Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive168

Death of Jill Meagher
I have requested the title of this article to changed as the accused has not been convicted of the death of the subject of the article. Just wondering if there was a specific policy or precedent that covers article naming of crimes. Hack (talk) 03:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Moved to Death of Jill Meagher.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I have requested speedy deletion of the redirect created by your move Murder_of_Jill_Meagher - there has as yet been undecided if there has been any murder - so the redirect is still a BLP violation -  You  really  can  10:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have declined the delete as I see reliable sources using the term Murder_of_Jill_Meagher, such as ABC news and Herald Sun. G6 is for non-controversial deletions. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Issue at Congregation Gemiluth Chassodim
This got swept up in the Cohen Cruse ruse and thus was noticed when the article was edited make it very clear that the synagogue has fired its rabbi. There's ample documentation that this happened and that termination was under a cloud, but I'm a bit uncomfortable with the way the synagogue (for the article seems to be being edited at their behest) is pushing this. It could use review for undue emphasis on this event. Mangoe (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * (Uninvolved editor opinion). The current version of the page reads as follows: "Thirty-four presidents and 24 rabbis have served the temple. In 2011, Jonathan Cohen was appointed twenty-fourth rabbi of the congregation but served only one year. His contract was not renewed after the congregation discovered that he was never ordained as a rabbi."  There has been some back-and-forth on this subject, but I believe that the article as it currently exists passes BLP and UNDUE. Andrew327 00:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Shenandoah (band)
A member of the group Shenandoah (band) has tried to update the page to indicate that a Chris Roach is in the group. He's also tried to contact me via twitter and e-mail, but I haven't heard back. While their Facebook page corroborates this, I can't find any other sources anywhere that corroborate it — the band's website is just a "coming soon" page that links to their Facebook and a tour schedule. And the band is so low on the radar now that finding any info on them at all is really a Herculean task. What would be the appropriate action to verify the current membership? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak support of inclusion. I could see an argument being made either way but I would personally be OK with Mr. Roach being included.  Per WP:ABOUTSELF, you are allowed to use social media and other self published sources for certain non-controversial content. Andrew327 00:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Caste, yet again
Can I draw the attention of contributors to a discussion I have initiated at ''Village pump (policy)? ''I would welcome the input of all interested contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Liza Minelli
Talks about being in a polygamous relationship and looking to start a reality TV show about it. This is not true and unsupported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.182.76 (talk) 01:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, that was some mischievous vandalism, which I've now removed. Thanks for alerting us. HiLo48 (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Hebephilia
We could use some eyes at hebephilia. There is a blogger who is starting an otherwise unfounded rumor about what some psychiatrists have allegedly said about some psychologists. Specifically, the page says "The AMA board of trustees apparently had to step in due to a small group of psychologists digging their heals in and not accepting the opinions of the wider community of mental health professionals" There is no evidence of the AMA expressing any such opinion, which is sourced solely to a blogger with a long-term POV on the issue. I am of the opinion that bloggers putting words into the mouths of the AMA are inappropriate to include in WP due to WP:BLP, WP:GOSSIP, and WP:BLPGOSSIP. Other input could be used. Thanks.— James Cantor (talk) 22:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually -- it's sourced just as MrADHD says it is. Yes, it's a blog, but it's a blog within Psychology Today, and it's written by a professional.  I also don't belive it violated BLP as it doesn't mention any names, just describes the event.

 KoshVorlon . We are all Kosh ... 18:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * How do you reconcile that view with BLPGROUP (and SPS)?
 * "A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources." WP:BLPGROUP
 * "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." WP:SPS
 * The group being talked about (the psychologists on the committee) consists of about three people. And a self-published blog is rarely (if ever) what a policy means by "high-quality sources."
 * — James Cantor (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

how do I reconcile?? Pretty easily...BLP is Biographes of Living People. Once again, no one's name was ever mentioned, so no BLP, second,  this blog is on Psychology Today which is  a magazine, the blog is part of that magazine and not self published. Psychology Today is a reliable source as well. Again, just my .02 cents.  KoshVorlon . We are all Kosh ... 19:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Mart Laar
- disputed addition. Several users, including me, consider it as giving undue weight to relatively trivial event.--Staberinde (talk) 11:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is why it stay there - many people think it is relevant. On talkpage it has long thread, I am not going to duplicate it there. It is question of discussions but somehow it always matters, so this is notable. I personally think this is coordinated effort to remove unconvenient stuff and keep only ad-like page which is not NPOV at all. More input on same topic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Mart_Laar Tõnu Samuel (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment, when the main advocate of this contentious text,, claims there is some kind of "coordinated effort to remove unconvenient stuff and keep only ad-like page", it is a sure sign that a particular POV is being pushed at the expense of WP:BLP policy. 87.208.192.123 (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I need to explain why I suspect this. This person Mart Laar is famous for few items:
 * 1. Deleting inconvenient stuff from internet
 * 2. Blaming someone else for this
 * 3. Been already caught lying of not doing things he did
 * 4. His wikipedia page lists his good things but anything which he may not like, is not just edited but just thrown out in minutes. Anything. Check history how ruble sales got in, how ACTA and Facebook topic, how shooting scandal made way. Read talk pages too. Clearly big effort to remove this data. I just balance this power. From talk page you see lot of people this information is relevant and should stay. They are provide good reasoning. Because there are two sides having different opinion this information should stay in to make sure reader can read it and decide, if this is ethical crime or not. Everyone seems to understand it different.
 * 5. Estonian politicians are multiple times caught removing inconvenient data from their wikipedia page. Some of cases are better documented than others. This looks so much like these before it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gerog112 is most famous and clear case but there are multiple more. Tõnu Samuel (talk) 16:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Your belief in conspiracy theories involving Estonian politicians attempting to remove "inconvenient data" is blinding you to the fact that the text you are attempting to add is not only boringly irrelevant but doesn't meet the standard set in WP:BLP. 87.208.192.123 (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I get paid for making analysis, audit and pentests, my customers include Fortune500 companies and they think my work is good enough for them. I use my real name and my track is verifiable. But you are anonymous making personal attacks "blind" etc. Time to pull back. I given enough sources, more people explained why. All this stuff started because you acted exactly - anonymous with no name and history just vandalized inconvenient things in one person page. You do not work for anything else, just vandalizing one page. Of course I get questions about motivation of this person. Try to help improving pages, different pages instead of vandalizing one. BLP has really nothing to do here as described many times before. Tõnu Samuel (talk) 17:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well clearly if you are a paid Internet professional, then there is a clear conflict of interest when you attempt to insert ACTA issues into Mart Laar's biography. You should exclude yourself from editing that article per WP:COI. 87.208.192.123 (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not have any conflict of interest. Being professional in IT has nothing to do with topic. But I pointed out that there are anonymous users whose intentions are not clear and clearly angled in favor of removing NPOV and turning article into political ad. Please start talking about facts, start from answering question already asked by Jeraphine Gryphon Tõnu Samuel (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but that is completely ridiculous. By your standard, 50% of Wikipedia editors should not be editing the ACTA article or hundreds of other articles. No, there's no "clear" COI here as you suggest, and I think you know that too, you're only trying to pressure Samuel to not edit the article because you disagree with him. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No it is not completely ridiculous. As you yourself pointed out here, Tõnu Samuel himself was involved in a belligerent conversation on Mart Laar's blog and Facebook page and now he wants to add content about Laar's FB page to his article. COI? Most definitely yes. 87.208.192.123 (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's evident to everyone that he's politically biased/opinionated when it comes to Laar, but so are you. But you were trying to make a point here that he has a COI when it comes to ACTA (or Internet-related stuff in general, that's what you were implying). Don't try to conflate these things, don't try to say that he has a little COI here and a little COI there and therefore he should not be allowed to edit at all. It doesn't work that way. What was ridiculous is saying that he has a COI in regards to ACTA just because he's some IT guy. Come on. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I would really like to know which part of WP:BLP applies here. As I explained on the talk page, I think it's actually beneficial for the subject to have that content there, because it explains the incident well. The only relevant part of WP:BLP I can find right now is this: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It has been explained to you at length on the article talk page. Judging by this bio of Tõnu Samuel, there may well be an WP:ADVOCACY issue here in his attempt to insert a reference to the ACTA issue (which is related to Internet piracy). 87.208.192.123 (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it hasn't been "explained at length". Just because the discussion is lengthy in size doesn't mean you've conclusively proven anything. I've explained my point of view "at length" as well. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I lost track. What is good/bad about piracy? If you bet I have something to do it, no. I do not understand how your text correlated to topic, please explain. Tõnu Samuel (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Jeraphine Gryphon already revealed your belligerent interaction on Mart Laar's blog and FB page, so your ability to provide a disinterested contribution to Mart Laar's biographical article is legitimately called into question as COI, what don't you understand about that? 87.208.192.123 (talk) 19:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing here that violates BLP — Or WP:UNDUE for that matter. The information is written from a neutral point of view, and it's perfectly well sourced. The IP user's argument essentially can be reduced to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I'll remind everyone of WP:3RR at this point, and recommend this be taken to dispute resolution if the offended party feels his/her arguments are not being given appropriate attention. § FreeRangeFrog croak 19:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP states: "Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association", the text relies upon tabloid sources that attempt associate removal of FB content with Laar's honesty (and that is the intent when one reads the various talk pages) when in fact it came out later that he wasn't personally responsible for the moderation of FB content and was unaware the content was removed. Given that, this is event borders on trivia. The argument presented for keeping it relies upon eventualism, I.e. just expand the article to address this. Both trivia and eventualism is discouraged by BLP policy. 87.208.192.123 (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Õhtuleht and Delfi_(web_portal) are questionable, but Postimees, ERR, and Eesti Ekspress are not "tabloids", plus there was attention from Toronto Star and The Daily Dot. This is the best-sourced incident in the whole article. I don't see the relevance of "guilt by association". We explain in the article what his excuse was and what he really thought/claimed to think about it all, what we have written is well-balanced and doesn't aim to imply anything about his honesty. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand your concern: the whole thing was a non-event, nothing revealing actually happened, he didn't support censorship, etc, and the only thing that happened was that he chose his words/excuse poorly and people made funny memes about it. But, given the coverage in good sources, this event is notable, and also relevant to Mart Laar as a public figure. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I also disagree with the removal. This is a crusade by a single anonymous editor, forcing their own POV and trying to exploit the fact that most neutral judges can't read Estonian sources or estimate their relevance easily. That article can certainly be improved, yet not by deleting facts according to someone's whim but by expanding it (e.g., Laar's work as a historian is barely mentioned, without even a short summary his views, there is no explanation for his titles as Year's Press Friend and Enemy, etc). Currently, these two incidents (Facebook and shotgun) are summarized quite shortly and in a neutral manner, so WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE really have nothing to do here. My arguments for their relevance can be seen on the article's talk page. --Oop (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems User:Oop was canvassed to make a comment here by Tonusamuel. He also canvassed one other known to be sympathic to his view while neglecting to ask the several other editors who oppose his edits to comment. That's a violation of WP:CANVASS. 87.208.192.123 (talk) 07:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually I was seeking ban on you because you attacked me personally multiple times. This "one other known editor" gave you last warning. You bash me be related to piracy, having conflict of interest, being blind, being paranoid etc. I look for ways to stop this. Tõnu Samuel (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You can't have someone blocked because you don't like what they're doing, and some minor/perceived personal offenses. But if you really think that you have a solid case to make against him, take it to WP:ANI. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

