. Danish Expert (talk) 08:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If I understand you correctly the actual name of the minister does not matter. Therefore, if the only thing you want is to highlight that the system has reacted to the allegations, I will remove the name and leave only his title. In that case I agree with you. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  21:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on my argument and clarification above (and the fact that Wnt provided 2 additional references to proof the story), I will now re-add the line for the article. If anyone of you think the line should be reformulated, in order to better reflect my view-points above, you are welcome (if you can find proper references to back such an addition). The first version I added was based on a very short article by Kathimerini, but I want to emphasize it is one of the biggest newspapers in Greece, and thus a highly reliable source for the story. The reason why I did not at first add my view-points above into the uploaded line, is because the reference was so short that it did not really comment or put the spot-light on those more in-dept sides of the story, so it could unfortunately not be used as a proper source for all my viewpoints stated above. So consequently, I left the additional thinking and opportunity for the readers to draw up their own conclusions, and limitted my added line simply to report on the facts so far referenced. I think in a humble way, that my line is a good and fine contribution which extends the articles chapter about the Greek fight against "Tax Evasion and corruption" with valuable new interesting info. Thus the line should be kept in the article. Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 08:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You make a very reasonable point. If you are ok with my modification, this matter is resolved. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 22:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I accept the modifications. Consensus has been reached and the matter resolved. Danish Expert (talk) 10:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you Danish Expert. I'll mark this as resolved. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 13:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

McAlpine
The article, Alistair McAlpine, Baron McAlpine of West Green, was moved to semi-protect about a week ago and a couple of days ago was rightly moved to full protect (with the talk page on semi-protect) after the internet speculation reached a fever pitch. Now that we've had the accusations acknowledged by McAlpine, retracted by the accused and forcing the resignation of the director general of the BBC the BLP policy does not seem to dictate that this affair should be unmentioned. Could we have the article page put on semi-protect again and the talk page unprotected? JASpencer (talk) 22:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In connection with this issue, I note that this edit was made earlier this evening. It may be pertinent to mention the second story regarding Newsnight, but perhaps not the first. Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The concern was the first claim, given that BBC reports seemed to suggest the named party was already in consultation with their legal advisers over a number of unsubstantiated claims made.

Has anyone spoken with the WMF about this matter ?

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think if not it should be brought to their attention. I've slightly amended the first entry to remove mention of a name, but the second seems to be reasonably ok. As this is being reported in the media I think it's fine for Wikipedia to mention it, though naming individuals in connection with the case is not such a good idea. Paul MacDermott (talk) 23:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

An article on Alfred James McAlpine has now been created. Notability seems a bit marginal. Watch this space (or a different one, as he's dead). Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Persons related to ongoing 'abuse' scandals
I note that the the entity mentioned in previous disscussions, is not the only named party in relation to various claims, Presumably Wikipedia has a higher standard than Newsnight is alleged to have? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * There have been a number of contentious edits made to various biographical articles on WP that have since been reverted, deleted and page protections put in place. The standards we have are detailed in WP:BLP. While a number of politicians have been named on Twitter and in various blogs, it amounts to little more than gossip. Contentious material that is not backed up by good quality, reliable sources has no place on Wikipedia.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  13:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Which only leaves the question of whether the BBC is a "good quality, reliable source". Ho hum.--Scott Mac 15:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Elena Semikina
This biography contains many issues.
 * Elena herself has written the article.
 * There is no evidence that she has ever been signed to an agency, and thusly must state she is an amateur model.
 * There is no evidence that Semikina is a philanthropist. I researched her participation on boards, councils, and for directoships with philanthropic institutions and found nothing.
 * If one views the article's history, it is noted that Elena has edited her year of birth from 1982 to 1984. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factcheckr82 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * These are generally editorial issues that can be fixed by editors, but I note that a quick Google search revealed absolutely no publicly-available evidence that Semikina identifies herself as transgendered. This gives me reason to question the veracity of your other claims as well. polarscribe (talk) 23:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The above user rewrote the article with a number of dubious, unsourced changes and claims, with a tendentious edge and at least the appearance of bias against the article subject. polarscribe (talk) 00:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I've given Factcheckr82 a first and final warning for BLP violations. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Lawrence Biondi
The biographical entry on the president of Saint Louis University in St. Louis, Missouri, Father Lawrence Biondi, has been the subject of frequent editing in recent weeks and is serving as a forum for political grievances by faculty and students at SLU. These efforts have been the subject of social media pages such as http://www.facebook.com/NoConfidenceSLU, where modifications to Biondi's biography have been touted.

The article has, at times, contained almost no biographical information but rather a discussion of a recent vote of no confidence against Biondi. Edits to enter actual biographical information, such as regional and national boards on which Biondi has served are targeted. Impartial language, frequently with modifiers that are clear opinion, are being used by these editors.

While relevant critiques of Biondi's tenure are a part of his overall record, and fair and concise accounts of this history should remain, he is a public figure both in St. Louis community, higher education and the Catholic church, who has made many well-documented contributions. In addition, this page has been - and continues to be - at risk for vandalism. Review of this entry by Wikipedia editors is needed to ensure that it is adhering to the NPOV standards, particularly the section on due weight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.134.149.19 (talk) 14:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The recent changes about which the previous editor speaks are perfectly within the bounds of Wikipedia's "Biographies of Living Persons" standards. I note that the previous editor points to no actual violation of those standards. While Biondi has made many contributions, he is also a controversial figure. The recent votes of No Confidence are facts, and they have been reported in the local newspaper, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. These votes have happened. What a reader or editor thinks about them is another matter entirely.

I would ask the above editor to point to specific instances of "modifiers that are clear opinion." ("Impartial language," by the way, is what you want on a wikipedia page.)

HewsonEvans (talk) 03:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

UFC on Fuel TV: Franklin vs. Le and Cung Le


Can I have some help over at UFC on Fuel TV: Franklin vs. Le editors are continually adding in the Vietnamese flag against Cung Le's name, despite comments in the text, on the talk page asking for a WP:RS as WP:BLP applies. The best source to date is this one, but it would indicate he is indeed American. (there is a seprate debate going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts in relation to the whole issue of flags). Mt king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  00:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Anyone ? the flags have now been re-inserted in as well as  and .  Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  06:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Does BLP not apply to articles about MMA then ? The situation is now we have The 🇺🇸 US flag here and here but over at UFC 139 and List of current UFC fighters we have the Vietnamese flag and at one point UFC on Fuel TV: Franklin vs. Le had both the 🇺🇸 US flag and  South Vietnamese flag at the same time, some outside help would be good.  Mt  king (edits) 11:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Alisher Usmanov
According to today's Times, this article has been whitewashed by Mr Usmanov's PR consultants. The Times' story is behind a paywall but a summary is available for non-subscribers. Roger Davies talk 10:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Amazingly enough - the removal of a vacaed conviction is defensible under WP:BLP. Indeed, there are rumours that convictions ca. 1980 may not have been altogether on the up-and-up.  When such a conviction is found invalid, it seems that WP:BLP requires that we make no claim which at all implies the crimes actually occurred. Collect (talk) 12:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, WP:NPOV requires that we describe the complete process, at least if it is significant for the biography. Of course we cannot imply that the original conviction was justified, but we do not cut out significants parts of a life. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Imagine a biography of OJ Simpson that failed to describe how he was not convicted of murdering his wife...  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Christopher Cueto de Castille
This person (Christopher Cueto de Castille) is not notable enough (please verify). There are a lot more notable Filipino architects who do not even have their own page.
 * That's not a BLP issue. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Kevin Clash
Article contains reliably referenced allegations, but is the content appropriate or not? Gnome de plume (talk) 16:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * From the source cited:


 * ''The organization described the relationship as personal and “unrelated to the workplace.” Its investigation found the allegation of underage conduct to be unsubstantiated. But it said Clash exercised “poor judgment” and was disciplined for violating company policy regarding Internet usage. It offered no details.


 * If the only source cited states that the allegations of underage conduct are 'unsubstantiated', it seems inappropriate to include them at this point. 17:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, now he apparently admits to relations with the individual, but not when they were underaged. Someone added an LGBT category. Is this appropriate? The category suggests he has to "self-identify" as such. --  Zanimum (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Is the category appropriate? No - see WP:BLPCAT. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * He has now self-identified as gay. Rob T Firefly (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Continuation of discussion has occurred on the talk page, see "Talk:Kevin_Clash".

IEEE fellowships automatically notable
Please note that the notability guideline for academics has included a very strange automatic conferral of notability:. Essentially, the claim is that IEEE Fellowships automatically make a person "notable" enough for a Wikipedia article. There are 6531 IEEE fellows alive as of 2011: http://www.ieee.org/documents/fellow_stats_summary_years.pdf and most of them have no independent sources written about them. They comprise a wide range of notable and not-notable academics. Making their fellowship status an automatic conferral of notoriety seems extremely problematic.

I started a discussion of these issues here:

Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(academics)

Junjunone (talk) 19:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Lisolette_Gilcrest
I do not know this person but this is a vanity page created by a photographer who sells prints on etsy. The collection she lists is (being incredibly generous) minor within the art world and her other sources and citations make her far less noteworthy than thousands of (also non-noteworthy artists). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.226.111 (talk) 02:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