There are 2 things here. First: should event be covered. Second: how detailed coverage it deserves. Currently whole ACTA incident description is longer then Laar's work as historian. It also includes whole article's only quote from Laar himself. It may deserve few sentences, but definitely not current very detailed coverage.--Staberinde (talk) 10:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree and this consensus already that other sections should be made longer. He surely have done more that published bunch of books and shot photos from gun. But this is not much BLP topic but just need for more input, not deleting existing stuff. Multiple people seem to work on improving this now and everyone wins. No big problem anymore I think.Tõnu Samuel (talk) 10:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, WP:BLP explicitly discourages your approach:
 * "The idea expressed in WP:Eventualism – that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times."
 * I and other editors also object to inclusion of the shotgun incident due to WP:UNDUE because only one single writer out of dozens of commentators deemed the event notable enough to mention it ten years after the event. 87.208.192.123 (talk) 13:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMart_Laar&diff=531448506&oldid=531447096 Tõnu Samuel (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The description of the ACTA incident was shorter before, but due to being short it was unbalanced. And I don't think it's too long anyway. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You are kidding me, the "Media relations" section is now dominated by a lengthy description of ACTA incident, so for all his long career this incident is now presented as the dominant event in his media relations. What aspect of WP:BLP's directive '"The idea expressed in WP:Eventualism – that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times."'' do you not understand? 87.208.192.123 (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * How is that paragraph not fair, though? Are you saying it makes him look bad? And you're saying now that that particular section should be longer (to justify inclusion of that paragraph). I don't care about the length of that section, the length of the rest of the article is sufficient to justify that paragraph. I "understand" very well what's going on here, don't talk down to me. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well evidently either you do not understand or WP:YOUDIDNTHEARTHAT. So much text has been given to this that it dominates the "Media relations" section that now it appears to be the most important event in his entire career. So while you think the paragraph is balanced the section no longer is. You can not say the solution is to simple expand the section later, WP:BLP does not permit this, the article and its sections must be balanced at all times. 87.208.192.123 (talk) 06:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And your proposed fix is what? Removing this is also violation of BLP. Emtpy page is best balanced page and your attempts to delete data are not leading anywhere but empty page. Can you please work on ADDing missing, positive events from this page please? Lot of things he maybe did as PM. At moment main problem  is long list of books making article look like he is just productive writer. He had been PM twice, so there must be something. Tõnu Samuel (talk) 08:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that Tonusamuel and I have reached to solution that is acceptable for both,. I don't have further objections about Facebook incident and personally consider issue resolved.--Staberinde (talk) 13:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You're seriously trying to tell me that this is an improvement? I give up. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 16:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please describe, what is wrong with it? Maybe we missed something important. We still can improve it. Tõnu Samuel (talk) 16:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Potentially libellous statement
An IP added this statement to Talk:Kaley Cuoco. I removed it per WP:BLPREMOVE but two editors have restored it now. I've warned both of them but...... -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The information that User:AussieLegend remove on the ground that it may be "potentially libelous" is only "potentially libelous" because it is not referenced. There is no referencing requirement in a talk page, and therefore, his/her removal of the comment is out of line with the policy of WP:TPO. User:AussieLegend keeps referring to WP:BLPREMOVE which does not seem to apply to talk pages. However whatever (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The allegation posted on the talk page violates WP:BLP policy - read it: "This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages". This is core Wikipedia policy, and all contributors should be aware of it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Biographies of living persons applies also to article talk and even user talk pages. Therefore the removal of this bit was entirely justified. Please do not restore it unless you find a reliable reference. De728631 (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

My apologies. I did not see the "including talk pages" in the WP:BLP page. While I would have felt comfortable removing defamatory information from a talk page (and I do not think that this is defamatory) I did not think that rigorous referencing is required in talk pages. Makes discussions a little tough.

What can I say, Wikipedia is definitely getting very bureaucratic. See. However whatever (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that prohibiting the posting of potentially-libellous statements on a publicly accessible web page is 'bureaucratic'. Anyway, it is policy... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I looked at other contributions that the IP made, and indeed some are defamatory and should have been removed. This one, is not really defamatory. However whatever (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the talk page is to improve the article. In this specific case, the IP gave an opinion about how he/she thinks an actress got her role. I wouldn't think that the IP would need to give references as to why his argument is valid, but "it is policy" to remove this opinion (and the overburdening policy is a bureaucracy). However whatever (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The claim is most definitely defamation. It wasn't just an opinion, it was a direct allegation. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * @However, this is not an example of an "overburdening policy" or a project that is unduly bureaucratic. This is an example of a scurrilous allegation by another editor with nothing to back it up. It clearly violates well-founded policy, and if you don't understand that, you shouldn't be editing BLP articles or their talk pages. There may be examples of bureaucracy at Wikipedia, but this ain't one of 'em. Choose your battles more carefully.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree that there is nothing to back it up, but the burden to back up claims should not be placed in talk pages. Perhaps that comment could inspire someone to bring up a more concrete argument. I see nothing defamatory in that comment. However whatever (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Then you're not seeing hard enough. The term "casting couch" indicates a porn genre and suggests that the subject was gullible to the point of being willing to have sex in return for getting a movie role; it thus also suggests that she didn't get the role on her own (acting/talent) merits.  This is not the sort of thing to say without a source for it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm naive. I did not know the porn connection. However whatever (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I dunno. I disagree with Nomosk on the point about the "porn genre" (see Casting couch). Not to belabor this, but even without the porn issue, why would saying that someone got a part only because they agreed to have sex with the hirer not be defamatory (I agree with everything else Nomosk said)? Doesn't even fall into a gray area, at least not for me.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * why would saying that someone got a part only because they agreed to have sex with the hirer not be defamatory? It is defamatory. I did not fully understand the term. I thought it had a different meaning. However whatever (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Alan E. Kazdin
Phony and potentially libelous attribution to subject's field of study at Yale in first sentence. I don't understand how to fix this so am submitting it for a more experienced contributor to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.143.202 (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It was just vandalism. Reverted. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Anna Anka
User has been removing information from  (BLP), claiming that she is the subject of the article, and that the information in the "Newsmill article" section is incorrect and/or misleading. Whether she is or not Anna Anka, it would be good for an editor who speaks Swedish to double-check the sources (and there are a few) backing up that particular section and its claims. I left a message in the user's talk page, inviting her to discuss her (?) concerns in the article's talk page. § FreeRangeFrog croak 05:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Joe Schlesinger
The article is being edited by a new editor supposedly on behalf of the subject. I've reverted the edits twice. I've left a welcome/conflict message on the editor's talk page. That doesn't appear to be working. More eyes would help.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing Mr. Schlesinger and his proxy weren't happy about two unsourced paraphrases of his speeches, one of which sounded very pranky to me. Took them out. The Interior  (Talk) 19:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello all,

I'm the "new editor," my name is Maia and yes, I really do know Joe Schlesinger. As I'm new to Wikipedia procedures, I'm posting this on both his talk page and the noticeboard of the BLP, in the hopes that one of these is the right place.

I tried to edit Joe's Bio yesterday, several times, and each time, everything I did was immediately undone. Which was frustrating. My intention was not to start an "edit war," but rather to improve the quality of his Bio by 1) correcting factual errors, 2) filling in key details of his career trajectory that are missing in his current page (essentially: Why did this guy get all these honours in the first place??) and 3) By prioritising some of his most pivotal achievements and biographical details over some of the more incidental ones.

To address your concerns over the the fact that I know Joe personally, and any concerns about my ability to write objectively about his life, I've gone back and added secondary sources to substantiate every detail that I'm proposing to add. Moreover, most of the text originated not from Joe himself, but from profiles of him in sources like the CBC. And that will be clear from my quotes and sourcing. I hope this will assuage any kneejerk reactions (like reflexively deleting the new material I'm proposing) and allow you to really read it, and give it a chance. I think you'll find this version paints a richer, fuller portrait of the man's life, and what he's meant to people over the years.

As a journalist, Schlesinger has frequently spoken of getting to the "heartbeat" of a story. To do this he provided simple, clear historical context, enabling viewers to understand the event, he weeded out extraneous details, and he found a way to tell the story "so viewers, or listeners, identify with what is happening." (http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/media/story/2009/06/09/joe-schlesinger.html)

I think this is essentially what we're trying to do here with his Bio. Let's try and come to a consensus.

Heres are the errors & large omissions in the current version: a) Joe didn't move to Bratislava as a child, his parents had lived there. He did however move to another part of czechoslovakia and regards it as his homeland. b) Nicholas Winton was the organizer of the kindertransports that brought Joe to Britain. But Winton had nothing to do with the Czech school Joe attended while there. c) After the war Joe returned to Prague, not Bratislava. d) When he left Czechoslovakia in the late 1940s for Austria, and then Canada, it was in response to the arrests of AP staffers by the communist regime. And leaving involved an elaborate escape across the "iron curtain." e) He started his career in Vancouver, and worked there longer than either Toronto or London. f) He didn't just work for the CBC, he was the boss of CBC News. And covered conflicts around the world for several decades. g) There are a number of other important omissions. I include them in the following:

Here's my proposed edit:

JOE SCHLESINGER

"His life as a foreign correspondent reads like a personal history of the second half of the twentieth century." - Governor General of Canada, 1994  (1)

Joe Schlesinger is a veteran Canadian journalist who for four decades has reported for CBC Television News from all over the world. (2) Born in Vienna in 1928, Schlesinger was raised in Czechoslovakia. In 1939, after Hitler dismembered the country, Joe's parents sent him for safety to England. When he returned to Czechoslovakia at the end of World War II in 1945, he found his parents had been killed in The Holocaust. Joe started his journalistic career in 1948 in the Prague bureau of the Associated Press. When communist Czechoslovakia started arresting AP staffers, he fled across the Iron Curtain and came to Canada. (3) He became a reporter at the Vancouver Province and the Toronto Star, then an editor at the UPI bureau in London and at the International Herald Tribune in Paris. CBC YEARS:

In 1966 he joined the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in Toronto. He served as executive producer of The National and head of CBC TV News. In 1970, Schlesinger went overseas again, this time as the CBC's Far East correspondent based in Hong Kong. This was followed over the next 20 years by postings to Paris, Washington and Berlin. In 1991 he became the CBC's Chief Political Correspondent in Ottawa. Joe retired from the CBC news service in 1994, but has continued to contribute to CBC programs. (4)

FOREIGN ASSIGNMENTS:

Schlesinger reported on wars in Vietnam and in the rest of Indochina, the '71 war between India and Pakistan, the guerrilla wars in Nicaragua and El Salvador of the eighties, the Israeli-Arab conflict at various times, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in '80, earthquakes in Italy, Iran and Romania, haute couture and haute cuisine in Paris, revolutions in Portugal, Iran and Mao Zedong's Cultural Revolution in China. (5) Schlesinger has frequently stated that one of the highlights of his life was returning to his native Czechoslovakia, 50 years after having left as a refugee, and reporting on the "Velvet Revolution" that overthrew the communist regime. (6) A book of Schlesinger's memoirs, "Time Zones" was published by Random House in 1990 and became a best-seller. He won four Gemini awards, the John Drainie award for distinguished contribution to Canadian broadcasting and a Hot Doc award for documentary writing. “The Power of Good,” a documentary he wrote and narrated, won an International Emmy award in 2002. (7) In 1994, he was named a member of the Order of Canada. (8) He has been awarded honorary doctorates by the University of British Columbia, The Royal Military College, Carleton, Dalhousie and Queens Universities as well as the University of Alberta. In 2009, he received a Lifetime Achievement Award from the Canadian Journalism Foundation.(9)

"He is always intelligent, fair and accurate — a model for all young journalists," said former Globe and Mail managing editor Geoffrey Stevens, chairman of the jury that selected Schlesinger. "Viewers can always believe and learn from a Schlesinger report. He is one of the finest foreign correspondents this country has produced." (10)

Schlesinger has two daughters by his late wife Myra: Leah, a lawyer, and Ann, a molecular biologist. He and his partner, Dr. Judith Levene, a psychoanalyst, live in Toronto. (11) SOURCES:


 * http://archive.gg.ca/honours/search-recherche/honours-desc.asp?lang=e&TypeID=orc&id=3392
 * http://jewishottawa.com/page.aspx?id=205808
 * http://www.cbc.ca/programguide/personality/joe_schlesinger
 * http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/647082--joe-schlesinger-s-view-is-still-gritty-witty, http://www.jgstoronto.ca/index.php/calendar-mainmenu-55/speakers-biographies-mainmenu-174/345-joe-schlesinger, http://www.cbc.ca/strombo/platform-videos/the-hour-s5-paul-rudd-jason-segel-joe-schlesinger.html
 * http://www.cbc.ca/programguide/personality/joe_schlesinger
 * http://www.cbc.ca/strombo/platform-videos/the-hour-s5-paul-rudd-jason-segel-joe-schlesinger.html
 * http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xn39qw_longtime-cbc-foreign-correspondent-joe-schlesinger-reflects-on-his-memories-of-czech-revolutionary-v_news
 * http://www.iemmys.tv/awards_previous.aspx
 * http://archive.gg.ca/honours/search-recherche/honours-desc.asp?lang=e&TypeID=orc&id=3392http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/media/story/2009/02/26/schlesinger-award.html?ref=rss
 * http://www.jgstoronto.ca/index.php/calendar-mainmenu-55/speakers-biographies-mainmenu-174/345-joe-schlesinger
 * http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/media/story/2009/06/09/joe-schlesinger.html
 * http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/media/story/2009/02/26/schlesinger-award.html?ref=rss
 * Joe Schlesinger, personal communication