ross mirkarimi is not a convicted batterer under california law.
convicted batterer implies conviction of a violent crime. false imprisonment is specifically a non violent offense in california. an act of force like trespassing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.246.171 (talk) 02:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Where does our article state otherwise? Someguy1221 (talk) 03:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Pinki Pramanik
Is it appropriate to refer to a male pseudo-hermaphrodite as "he" or "she?" There's been controversy and questionable editing in Pinki Pramanik since earlier this year, but it appears that definitive genetic testing has finally been done and analyzed. I'd hope something similar has already been discussed elsewhere. --Ronz (talk) 03:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * However they self-identify is correct. In this case, it looks to be "she", but I may be mistaken. Wily D  11:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's my inclination as well. --Ronz (talk) 17:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What do WP:RS use? GiantSnowman 17:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a settled issue. Per MOS:IDENTITY (and basic human decency), genetic testing has nothing to do with pronouns.  From the news stories it is clear she identifies as a woman, and therefore "she" is appropriate.  Note also what our article about  pseudohermaphroditism says about the term : "Use of the term "pseudohermaphroditism" can be problematic, and is now considered redundant".  Maybe it is current in Indian English still, I don't know.   Morwen (Talk) 17:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated! --Ronz (talk) 18:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Lally Weymouth
The false and libelous quotation about Andy Warhol attributed to Lally Weymouth has repeatedly been re-inserted by a user. This quotation is false and does not reflect the views of Lally Weymouth. She insists that this quotation remain off her Wikipedia page. The failure to block this person from adding it again will result in legal action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bijou177 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have warned this editor about legal threats. The quote can also be found at (where it says "reportedly asked".) Besides removing material the editor added an unsourced claim about her degree. Dougweller (talk) 16:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems it has been indeed reported by Andy Warhol in his diaries: - see the entry dated "Thursday, September 25, 1980—Washington, D.C—New York" -- Cycl o pia  talk  17:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I was going to come here to say that this claim is indeed in his diaries. However, this is what, third hand?  Reagan told Kabler told Warhol who wrote it down.  So even if true, this is essentially gossip, and I don't think it belongs in the article.  Morwen (Talk) 17:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Rick Strawn deletion needs attention
Articles for deletion/Rick Strawn has been relisted due to lack of response. As I see it, there have been substantial BLP issues with this article from the start, and large chunks of material have been removed from the article at times over these concerns (an example diff). From what I can tell, the central problem is that a muckraking article in Legal Affairs used him as an exemplar for a particular dubious practice, and for whatever reason, instead of writing an article on that, someone chose to make him the subject instead, attracting a fishing expedition for more negative material. It's a classic BLP notability issue and I would invite others to examine this and get the AFD resolved expeditiously. Mangoe (talk) 12:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Stephen Snoddy
I recently raised some concerns about the inappropriate use of COI on Stephen Snoddy, having been reverted when I removed it; but it's still there. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * What's the BLP issue? Think WP:COIN would be an appropriate forum? JFHJr (㊟) 18:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Moni Aizik
This article and this users contributions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Romayan need additional eyes - -  You  really  can  15:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I agree that more certified Wikipedia users should watch this article. After I made it neutral and supplied it with a number of links, it has been vandalized. Surprisingly, a senior Wikipedia editor came and supported false claims by M.A.'s competitors targeting his reputation. I thought that Wikipedia editors are supposed to be neutral and non-biased. Romayan (talk) 15:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The editor is referring to you. You are adding blogs and forums as sources and removing anything critical. You also added the sentence "Through intensive research Aizik developed a very effective combat program, specifically designed for certain Special forces to which is only sourced to an interview with him, which is not suitable for such a claim. Dougweller (talk) 16:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I was asked to look at this, given I tried to help NPoV it about six months ago. From what I've seen, the article has veered back and forth from being an unfairly weighted smear, to a too-weakly sourced essay about Mr Aizik that would fit better on a non-encyclopedic webpage published elsewhere. However, I do agree with Romayan in that much of this seems to have been stirred up by Mr Aizik's business competitors and has been ongoing for years. Meanwhile the article has gone through three deletion discussions and keeps, so I think it's here to stay.


 * This said, the big worry I've always seen in the article has been editors of both stripes editing from a strong, non-neutral outlook from very weak sources which more often than not don't match up with WP:RS, with lots of original research, which isn't allowed here, thrown in. I'd like to go through the article myself, but firstly, I don't have much free time these days and secondly, since I already have some background editing the article, I'd rather not step back into it. Hopefully, someone with no background editing this topic can weed out the weak sources and text cited to them. That would also need to be done with any unflattering edits should they pop up again.