--Maia 05:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Diane Zamora


I have cut this BLP of a convicted murderer to a very short stub, because it was a complete mess of unsourced NPOV statements. What little was sourced needed to be completely rewritten for it to be neutral. It included prisoner numbers and incarceration locations added by an admin from primary sources. If anyone has an interest in rewriting it, they are welcome to do so, but deletion under WP:BLP1E seems a much better way to go. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems that everything can be referenced to her dateline interview. However whatever (talk) 20:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a breathtaking assertion - everything? And to an interview of the subject? The article was fairly extensive, and as DC states, almost completely unsourced, and much of reads like a dime-store novel.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's a matter of using an axe where a delicate knife would be more appropriate. The entire story is also in the Court TV archive which is also linked through the article. However whatever (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * First, you essentially restored the entire garbagy article, adding the interview in as a ref. I reverted you. Then, you restored just the section about the interview. So, now we have a perfunctory lead with the only body being the interview. The article is no longer garbagy; it's completely unbalanced. I'll let other editors weigh in here and on the article rather than battling with you.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Call it Work in progress. The majority of the article needs to be restored. I'm just going to do this one section at a time. However whatever (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, rebuilding the article is a reasonable goal and deserves some slack. BTW, I agree that the movie section you re-added doesn't require sourcing.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

After giving this a little thought, I cannot see this as anything other than a clear case of BLP1E, so I have nominated it for deletion: Articles for deletion/Diane Zamora (2nd nomination). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Samer Tariq Issawi
Claims of an arrest, hunger strike, sourced to activist (?) rather than reliable third-party sources or unsourced. I need to run for a while, other eyes and article paring knives (as appropriate) appreciated. --j⚛e deckertalk 15:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Cheryl Ritchko-Buley
Probable re-marry and name change. Two new editors are re-verting. Anyone want to help sort it? Some copyvio was added from sources and removed.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * And see related thread at the Help Desk.--ukexpat (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Lynette Nusbacher
This BLP covers a person who may have changed gender status and name. Two users seem intent on outing them by posting items on the article and talk page. Could someone take a look and see if we need to refactor some of this? I'm concerned we're using unreliable sources to out a living person. Insomesia (talk) 13:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there evidence that Nusbacher prefers this aspect of her history not to be discussed publicly? In the abstract, a sex change is nothing shameful.  We ought to treat it as private if it hasn't been widely covered in secondary sources, and especially if the subject wants it to be treated as private.  Where do things stand in those terms?  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No reliable sources seem to mention it and the subject seems to want it to be private. Insomesia (talk) 14:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I can only find links between the two on internet forums and The Sun newspaper - nothing reliable. GiantSnowman 14:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This issue has already been dealt with: Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive147 The private medical and personal aspects shouldn't be included for obvious reasons, but the subject's highly notable and widely covered previous identity is appropriate for inclusion.  There is no rational, policy-based reason to exclude the former name when the person appeared on television and authored notable books under that name.  ►  Belch fire - TALK  14:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, there are no WP:RS which confirms the sex change. The Sun is definitely not reliable. GiantSnowman 14:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * If you google [aryeh nusbacher lynette] you will find countless references. The wikipedia article states that until 2006 her books were published under her former name. And her own website is tagged with "Aryeh Nusbacher". So this does not seem to be a secret. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There is robust sourcing for the former name. To the degree that disagreement is simply obstructionist and further discussion is absurd.  ►  Belch fire - TALK  14:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Please share the most reliable "robust" sources for this so others may support your view. Insomesia (talk) 14:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Please provide sourcing for your claim that "the subject seems to want it to be private". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem necessary to provide sources here when Insomesia is the only editor who is having trouble finding them. There are sources in the article now; there is the source he tendentiously reverted yesterday with a phony edit summary, and there is even a RS mentioned on the Talk page that covers the actual gender change.  This is beginning to smell like WP:IDHT.  ►  Belch fire - TALK  14:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (after edit conflict) Nusbacher has verified with OTRS that she is User:NetNus. The evidence that she wants this to be private can be found at Special:Contributions/NetNus. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec)The redirect y'all are griping about was actually the article's original title. So if he doesn't want it redirected, he has to figure out a way to make wikipedia pretend that they are separate persons, one of whom disappeared without explanation in 2006, and the other suddenly appeared in 2007. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Firstly, Nusbacher is "she", and secondly nobody has griped about any redirect. If you can't be bothered to look into this properly then your comments here simply amount to trolling. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The OP griped about the redirect here, so spare me your lectures about "looking into this properly". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't exactly call that a "gripe", and your use of "he" is either gratuitously offensive or grossly ignorant. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "He" refers to the one who filed the ANI complaint, so again you need to back off your lectures and start examining your own conclusions. For one, explain how wikipedia can pretend these are two different persons without rendering one or both of them as "not notable"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a plausible dodge only if there's good reason to think that Insomnia is male. Got anything?  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I could say "It", if you prefer. Meanwhile, you need to figure out a way to draw a line between Aryeh's disappearance in 2006 and Lynette's emergence in 2007, and whether either one qualifies as being "notable". Got anything? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll make this as simple as possible. There are articles by/about 'Aryeh Nusbacher'. There are articles by/about 'Lynette Nusbacher'. There are no articles (that I can see) confirming they are the same person. Please read WP:BURDEN and then provide some WP:RS so we can WP:V this. If reliable sources cannot be found then any and all references to 'Aryeh' will be removed from the article on Lynette. GiantSnowman 14:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There is sourcing to connect the two identities. First compare this with this .  And here is a mainstream news media source covering the "transition":   ►  Belch fire - TALK  15:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's WP:OR to compare the website past & present, and are IBL News 'mainstream' (or more importantly reliable?) GiantSnowman 15:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree strongly with GS on this, given the post from Phil Bridger about OTRS identification etc. It stays out unless there is a consensus to put it in, something obviously lacking now.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Then you need two separate articles, with a dividing line between 2006 and 2007. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I see that Amazon lists a number of books under Aryeh, including some that are claimed in the Lynette article to be written by Lynette. If wikipedia is going to pretend these are two separate persons, then we can't claim authorship by Lynett when the published author was Aryeh. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Purely as a FYI Phil: ANI. KTC (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A further FYI is that the redirect was created over 2 years ago, with a rather matter-of-fact explanation for it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It baffles me that somebody would want to delete & salt the redirect from Aryeh Nusbacher, whilst there's been no attempt to remove the content about Aryeh Nusbacher's work from the target article. Lacking a connection between the two, there is very little content about Lynette Nusbacher, who would appear to fail the GNG. Meanwhile, there's lots of stuff about Aryeh Nusbacher - the name is repeatedly removed from our article but it's the name used by sources - so why on earth would we salt the notable one? Can somebody explain? bobrayner (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, I can explain: it's obstructionism. See WP:TENDENTIOUS, and perhaps WP:IPW. ►  Belch fire - TALK  15:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I was just reading your IPW essay. No "perhaps" about it. This is definitely a conflict of interest situation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Insisting on strong sourcing for a BLP is simply following policy, please AGF. Insomesia (talk) 00:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec)It baffled me too, until a user in this section confirmed that this Lynette is trying to mold the article based on a personal agenda rather than on observable facts. I thought that kind of thing was against the rules. So I'm still a bit baffled. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: I've just nominated for deletion on notability grounds. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Restoration of sex-change/name w/o consensus
The fact of sex-change and previous name has been restored. It's fine that there's a better source for it, but the existence of a source is not sufficient. WP:BLP makes it clear that edits of this sort require consensus, which is manifestly lacking. Key passage: write "conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy" -- something that obviously comes into play per Phil Bridger's posts above about OTRS identification and Nusbacher's own expressed preferences. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Boldness is my method. Once people see a very good source such as Palgrave then consensus comes quickly. I think the new source is the final nail in this discussion; that it is indeed sufficient.
 * Regarding privacy of the individual; we are not talking about a reclusive scholar about whom any revelation is hurtful. Rather, we are talking about a person who sought the public light—who appeared repeatedly on television programs and taught the royal princes at Sandhurst, a very prominent school. Binksternet (talk) 19:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And you think her preference to treat the sex change as private is something we can/should ignore?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's certainly something we can ignore if that's what we decide, and having the article repeat her surname over and over rather than use a pronoun is a bit ridiculous. Formerip (talk) 19:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to replace the surname with the correct pronoun, "she", where appropriate. I don't think that that's a matter under dispute. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, sure, we can -- but what about should? And what about the bit that says consensus is required for this sort of edit?  I'm frankly pretty surprised at how this is going.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not surprised that you are surprised—the Palgrave source came out of the blue. However, the new source was a game-changer; it was the sword that cut the Gordian knot. As such, any restoration of text based on the new source did not require consensus: at WP:BLP, the section called "Restoring deleted content" tells us that "if [disputed text] is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first". Of course you can see we had "significant change" because of the new Palgrave tertiary source, based on work by scholarly editors led by William Rubinstein. The guideline says that the burden of proof is on the person who restores text. I think I supplied ample proof with the Palgrave book. Please forgive me for not pausing to form consensus. Binksternet (talk) 01:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's leave the royal princes out of this. Nusbacher chose to teach at Sandhurst, but I'm sure she didn't choose her students. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

A little reading is also a dangerous thing.
So the problem is this: cites its sources, at the foot of the article. They are "JC", which denotes The Jewish Chronicle and "online sources". The datelines of the JC articles are given. Because the JC archives are on the WWW, it's simple to go and look them up. The article in The Sun says that "it is believed" that the relevant event occurred "in the past few weeks", and is datelined 2007-10-04. The only 2007 article cited by Jolles and the Rubensteins is datelined 2007-10-18. That's. It doesn't say anything about medical operations. The latest prior article cited by Jolles and the Rubensteins is datelined 2006-11-10 and is. There's a different name, but no mention of medical operations there, either. The Sun says that "it is believed" that there was an operation, which is careful wording, especially in light of the subject's statement that Sun journalists never interviewed anyone who was in a position to actually know. So where did Jolles and the Rubensteins get their information from? It wasn't "JC", given that we can see that the Chronicle didn't publish any such thing. So it must have been "online sources". This brings us back to the complaint from the subject on this very noticeboard in 2007, where NetNus writes that when entering xyr name into Google Web. So what are these "online sources" that Jolles and the Rubensteins talk of? If they put Nusbacher's name into Google Web, those "online sources" would have been this Wikipedia article. So what we have here is exactly what the subject didn't want: A public discussion of a sex change operation that has been reliability-laundered by way of a dictionary of Anglo-Jewish biography that consulted Wikipedia and its masses of on-line mirrors, The Sun, and all of the web logs and discussion fora that repeated the same, for its facts in the first place; where the only source that has come anywhere near actually interviewing people and checking facts was only willing to go as far as saying in print that "it is believed" that this happened. The simple truth, people, is that the only people who know whether there has been an operation or not are quite determinedly not telling the world, on the fairly reasonable grounds that it's none of the world's business. There is nothing known, here. Uncle G (talk) 14:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The subject, editing as NetNus,.
 * The IBL News source, still being waved around five years later, on 2012-12-31 on the article's talk page even, is &mdash; as pointed out by NetNus all of the way back in 2007 &mdash; a pun-for-pun translation of the article in The Sun.
 * A further source, is cited.  "Hooray!", shouts everyone.  "We can close up Articles for deletion/Lynette Nusbacher, stop the BLP Noticeboard discussion, and go home.  It's all good, now."
 * Unfortunately, no-one apparently reads the new source very closely.


 * I think that's over-egging somewhat. It would be one thing to exclude the information on the grounds of BLP and privacy, but let's not do it by feigning stupidity. Everyone who has looked at the sourcing knows very well whether there was an operation or not (that is, by the ultimate acid-test, the sourcing is reliable and doesn't leave realistic room for doubt). It's certainly not true to say that the Sun article is unsure on the matter - that's just based on ignoring the syntax of the source.
 * There is a genuine issue about whether the material should, on balance, be excluded. But that's purely about the degree to which we should protect the privacy of the subject. Formerip (talk) 16:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Pure conjecture. Uncle G concludes that "online sources" means Wikipedia without actually knowing, well, anything at all.  He makes that leap purely based on Nusbacher's complaint of Wikipedia being the top search result on Google, but there's no reason at all to believe that Jolle & the Rubinsteins relied on Google.  The unfounded assumptions are stacked up at least three deep, and counting.


 * Meanwhile...
 * "WILLIAM D. RUBENSTEIN is Professor of Modern History at the University of Aberystwyth, UK and a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society."
 * "MICHAEL JOLLES is a member of the Council of the Jewish Historical Society of England, and a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society. "
 * "HILARY L. RUBENSTEIN is a former Research Fellow in History at the University of Melbourne, Australia. She is a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society, and a member of the Council of the Navy Records Society. "


 * ...which adds up to credibility. So, Uncle G... what are your credentials?  ►  Belch fire - TALK  16:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Uncle G has better than credentials: he has sound reasoning from evidence.  That was not pure conjecture on Uncle G's behalf.  It was analysis, and Occam's Razor dictates that we're seeing a lazy Wikipedia-based entry in a biographical dictionary.  Argument from authority (that the editors of the Palgrave Bumper Book of Jews have titles and therefore haven't lifted their entry from WP) does not do much to argue against Uncle G's analysis. NetNus (talk) 00:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * His "sound reasoning" is anything but; he put blinders on the academics. He applied an artificial constraint of his own device which involves the academics failing to see such online sources as The Sun tabloid revelation from 2007, the 2005 Telegraph birth announcement, Melanie J. Bright's 1997 master's thesis thanking Aryeh Nusbacher, Nusbacher's adoption registry entry, various archived Nusbacher blog pages, the difference between the Sandhurst Nusbacher bio February 2007 for Aryeh Nusbacher and the Sandhurst Nusbacher bio April 2008 for Lynette Nusbacher, someone's blog entry about the comfort provided by a gender change discussion with Lynette Nusbacher, and the Internet Movie Database biography. All of these online sources were published a year or more before the Palgrave book, so they were available to the scholars. Calling the book a "Bumper Book" is needlessly petty; it is a compendium of quick references for people, institutions and events important to British Jewry, nothing more and nothing less. The authors assert in the Introduction that "The aim of this work is to provide a comprehensive reference tool... as well as biographical information about a large number of Jewish achievers and notable figures." The three main scholars are listed along with John Cooper, Stephen W. Massil, Jonathan A. Romain, Edgar A. Samuel, and the Jewish Historical Society of England. This is not some fanciful childrens' book. It is a scholarly reference work. Binksternet (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm also getting a little insulted that the subject of the article as well as that bit from the Palgrave book is under some kind of delusion that because there were previously no Wikipedia ready sources (partially because of the editing of their own website/blog/university profile page) that this somehow means that no one out in the world is qualified to publish the information. Do you know why Wikipedia editors are required to use acceptable sources?  Because unlike the writers of the Palgrave book, we're not all qualified historians, researchers, scientists, etc etc.  They're allowed to go out and do their own original research, we're not; that's how "sources" that we can use are produced.  It is getting extremely insulting, some of the tip-toeing being done on talk pages like editors have to pretend certain things are true/untrue here.  Occam's Razor, as you put it, states that we all know perfectly well what is true and that all which is left is to source things to BLP standards.  Not whatever claims/views you would personally like to hold true to.  Sorry if that all comes off a little harsher than would be desired, NetNus, but you've been coming pretty close to boldface lies (through statement or omission) on the topic. Human.v2.0 (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I do think that's a bit harsh. My participation post 2007 has largely involved insisting on sourcing rather than contributing autobiography.  Where I have added to the article it has been to put something verifiable and, generally, sourced (as my Wiki skills have improved) such as the Pink List material.  Where I have remained silent it has been to avoid autobiography.  If I were, for instance, to put the reference to Erwin Rommel (on the current version of the page) into context by insisting that the Ritter von Leeb and Heinz Guderian were both more important in my analysis of the German influence on Israeli mechanised doctrine than Rommel it would be accurate, verifiable from my MA thesis, and probably not welcome.  As it stands, there is a statement which future compilers of biographical dictionaries may use to exaggerate Rommel's importance in my theories of jazz warfare.  It is, perhaps, a Wikiparadox.  I am, to some extent, damned if I participate and damned if I don't.  NetNus (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually no, that is something precisely along the lines of welcome contribution, and there is a specific way that editors like yourself (specifically, those that might have contributions to articles about themselves) can do so without drifting into COI territory: the talk page. I would love it if people in your situation would more frequently bring information to the talk page and assist with proper sourcing.  It really doesn't happen a lot, and it's even more of a shame how frequent that people just go ahead editing their own entries.  I can think of several bridges that I've unfortunately burned with people that I might have previously enjoyed speaking with, due to the fact that I've been at the wrong place at the wrong time and been compelled to call them out on nonsense that they've either edited in or out of articles on themselves.  I'm pretty sure at one point Natasha Vita-More would have personally slapped me.