 * Romayan, vandalism has its own meaning on the English Wikipedia, please have a look at WP:Vandalism. I haven't seen any vandalism to the article (as defined here), but much of the article's contribution history is littered with undue weight, weak sourcing and OR which could be taken as being beyond the bounds of the Biography of Living Persons policy, which is a big deal on this website. Again, much of this seems to have been on-wiki fallout from a long-running business spat, most or all of which has not been carried by meaningful sources, hence so far as I can tell, that side of it may not even belong here. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll tell you my issue, aside from the obvious. Romayan has uploaded a picture from a site related to the subject. If he does have the rights to upload it and give creative commons permission, then he has a COI. If he doesn't have the rights, then we need to address his uploading of pictures he has no rights to. Which is it? COI or copyvio? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * COI is allowed, but is much frowned upon because it can quickly lead to outcomes harmful to both the COI editor (often unforeseen by that editor) and the project. If Mr Aizik has been editing the article, I'd say that although he is allowed to do so, by far the most helpful and editorially safest thing he could do for himself would be to stop editing the article about himself. However, I'd also say he should feel free to post comments on the article talk page, or even ask for help from experienced editors and/or admins. The pith is, I do think he has been smeared and someone has (understandably) answered this by editing too far the other way, with very weak sources. This kind of thing happens all the time here. As for the photo, I think it's harmless and don't see any COI or copyvio by anyone having uploaded it in good faith, so far. Whether it should be carried in the article is wholly up to editor consensus. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * an undisclosed COI is a problem, as well as promotional sounding edits. I'm not saying this is Aizik. Rather I strongly suspect it is someone who is cnnected to him in one form or another. Regardless, given the tone of the edits, I think the conflict is pretty evident. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The editor has stated he is "in touch" with the subject,  Niteshift36 (talk) 23:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's ok. What matters is that they very carefully abide by the policies. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * An undisclosed COI can indeed stir up problems, but it's allowed, so long as the editor follows the website's policies. As I've said many times before, en.WP is awash in COI, maybe even driven in some ways by sundry kinds of COI. The hitch is, some COI editors can be blatant, often don't bother to learn the policies (or shirk them) and wind up bringing themselves more editorial harm than help. Moreover they are often (but by no means always) special/single purpose accounts editing from a truly narrowed, unencyclopedic outlook and when they do stray from policy, knowingly or not, COI editors tend to be blocked more swiftly and for longer times, since a COI editor is seen by most admins and other experienced editors as a "higher threat" to the project. This is why, any COI editor, of any stripe, who has been editing this article, should stop now, unless they have a thorough understanding of policy and can make edits which a topic-neutral editor would have no worries about. Hard to do, because most topic-neutral editors here, when they get even a whiff of COI, tend to begin worrying even if the edits otherwise seem ok and strongly sourced, which is understandable. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Gwen, I really wish you'd stop repeating what is not needed. Where did I EVER say that an interested party is prohibited from editing? I haven't, so please stop telling me how it's allowed. I clearly stated than an undisclosed interest is problematic. Additonally, you keep saying a COI is allowed. Not really. If an intersted party is editing properly, then there is not conflict, the C in COI. The conflict occurs when the editors edits improperly. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The photo was provided by M.A. for this article, he has the copyright. Yes, I am helping him with edits, but my point is to make a fair and objective article. So far I see only outdated false facts brought in, while my edits, fixed inaccuracies and additional links (f.e. this, this and this ) were erased without much explanation. Indeed, M.A.'s competitors did a lot in order to harm him. But why do you support their biased approach? Another question - the Advertising Standards Authority has taken down the claims, I can forward the relevant e-mail conversation to those interested, just tell me how. This is why the article about it has been removed from the ASA site. But you leave the whole passage there with an old link. Romayan (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * if you aren't the copyright holder, or the legal representative, then you can't upload the picture and give creative commons rights to it. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Romayan, WP:OTRS can easily help you handle any needed permissions on this. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you Gwen Gale! Previously Moni sent your team a declaration of consent so that I can use any of photos found at his site for Wikipedia edits. Why is the issue brought up again then? As for the rest, why are my efforts ignored? I don't want to create a promotional article about M.A., but a balanced one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romayan (talk • contribs)
 * Why is it being brought up again? Because Aizik is the copyright holder, so he needs to release it. The way it reads now, it says you are the copyright holder. Now you are stating he gave you permission. Until recently, you weren't being very forthcoming about your relationship with him. Now that I think about it, Aizik likely isn't the copyright holder of the pic either. Who actually took the picture? In any case, I've suggested that you read WP:V, WP:SPS and WP:RS. Some of your responses make me question whether or not you've done it. BTW, that photo is used in a blog/magazine article here . Niteshift36 (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

((od))My main concern has always been the sourcing (or at times lack of sourcing) of controversial claims. I've just reverted Romayan who removed a statement about an ASA adjudication, claiming that it had been removed from the Advertising Standards Association website and quoting a press release from Moni Aizik's site. In fact the Adjudication is still there, albeit with a new url, and there is no suggestion that the ASA has changed its mind. There have also been problems about poor sourcing for claims of Aizik's military background. Dougweller (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The current link not only shows that the complaint wasn't "removed", but that the adjudication was against Aizik, which is pretty much the opposite of what this editor is claiming. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Alan Jones (radio broadcaster)
Alan Jones is a hugely popular radio presenter of the "shock jock" variety. He aims for the "traditional values" market and is forceful in his comments. He strongly supports one side of politics and is widely seen to be rude or offensive to the other. As such, he irritates a good many people. Including me, it must be said. I'm more of an NPR sort of guy. Nevertheless, he is entitled to fair treatment at our hands.

In 2010, three Australian soldiers serving in Afghanistan were charged over civilian deaths. In brief, they were trapped in a room they had just cleared when they were taken under automatic fire from a room they had yet to clear. They responded with grenades, discovering later that their attacker had fired from a room containing non-combatants and casualties had occurred.

The soldiers were charged under the military justice system for the civilian deaths and it is here that Jones got involved, making public comment on his popular radio show about the case and the actions of the soldiers, which he supported. In a civilian trial, this would constitute contempt of court, but under the military process, the court-martial had yet to be convened and there was therefore no court to be in contempt of. Jones was simply expressing his views on the matter, knowing that he was free to do so.

A popular television programme, "Media Watch", which explores the shortcomings of news and current affairs programmes, devoted an entire half-hour episode to Jones, saying (incorrectly) there are laws to stop Jones from doing this and the rules are the same whether it's a military or a criminal court.