 * You're only damned if you do the things that you shouldn't and don't do what you should. Human.v2.0 (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It does not matter to us exactly what sources were evaluated by the scholarly editors of Palgrave. Wikipedia may have been one of them, six issues of Jewish Chronicle were definitely checked, they might have seen the Sun article, they might have looked at Nusbacher's archived blog, they might have seen Nusbacher's 1998 registration with Adoption.com naming his wife, they might have looked at the Pope article Nusbacher wrote for the Society of Creative Anachronism, they might have seen Nusbacher's film review of A Stranger Among Us, they might have seen the paper written by Nusbacher's wife in 1997 where she thanks him for his love and support, they might have looked at various military history discussion groups. Whatever they looked at, they arrived at a firm conclusion. We put our complete trust in such an august body. Binksternet (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ...and proceed to ignore the privacy issue completely -- or, if that doesn't sound right, decide to ignore the subject's clear wishes. Why, exactly?  I don't think anyone favoring inclusion has yet given a reason.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In fairness, it can also be said that no-one has made a very strong case for excluding it for privacy reasons, and that's really where the burden lies. Formerip (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The subject's expressed wishes do not amount to a strong case?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, not in themselves. Looking at it as objectively as I can, I think you should not be surprised at not having won many people over just by exclaiming "isn't it obvious". I doubt it will be obvious to everyone. Formerip (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think I've said "It's obvious". I've said, the fact that the subject wishes to treat this information as private is a good reason to treat it as private.  *Not* providing a reason to override her wishes is surely the weak case here.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Policy and precedent say we don't just blithely follow the subject's wishes. That's not to say we should never follow them, but what is it about this case in particular? Formerip (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * When did this become Stalin-a-pedia? This is a public figure - a television personality - so there's a fairly limited range of potential privacy issues that could be legitimately raised.  ► <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  17:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

FormerIP, why are you (by all appearances) so reluctant to give a reason for overriding the subject's wishes? I've asked for a reason several times now, without success. Once again: can you please say why we should do so? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You're assuming I have made up my mind about it, which I haven't. What I am trying to do is get you (or someone) to articulate their thinking about why it should be removed. I don't think "because it's what the subject wants" is enough on it's own. I do think there are other considerations. For instance, I think WP has a social responsibility to reflect the world reasonably accurately, and there's a tension between that and too readily pretending not to notice things about the world, even though there can sometimes be legitimate reasons for doing so. I would also wonder, in this case, whether there is any secret to be kept. I would guess this is something that the rats under the sink at Sandhurst know about. The subject may wish it were otherwise, but can we really help in any event? Formerip (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The subject was a publicity-seeking television show expert, a talking head for military history topics. The subject was also a prominent writer of books, articles and essays. The subject allowed interviews by news reporters, specifically for the Jewish Chronicle. This person blogs for Huffington Post. This person is not the shy and retiring type who hides from publicity and shuns the spotlight. This person is not the type who we try to protect from overexposure, following the guideline at WP:HARM. No, we cannot hide our collective heads in the sand and let a biography subject chop off more than half of their illustrious career, and a majority of their biography. Binksternet (talk) 00:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a good argument as to why her article should not be deleted. But no-one gives up all aspects of their right to privacy just by appearing on TV. Formerip (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Given Uncle G's work I think its painfully obvious that the august body of researchers used faulty sourcing including the then Wikipedia article. Per WP:RS we need to throw out these sources and likely post to the talk page why each is in turn quoting each other and they are all faulty. Per BLP we need strong sourcing to make exceptional claims. We don't have that sourcing and possibly the article could be deleted again. Insomesia (talk) 04:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The beliefs as to what "online sources" means is pure speculation. There's no other way to put it.  If looking at two variations of the subject's own site constitutes original research, then applying any further definition to "online sources" certainly is.
 * The individual's wishes on the matter are also not an overriding factor. While I can see how these changes could be troubling to the individual/user, I can't claim that I do or should care.  None of the subjects of wikipedia have a blanket right to dictate the content of their respective articles; this is down to sources.  This is even more down to sources when there is clearly something being omitted from the article.  Human.v2.0 (talk) 11:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Uncle G's "research" is flawed in that he assumes right from the start that the three Palgrave academics used poor judgement in assessing the online sources in front of them, which Uncle G says must have included only Wikipedia, a ridiculous and artificial limitation. Insomesia's faith in Uncle G's argument is not compelling.
 * We place our highest trust in scholarly works, of which the Palgrave biographical dictionary is a fine example, written by three academics including William Rubinstein. There is no reason to "throw out" this very strong source. It is the linchpin for everything else that makes sense in the article. Binksternet (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know who's "research" is flawed. I did as Uncle G suggested and discovered something rather odd. This "fine example" (as you put it) of a tertiary source (which is what it is) can't seem to, either plainly state what the online sources are...or, if Uncle G is correct and it is "The JC.com" website...can't seem to get their dating straight for verifying the information from their work. If it is the JC, they were off by one or two days on every date they gave but one (you have to put the name of the subject of the article into the search and hit enter). There seems to be no close match to March 28, 2008. A little more than odd.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

RfC & other discussions
I have started an RfC on this issue -- please see the article talk page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * see also
 * Reliable_sources/Noticeboard and
 * Articles for deletion/Lynette Nusbacher (2nd nomination) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

2012 Delhi gang rape case

 * - Page moved/renamed to include victim name

Hi folks, some thoughtful eyes are needed rapidly on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2012_Delhi_gang_rape_case&redirect=no ... the name of the victim has previously been withheld, with conflicting reports on whether the family wants it released or not. The page has just been moved (renamed) to include in the title the alleged name of the (recently deceased) victim; it's worth checking whether this is either accurate and/or advisable. (The BBC seem to be holding back on releasing it, at least). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Reported in today's BBC News article "The victim's father has denied weekend reports in a British newspaper that he wanted his daughter's name published. He told BBC Hindi last week that he would have no problem with her name being used on a new law against rape." (my emphasis) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Page moved back (to old title) by User:Salvio giuliano. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * And moved back again by User:Abhinavname, who I think is now move-warring as they moved it earlier today as well. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)



Page seems to be returned to the above title again - if you click on the logs link in the template above you can see the moves and that it has now been move protected until the outcome of the discussion on the talkpage. Please join in and opine there, thanks - You  really  can  07:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

BLPCAT and theological labels
I have an issue at Fred Phelps where he has been identified as a Hyper-Calvinist by reliable sources, but has not self-identified as one (at least that's not in the article). He has been placed in Category:American Hyper-Calvinist clergy on the basis of reliable sources identifying him with this theology based on his own statements (he has said things which are hyper-Calvinist). Does WP:BLPCAT require Phelps to say "I'm a hyper-Calvinist," or is it sufficient for him to make hyper-Calvinist statements? --JFHutson (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The former. "Categories regarding religious beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion." --WP:CAT/R (guideline) (This would, presumably, allow one to argue for including him in Baptist-related categories but I wouldn't suggest it.)  --j⚛e deckertalk 23:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'd also apply this to the Infobox. The main text is fine. --j⚛e deckertalk 00:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If he doesn't self-identify, he shouldn't be included. Mangoe (talk) 00:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. He's actually already in a Baptist cat, and they don't seem to mind. --JFHutson (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

FPSRussia
One of the members of the FPSRussia team has died in the last week and its currently being worked into the article by various IPs and users over the last couple of days. I attempted to clean it up and make it a little less muder/suicide neutral but ultimately decided its probably got no place in the article at all currently. The subject is one of the team who work on FPSRussia (the article mistakenly says its the alter-ego of Kyle Myers, in fact FPSRussia is a small team of which he is the front-man) and so qualifies as a BDP issue, but he is not really notable in himself (Kyle Myers being the only notable member of FPSRussia by himself), as its one event it probably falls under BLP1E and I have scrubbed it on that basis. I feel its going to get sticky though, FPSRussia is effectively a pro-gun channel, and one of its staff dying from a gunshot (murder or suicide) probably is worth a footnote in the article, but only at the point where people start to discuss it. Seeking any other opinions please. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not sure how someone, who is dead, would fall under a discussion of a Biography of a living persons.   FPSRussia is a youtube channel and also would not fall under BLP.    The person murdered was the gun supplier/manager of the FPSRussia YouTube channel (From what I have read in WP:RS).    I came across the article yesterday after reading about the murder it is clear that channel is notable based on the 10s of millions of views and the amount of interest in the death.   There are a lot of IP edits going on right now from the conspiracy people, but I believe the information to be relevant to the article and I also believe there should be semi-protection put into place.  You will note that my first time editing the article as last night so I have "no dog in this race".   Reverting your edit seems appropriate. PeterWesco (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * FYI: The article has since been reworked to be simply an article about FPSRussia and no longer even categorized as a BLP.  PeterWesco (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, FYI... BLP policies apply to the recently deceased. Now you know.  ► <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  00:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Saputo Incorporated and Lino Saputo
The article on the cheese magnate's company contains an allegation of mafia connections based on a news report of a defamation suit whose resolution I haven't been able to discover. I'm not that good on Canadian/Italian news sources, but obviously this is a sensitive matter. Interested parties should discuss this at Talk:Saputo Incorporated. Mangoe (talk) 15:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Elizabeth Warren
Elizabeth Warren's article currently has a large section talking about controversy surrounding her claiming Cherokee ancestry. To me it seems like it is placing undue weight on the controversy. It has also gotten coverage today on LegalInsurrection, a biggish blog. Relevant sections can be found here, and, for some reason, here. Despite already being discussed in a couple places, starting this section here as well since the article could use some more eyes that are used to dealing with BLP stuff. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Elizabeth_Warren
 * Trimmed to what I consider on investigation of the sources of any NPOV value - lots of front page worthless links and undue stuff there - I expect there will be a reverting of my efforts as I have seen there is a lot of strongly opinoned contributors in this sector - You  really  can  07:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Hanson (band)
Am I right in thinking that a lot of the information in this paragraph - Hanson_(band) - shouldn't be in a wikipedia page? eg DoB of minors <font color="#FF2400">almost -<font color="#007FFF">instinct 16:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It has been removed. GiantSnowman 16:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for brisk speedy solution :-) <font color="#FF2400">almost -<font color="#007FFF">instinct 17:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Uhhhh Hanson isn't minors anymore....Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Their children are, though.-- <font color="#FFD700">Auric  <font color="#00FF00">talk  20:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Rob Parker (sports journalist)
I believe there is currently clear undue weight given on this page to the "Controversies" section of this article. 90% of the article is taken up by that section and about 70% by this single incident involving Parker's comments on RG3. I've made a prior edit trying to condense the material, especially as most of it is just a transcript of everything that was said on Parker's show. I was hoping to get some other eyes on this, especially as he is in the news again today and it may get worse. - Maximusveritas (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I tried to trim some of the unsourced and non notable material. Since this latest bruhaha caused him to lose his job, if I am reading correctly, that would be significant, but don't know if we really need a full blow by blow transcription. Please help! --Malerooster (talk) 02:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help. I agree that it is significant, but not where more than half the article is a transcript of what was said.  I just summarized it to cut down that section and added some additional info about his career to balance it out.  It could still use some work, but if it can stay like this, it's at least reasonable. - Maximusveritas (talk) 05:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That is just such an attacking undue article - You  really  can  06:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

nelson piquet
some issue with place of birth. intro paragraph suggests it is sao paolo, other parts of the article suggest rio di janeiro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.228.106.151 (talk) 09:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks - yes, there does seem to be some confusion, and neither place of birth is cited to a source. I'll at least note the inconsistency in the article, and try to find the correct details. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Looking further into this, São Paulo was only added recently, and seems most likely to be in error - though I'd like to find a trustworthy source for Rio - it is stated on multiple motor racing websites etc, but such sites often use Wikipedia as a source... AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Larry Clapp
Hi! I started an article about about Larry Clapp who was a Wyoming politician. Larry Clapp committed suicide 2 days ago in Casper, Wyoming. He was a lawyer and served in the Wyoming House of Representatives. At the time of his death he was indicted for possession of child pornography. When I started the article I deliberately left out the child pornography/suicide and mentioned only his career in politics. In Wikipedia we are supposed to work as a team which is the reason why I am coming to you concerning this sensitive matter. If the article needs to be deleted because of this so be it. However, because of he being in the Wyoming Legislature the article should be kept. Your help and comments would be appreciated. I started articles on state&territorial legislators of the United States. Thank you again-RFD (talk) 13:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think he meets the notability guidelines at WP:POLITICIAN. The circumstances of his death could be added to the article with a reference or two, without going overboard.--ukexpat (talk) 14:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Since he's dead there's no BLP issue here, just make sure you keep to WP:UNDUE and not make the entire article about the investigation. Remember that he was never convicted of anything, and the suicide does not imply that he was guilty either. § FreeRangeFrog croak 22:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Many thanks-I am trying to locate information about his education, etc. I am trying to find the Wyoming Legislative manual for 1977-1978 that might have the information. Again thank you-RFD (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Sol Yorick
Wikipedia page reports that yorick died on the 5th. I can't find any actual verification of this anywhere. Not a single news article or obituary or even a blog post. Can someone investigate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.228.80.109 (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * A source from an edit summary: AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Another from the New York Daily News Are you sure you are searching for the correct name - you've spelled it wrong in the header... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Poor Yorick has died? Alas!   17:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I knew him, Horatio.--ukexpat (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of outing trans people on Wikipedia
I have started a discussion about outing trans people in BLPs in the Village Pump policy section. NetNus (talk) 00:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's an important discussion. The relevant principle (as I have noted there) is that we should not do things in our articles to identify someone as trans when that person has not identified themselves as trans.  It's a straightforward extension of the way we deal with other aspects of sexuality: we follow that principle for L, G, and B -- and we should follow it for T as well.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Lloyd Irvin
Someone please have a look at the edits I reverted and confirm to the editor that this is a BLP violation. Or call me crazy, of course. Drmies (talk) 04:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Good call, IMO.--ukexpat (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree, revert was correct and the proper application of WP:BLPCRIME.   17:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Stephen White (television writer)
I am the Stephen White referred to in the article. It is accurate except for the assertion that I had anything to do with the cheerleading film "Bring It On." I would appreciate it if that reference was removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.13.117 (talk) 04:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Someone has removed it. You are allowed to remove unsourced material from your own article. It can only normally be replaced after good sourcing and consensus.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * , removed by User:Onorem in this edit.--ukexpat (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Mona Freeman
Hello,

Your biography on Mona Freeman is mostly correct except she had only one child and Patrick Nerney did not abuse her. I am writing this email to you on behalf of the MONA FREEMAN TRUST. She does not live in Bologna... her husband Mr. H. J. Ellis passed away in 1992. Mona is still very much alive living in Southern California. THE TRUST's concern is that the misinformation that you have presented on WIKIPEDIA has someone in Bologna, Italy hijacking her life and is scamming her many fans.