Eventually the charges against the soldiers were dropped. There was no court convened and no trial held. The matter had been investigated along the lines Jones advocated and found not to be worth pursuing..

Our article, amongst many other attacks on Jones, contains a short section which repeats the baseless contempt of court allegations. I do not think that we need mention an incident in which Jones did nothing wrong. The WP:BLP section says ''A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured.'' Jones is well-known, but there was and is no possibility of contempt of court proceedings in this matter, and it is wrong of us to suggest that there might have been, especially when those making the allegation were not lawyers.

However, several editors, including some accounts that resemble socks to my perhaps jaded eyes, have been edit-warring and claiming consensus for their version. I would like to get more eyes - more experienced eyes - on this. --Pete (talk) 23:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * An important question to ask is whether we have sourcing for the assertion that the contempt of court accusations are baseless, or is that just your interpretation of things? Formerip (talk) 23:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The first articles mention this: The tribunal hearing these charges - comprising a panel of up to 5 army officers - has not yet been constituted. And until it is, there is no court for Alan to be in contempt of.  --Pete (talk) 23:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Standing up to official censorship can be a pivotal moment in the career of a broadcaster, even when the charge was baseless. I don't think it is right to omit something important like that provided that there are good sources for it and you accurately summarize what they say.  That said, the source  still says that he was within the law due to a "loophole".  So from that source, it is only accurate to say something like that this particular show Mediawatch ran a piece saying that "his vicious personal attacks on Brigadier McDade are still quite disgraceful", pointing out that only by using a "loophole" in the law was he able to avoid the risk of contempt of court charges...  Sitting here in the U.S., with the right to say whatever I feel like about McDade and the trial for or against whether the court is constituted or not, I'm not sympathetic to that opinion, but it can be recorded as an example of what a shock jock in Australia has to deal with.  Wnt (talk) 23:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As a few editors mentioned in discussion, this was actually routine for Jones, who regularly sails close to the wind when commenting on upcoming cases. He's been in court himself a few times on contempt charges, as per the article. On this occasion, however, he was within his rights. My point is that there was no possibility of charges being laid over this matter and by saying that Media Watch's opinion was that he was in contempt, we are giving the matter undue weight. --Pete (talk) 02:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the thing that worries me about that comment is that if Jones actually "regularly sails close to the wind when commenting on upcoming cases", we shouldn't expect readers to come read this discussion (or go somewhere else) to find that out. We should let them understand it somehow when they read the article.  Which to me implies that detailing this incident is not undue weight, but rather a useful illustration of the legal obstacles he's sailing around. Wnt (talk) 04:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There are multiple instances already in the article, which of course you have read. I don't really have a problem with them, because he broke the law and was found to have done so. This instance, he acted within the law and we shouldn't imply otherwise. --Pete (talk) 04:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Where commentators opine that something would be "contempt of court" but no such finding is made by any court, I would think the material is only usable as opinion of the commentators, and cited as their opinion only. Some editors appear to believe that a commentaor's ocpinion has some actual legal significance, and on that I agree with Pete entirely. The use of McDade in any of this is tangential at best, and does not belong in the Jones article at all. In the US the Court and only the Court decides what actually constitutes "contempt of court" and such charges are not levied by outside observers. Collect (talk) 00:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

@Pete: You say above "Eventually the charges against the soldiers were dropped. There was no court convened and no trial held.". And, at the end of the paragraph you gave a reference, which includes: "'Last week in Sydney, the military's chief judge advocate dismissed the charges against two Australian commandos over the deaths of Afghan civilians. I hope his decision is taken seriously and that we never see such charges again. In October, when the charges of manslaughter by criminal negligence were laid against the army reservists, aspersions abounded.....What a profoundly disappointing contrast to the initial media scrum to see a solitary media representative in the courtroom on Friday for the duration of Brigadier Ian Westwood's decision to dismiss the charges.'" Are you sure you meant to use that reference? Moriori (talk) 01:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well spotted, but though there may have been a courtroom, there was no court. Courts-martial are not convened until the trial itself, and this "hearing" was three months in advance of the trial date, as per the reference. --Pete (talk) 02:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I suspect the JA is like JAG in the US -- attorneys rather than judges in a courtroom. Collect (talk) 14:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC).
 * Regarding the two soldiers involved, I have just read the report and it is truly interesting. Many people argued at the time they were innocent. The defendants successfully argued the charges were wrongly laid. The finding was not that they were not guilty but that they couldn't be guilty because their actions (being military) were not subject to duty of care. I don't think too many people would know this. Sorry to sidetrack. I just found it interesting. Moriori (talk) 03:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I did offer an alternative version that (I felt) would not be seen as critical of jones by anyone @ this commentWotherspoonSmith (talk) 06:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Mike Duke- Wal-Mart CEO
Ha says he serves chicken when describing the boards he serves on... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.174.58.60 (talk) 13:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I noticed "walmart1percent.org" as a source in the BLP - which fails WP:RS very quickly. Collect (talk) 15:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Bob McDonald (journalist)
I would like to point out an error in this article. It states that Bob McDonald's nationality is Japenese [sic]. Bob McDonald's nationality is Canadian. Someone please correct this error. Thank you.

Lorne J. Shapiro — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.33.10.155 (talk) 16:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Gianluca D'Agostino
A largely-autobiographical article, lacking in third-party sources. Definitely needs attention, and whether D'Agostino meets Notability (people) seems questionable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep. Collect (talk) 21:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep. JFHJr (㊟) 22:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've opened a deletion discussion at . JFHJr (㊟) 23:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Robert W. Harrell, Jr.
The same repeated edits by Carolina cotton persist in which his self published blog is improperly used as a source on a WP:BLP page. Wikipedia's guidelines page regarding WP:BLP clearly states: "Never use self-published sources" and continues "'Self-published blogs' in this context refers to personal and group blogs." Wikipedia guidelines dictate that such post “must be removed immediately.”

Soon after these improperly sourced posts are removed, the same information is continually reinserted sourcing a self-published blog ''The Nerve' in an attempt to promote and drive traffic to his blog. Carolina cotton has previously been given a Final Warning by an Administrator for this exact same behavior, repeatedly using another self-published blog as an improper source. EricJ1995 (talk) 03:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * FWIW, The Nerve is an arm of the South Carolina Policy Council (see its main page); neither organization strikes me as reliable enough to base WP:BLP content. The "coverage" there is crap. Also, I agree with your edits in that the "controversy" section is WP:UNDUE and should be excluded from the article altogether. No reliable source has stated there is a controversy, so it's original research to characterize events — even negative press — as a controversy when it's not described as such in reliable sources. If you'd like a second opinion on those sources, try WP:RSN.
 * As a separate issue, EricJ1995, your edit summaries here, here, here and here seem inaccurate: you did not actually remove a Wordpress URL on any occasion despite your edit summary to that effect. You also removed a cite to this source, which seems valid, and could in fact support neutrally worded, properly weighted encyclopedic prose. Please try to be more careful. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 20:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * JFHJr, thanks for taking the time to check this out and confirm that this was not a reliable source. As for the separate issue you mentioned, I wanted to add some details to better explain my edits and why I believe them to be justified.
 * My edit summaries describe The Nerve as a Wordpress blog, because that is what the site is. This can be seen in earlier edits by the use of this url http://scthenerve.wordpress.com. They have since changed the url on their blog to http://thenerve.org and the old Wordpress url currently redirects to this new url.  Even though they have updated it from the generic url Wordpress initially gives blogs, it is still a Wordpress blog.  Even though it is still a Wordpress blog, I think I'll take your advice and simply refer to it as a "blog" going forward.
 * As for the removal of this source you mentioned, yes, this newspaper is a normally reliable source. However, this story contained sever factually inaccuracies that the paper later had to issue multiple corrections. Because the source relied on factually incorrect information that was reported and later corrected, that is why I removed it.  I probably should have referenced the correction to explain this.
 * I hope this helps explain those edits. I appreciate your comments, I'm always open to advice on how to improve my edits.  Thanks, EricJ1995 (talk) 19:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Your explanations shed helpful light on things. I understand now how you could characterize the publication as a Wordpress blog, being much more acquainted with the edit history. I've opened a discussion at talk, and I hope other BLPN volunteers will help me keep an eye on things. There's a general consensus that crap nonprofit political blogs are not of the required calibre. By the way, I never doubted your edits were reasonable. Thanks again for the explanation; it makes a world of difference. It might be worth reiterating at talk. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 02:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Aruna Roy
I need to leave in a few minutes; please could someone take a look at whatever this is about, and take any necessary action. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * note - the subject appears to be clearly WP:Notable and the disputed content is not currently being published by Wikipedia - and the BLP is now WP:Full protection  for the next six days ... so - plenty of time for discussion.  You  really  can  08:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There is already a live discussion at Aruna Roy's talk page on the disputed nature of the said content. But the main editor involved is on a block for personal attacks/ harassment. Is the identity of the grieving editor established? morelM  William  08:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally I think its better to focus on content - deal with any content issues first, is there some disputed content you want to reinsert William? You  really  can  08:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I am directed to state as follows. Mrs Aruna Roy (member, National Advisory Council) is deeply distressed by recent unmoderated discussions taking place on "Talk pages" and "User pages" of this website pertaining to her private and personal matters which is accessible on the Internet within India. Such libelous talk is being further reproduced and circulated on several mailing lists and blogs within India as extracts from her Wikepedia article. We are therefore constrained, and on behalf of Mrs Aruna Roy, to urge that all data relating to or pertaining to Mrs. Aruna Roy is immediately expunged from Wikepedia computer servers irrespective of where they are located or the legal jurisdictions they fall under. India is a signatory to the United Nations Conventions on e-commerce, and has enacted an Information Technology Act (derived from the UN model law) which has extra-territorial jurisdiction extending to search and seizure of computer servers located within any co-signatory to the pact. Wikepdia has also blocked IP addresses of servers designated for use by the National Informatics Centre so Mrs. Aruna Roy cannot edit her account in person today till the block is lifted. B.K.Das (http://hub.nic.in) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunaroy (talk • contribs) 08:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I am directed to state (by myself, as a volunteer contributor, under no authority at all apart from WP:Policy and guidelines) that if you continue down this legal threat dead end you will probably be blocked sooner rather than later - as per WP:NLT - please read it - thanks - You  really  can  09:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Update - User:Arunaroy has been temporarily blocked for violation of No legal threat a Category:Wikipedia legal policies - You  really  can  09:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Note - the article and the article's talk page do not mention any details about Roy's marriage or caste, so the complaint does not seem to make a lot of sense. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * A review of the article edit history reveals such disputed content and reverting and reinsertions - You  really  can  09:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello User:Youreallycan! I have listed all the reversions related to the disputed content in the article's talk page. As a matter of fact, the discussion was started to analyse their disputed nature. I found it worthwhile to discuss this as multiple sources support Aruna's personal details such as her marriage to Bunker Roy. Even Bunker Roy's wikipedia page lists her as his spouse. morelM  William  10:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * citing Wikipedia as a source will get you nowhere fast. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Even Bunker Roy's wikipedia article. Multiple sources that talk about her marriage include this andthis. Sources questioning her marriage or calling it controversial : I couldn't find any. morelM  William  12:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The controversy seems to be as follows from what I can figger out from here and elsewhere: Hope this summarises the matter properly. HotPepperSpray (talk) 04:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * User talk:RobertRosen is an involved editor who enforced wikipedia rules and BLP policies on several pages related to India.
 * William is the former confirmed sockmaster "Manorathan" who repeatedly tried to insert controversial BLP text into the Aruna Roy article in a disruptive fashion over a span of 2 years but was reverted by Rosen and several other editors. In the most recent incident William simultaneously initiated a WP:ANI here, a WP:DRN (removed but not archived), a WP:BLPN (removed but not archived) and a  WP:RSN here
 * In all these the controversial aspects of Aruna Roy's marriage or non-marriage were superficially discussed. The locus of the problem, , , , , and this seems to be books, blogposts, mailing list exchanges etc. being circulated off-Wiki by a group antagonistic to Roy claiming the provenance of Wikipedia. As these publications (and the email exchanges on lists of which Roy is a herself a member) are written by scholars (all holding Phds) and other well known Indian personalities known to Roy, they are eminently reliable sources for inclusion in Wikipedia.
 * User:RobertRosen tried his best to prevent Sockmaster Manorathan (ie. William) from inserting anything which would allow Aruna Roy's bio-data from being expanded by the aforesaid group (who have a substantial army of "Hindu" editors on Wikipedia).
 * When after losing at 4 WP Appeal processes, Sockmaster Manorathan again brought the matter back to the Aruna Roy talk page, User:RobertRosen contacted User:Arunaroy off-wiki, and both of them are blocked indefintely for issuing "legal threats" to Wikpedia for not removing material about Aruna Roy.


 * User Contributions/HotPepperSpray                                     - User contributions are for me ringing alarm bells - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/HotPepperSpray -  You  really  can  06:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * See Sockpuppet_investigations/RobertRosen.  Λυδ α  cιτγ  22:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Eric Wallace
Vanity article, non-notable person — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.212.69 (talk • contribs) 00:58 11 November 2012


 * Sourcing does seem problematic. Any input from others? JFHJr (㊟) 06:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm struggling to see how Wallace is notable enough for an article. Afd anyone?Theroadislong (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Billy Idol
Birth Name at beginning of article is not correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.41.121.226 (talk) 21:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * An awful lot of internet sources seem to think it is. Formerip (talk) 23:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "awful" is the right word for such research. Far better to point out that a specific proper source such as  contains the same full name and date of birth as was in the article.  Uncle G (talk) 15:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sorry. When I said "awful", I meant something more like "supercilious". Formerip (talk) 14:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

kent whealy
Someone is repeatedly posting inaccurate,personal and irrelevant information on Kent Whealy. Mr Whealy has been under constant attack for the last five years. Wikipedia has been used before. It is irrelevant to his enormous contribution to be listing details of his divorce and his unjustifiable firing. There is no reason to invade the privacy of his wife. There is no connection whatsoever between the Ceres Trust and the Kern Family Foundation. Mentioning his gift of one million dollars is totally irresponsible and will only result in attracting more crackpots like the one who has done so much research here. While this fact has been published, posting it here greatly increases its exposure and is dangerous.Please don't allow these disgusting invasions of his privacy to continue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treastor (talk • contribs) 13:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No discussion on the talk age so far at. This new editor has been reverted by 2 other editors with a request to discuss on the talk page. I don't see any details of his divorce, just a mention and since we mention, for good reason, his 2nd wife it's obvious he is divorced from his first (presuming she is still alive) but it may be in the wrong place as it isn't directly related to the rest of the sentence which is about his removal from Seeds Savers Exchange. I don't see any problem with mentioning the amount of his donation, and doubt that he is ashamed of it. As he founded Seed Savers Exchange the statement that he "was removed from his position with Seeds Savers Exchange by the board in 2007[2] following a dispute with board chair Amy Goldman and husband Cary Fowler" seems appropriate. Looking at his talk page he was asked yesterday to discuss this at the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 13:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Editor has continued to blank information and now has 3 warnings. After the latest deletions someone else turned it into a redirect on the grounds that he isn't notable on his own, but I'm not convinced and the way to deal with an article about someone not notable is AfD, not redirect. Dougweller (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that issue was settled as I wrote the above. I have a concrete question. It appears that in 2007 Whealy was removed from the board of the organisation he founded. Should the article mention this or any of the dispute? I found what seems to be a reliable source, which I can think can be used to mention his removal but also used to discuss the debate over the Seed Savers Exchange at that article which could use expansion. Dougweller (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

(e/c)on initial view, he appeared to be notable only for his association with the organization he founded. however, on closer view, as the recipient of a macarthur genius award and notice as the highest contributor in california proposition campaign, i reverted to a sourced version of those claims. the personal the other personal life details are only supported by improper primary sources or other improper sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine, but what about his removal in 2007 from the organisation he founded? I don't think the actual removal is disputed, is the source I mention ok? It seems to me it is relevant to the article and he apparently had a fairly high profile debate with Seed Savers after that (high profile in relative terms, ie among that community). Dougweller (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Bunker Roy
See edit history for today, new editor user:Wiredbee adding much non-neutral wild soapboxing, much of it from unsuitable sources. I have removed but been reverted once & have no desire to be drawn into edit warring - even though removing claims of deception are surely BLPexempt. Undoubtedly related to Aruna Roy controversy above. regards 78.86.229.157 (talk) 14:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've seen the Bunker Roy article just now. Massive NPOV editing and deletion of sources. Have cleaned up the article now. I concur that this seems to be related to the Aruna Roy controversy. HotPepperSpray (talk) 05:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * user:Wiredbee continues to vandalize the article, despite having received the final warning regarding BLP violations, and also left this nasty message on my talk page about the subject. Qworty (talk) 02:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

John Schnatter
Schattner made a comment about Obamacare that went viral on Reddit (and then on to facebook). His wiki pate was subsequently edited to add in a political section that is clearly biased and violates WP:NPOV. One of the citations quotes the original quote as a source and is cyclical. New editor User:MichaelKovich is blindly reverting the page while avoiding the discussion on the talk page.Pizzamancer (talk) 01:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I do wonder why information that's purportedly all about the employees and financial circumstances of Papa John's Pizza isn't being put in the Papa John's Pizza article. It seems like the lot of you need to get a grip and figure out that not everything in an encyclopaedia has to be shoe-horned into biographies.  Uncle G (talk) 11:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Rockstar_(drink) is a WP:BLP VIO
Blogs, dead links and fringe opinions do not make for valid verifiable Reliable sources to support the defamatory claims being made in Rockstar_(drink). This section is a blatent WP:BLP Vio about Michael Savage and/or his family. I've started a discussion on the talk page Here. --Hu12 (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Horrid mess using non-RS sources, primary sources, and an attempt at "guilt by family association" of the worst kind. Reduced to claims which are reasonably supportable. Collect (talk) 12:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Gone in 60 Seconds (bank fraud)
This is a report of an "alleged" crime with the names of suspects listed. By my understanding this is a violation of BLP policy, even if already reported in the news. Am I right on this? Steve Dufour (talk) 03:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Generally yes. Or, at least we should err on that side. I also noticed that a lot of the article was a copyright violation. I've removed the names and the copyrighted content. Let's see how well it sticks. Formerip (talk) 14:52, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for doing that. The article is much more reasonable now. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Charles Jaco
Note: This was last addressed in 2010: Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive98

At Charles Jaco, there have been multiple attempts to insert negative material that is sourced only by a YouTube video.

I looked for a reliable source for the claim and found only blogs and YouTube videos.

I will leave it to your judgement as to what response would be appropriate; these are spread out over a long period, and typically get reverted quickly, so doing nothing might be a reasonable option.

Examples:

04:29, 17 November 2012 by User:Cole132132

04:13, 17 November 2012 by User:Cole132132

23:28, 16 November 2012 by User:76.122.76.98 (Geolocates to Atlanta, Georgia)

18:48, 19 April 2012 by User:12.152.59.227 (Geolocates to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania)

21:35, 12 March 2012 by User:207.161.21.118 (Geolocates to Winnipeg, Manitoba)

19:18 - 19:41, 22 January 2012 by User:87.200.64.52 (Geolocates to Dubai, United Arab Emirates)

20:21 - 21:58, 17 July 2011 by User:76.98.58.126 (Geolocates to Norristown Pennsylvania)

Also, is there a user warning template for this sort of thing? I looked in the usual places and did not find one. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * uw-biog1 and its more insistent variants are ideal for this. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * My edits toward Charles Jaco were poorly referenced I admit but I am currently in search for a reputable answers. I have contacted the owner of the video to see if he can give me any possible links towards this. But I wont submit to the possiblitity that this video was real, as taking the time to fake a fake is highly unlikely, my apologies for breaking any guidelines. That is all.--Cole132132 (talk) 21:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Please note that it was not my intention to "bust" Cole132132 or the IPs; it is pretty clear that the edits in question were in good faith and they simply did not know that about WP:RS and YouTube. Actually, this would be a good page for the new, improved Pending Changes feature. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)