Thank You

C. Hubbell — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.154.225.147 (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. I removed the whole section. Unsourced and placed there by a blocked vandal in May 2012.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Dieter Fensel
An IP is currently trying to change the article on Dieter Fensel in a, in my opinion, undue way, mostly because the person is relatively unknown to start with and the article is so short anyway. The issue is that I know the person and am thus biased -- but based on the IPs edit history it is save to assume that the IP also knows the person and is using Wikipedia for an attack. One way or the other, I would appreciate to have some unbiased and independent opinion and decision on this. --denny vrandečić (talk) 22:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There were no arrests, only the one dubious source (spam pop-ups), and notabilty seems low to me. You may wish to try an AfD on it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Theresa Spence & claims she isn't on a hunger strike
I'm surprised this isn't here. She is a First Nation chief who is on hunger strike. The 1991 Declaration on Hunger Strikers (Declaration of Malta) makes it clear that a hunger strike does not exclude a liquid diet, and medical recommendations for the treatment of hunger strikers make this point also. I've included sources to this affect on the talk page and now in the article, but editors are still claiming - on the talk page, in the article and even in edit summaries, that this is not a hunger strike. Not surprisingly her media opponents also make the same claim. The whole article needs eyes on it who are familiar with BLP issues, but is a statement by an editor that this is not a hunger strike a BLP issue? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 06:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Lizabeth Zindel
The article Lizabeth Zindel was nominated for speedy deletion a while back, and rightly declined I think. While this author seems to have some independent coverage, I'm not seeing that she qualifies for inclusion under WP:AUTHOR criteria. She does seem modestly notable, so I hesitate to nominate for deletion without getting other viewpoints first. I'm transcluding this discussion to the notability noticeboard too. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * She's gotten coverage. The Publisher's Weekly piece is in depth.This one isn't bad. Her books have been reviewed. especially Girl of the Moment  Her acting roles have only gotten minor mentions, but those are in the New York Times.  If nominated for deletion, I'd argue to keep. --GRuban (talk) 14:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Right -- but our bar for notability is somewhat higher for authors, academics, entertainers, etc. Is her coverage normally to be expected for anyone in her profession, or are there any specific criteria of WP:AUTHOR that she unambiguously meets? That's why I opened this discussion, because I am not sure. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. That's what it says right at the top of all the subsections of which WP:AUTHOR is one: "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included ... A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability." It's true that successful authors do tend to get some news coverage (though there are some who don't), but that doesn't mean our bar is any higher for them. Not being a particularly unusual published author doesn't mean she's not a sufficiently exceptional person to meet our standards. I'm sure you can think of numerous professions every member of which will generally meet our standards: astronaut, president, pope, etc. --GRuban (talk) 18:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Jeremy Duns

 * - Requesting deletion of non-notable article (about me)

I'm an author of three books, with my fourth due to be published this year. There is an article about me on Wikipedia: Jeremy Duns. It's been there for a few years, and I see from the Talk page that when it was first published it was immediately nominated for deletion on the grounds that I'm not notable enough. I agree that I'm not - I can think of many writers much more notable than me who don't have an entry (including an author who is referenced at some length in this entry about me). The contents of the article also seem to me to be quite random. Is there any way it can simply be deleted as a non-notable entry? I strongly object to Wikipedia's editing procedures, namely:

Anyone can edit my article, including people using aliases to mask their identities. As a result, there is usually no way to determine whether an editor has a conflict of interest or agenda.

There is rarely any serious consideration of the overall direction of an article - instead, articles are often written willy-nilly, built up from problems with the last edit.

These issues have combined with my article. Someone recently edited it anonymously to add several sentences about a dispute I had in 2011 with another author, who I accused of plagiarism. The edits were problematic, and I pointed out why on the Talk page. Someone has now softened the way the edits were worded - but the incident is still in the article, as the anonymous editor wanted, and there doesn't seem to me to be any good reason for it. I can think of tons of other more relevant things that I have done in my career, but I don't want to spend time arguing about this with anonymous strangers. The principle of what should be in this article hasn't really been considered, but having considered it myself, I see no reason for me to have an encyclopedia entry at all. I am not famous, and there are thousands of authors who do not have articles about them, or if they do are swiftly deleted because they're not notable. So can I nominate the article about me for deletion, please?

Thank you,

Jeremy Duns — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.228.147.252 (talk) 10:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You could, but if it went to a full article for deletion discussion, it would likely survive. As a published novelist who has made the news for reasons other than his writing, there is a strong argument that you are in fact a notable person. See Wikipedia:AUTHOR Other people being more famous or well known are not reasons that you are not notable. The section about accusing another writer of plagiarism under normal circumstances could probably easily be removed from your biography. Either as a one-off event or an undue addition. Except you kind of have form for this. Its arguable that you are more notable now for your exposing of plagiarism than your own work. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I see what you're saying, but it's also surely rather self-fulfilling point: as Wikipedia is one of the most visited websites in the world, whatever is on my Wikipedia page will contribute to me being better known for it. You say I 'kind of have form' for exposing plagiarism, and link to three articles. One is about Lenore Hart, which is already in my article and what I was discussing above. The second is about QR Markham, who is not mentioned in the article - so why is his case not in the article and Hart's is? Simply because someone added it. The third is about RJ Ellory, who is not a plagiarist, and is already mentioned in the article anyway. I have been mentioned in the media for these cases, but I don't think people who read such articles will remember my name. I'd say that QR Markham is better known as a plagiairist than a memoirist, yes, but I'd hope that being published by Penguin and Simon & Schuster would weigh more than my involvement in such issues. It could also be argued by some that I'm better known for discoveries about James Bond, for example.

I think I'll try to edit the article to reflect what I think the balance should be, and will flag that I've done so on the Talk page to see if others agree. If not, I guess I'll have to be content with the article's balance being dictated by an anonymous stranger with a rather obvious agenda.

Jeremy Duns — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.228.147.252 (talk) 12:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I imagine the Markham affair was not mentioned because no one looked too deeply into it. Or they did not actually read the source they were using beyond confirming it supported the info they wanted to add. (Its linked in one of the existing articles, which is how I found it) Undoubtedly in the event of a deletion discussion someone would have taken a much closer look. Rather than 'explosing plagiarism', perhaps I should have worded it above 'exposing fellow-author's shenanigans'. Three news organisations have chosen to use quotes by yourself in stories they have run (on a similar theme), if the Washington Times, The Express & The Telegraph think you reliable enough to quote, its going to be very difficult to convince people 'No I am not notable! Really!'. You would probably pass under criteria 2 of the WP:Author I linked above - used as an expert source by major news agencies. I would refer you to the below linked by Amadscientist however, its better to post the changes you would like on the talk page first rather than editing the article directly, as your issues are a matter of content rather than outright errors. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, 'Only in death does duty end'. My point was precisely that material is omitted from articles because pseudonymous, unvetted and unaccountable strangers haven't happened to look into those aspects, so the result is rather random: whatever is looked into first tends to direct the subsequent agenda. And if being quoted in newspapers makes one an expert, there are a lot of missing experts in this encylopedia! Even more than published authors, and having a book published is not in itself notable. I think it's an inefffective and potentially harmful way to edit such an influential source of information, but right now I don't have the energy to take on the behemoth of Wikipedia. But thank you. JD

Per Biographies of Living Persons, the contact page for the foundation is located here. When dealing with an article about yourself, WP:BIOSELF says :

--Amadscientist (talk) 10:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Jeremy, if you really want the article deleted, it's worth writing to that email address in the second paragraph of the text box just above. A subject's request for deletion changes the way the decision is made, per WP:BIODEL.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I do want it deleted, but getting into a protracted debate with the behemoth of Wikipedia about its editing policy isn't something I have the time or energy for right at the moment. Perhaps I will later. Thanks again. JD

Rostislav Bogoslevsky


A "suspected serial killer", who was apparently never charged, with no in-line citations and some uncited speculation about torture and animal abuse. --causa sui (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Now at AFD: Articles for deletion/Rostislav Bogoslevsky (2nd nomination).--ukexpat (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * - -  You  really  can  04:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Chuck Hagel
Perhaps Chuck Hagel needs protection re edits like this. Brianhe (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * yes there continue to be repeated attacks that say or suggest he stole elections in Nebraska using his former ownership of a company that made vote counting machines.  No RS has ever made the allegation. The Senate Committee that gets mention looked at an entirely different issues and said Hagel was clear.  Suggestions that a man is a criminal fall under BLP.  The latest episode was a few hours ago. Rjensen (talk) 04:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Paul Krugman
Krugman is a public figure who is hated by some elements of the right wing. We see this reflected in his article, where for some years now, there have been edit wars to include as much negative material into the article as possible, no matter how trivial. There is an ongoing dispute, where we have from a 31 minute podcast with Gary Becker (from the anti Keynesian Chicago school), 13 words about Krugman saying that he is not a 'serious economist'. Some users wish to include a quote of those 13 words in full, together with commentary describing the quote. In this short biography of a Nobel winner's life and work, I think it's obvious that's undue weight. To settle this matter, I pose this question to the people at WP:BLPN 'is the edit undue weight?' I will go along with whatever people here decide. FurrySings (talk) 15:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * He is controversial - and there is very little about any controversy in the BLP as it currently exists. Opinions cited as opinions are generally accepted in BLPs, and frankly the idea that all negative opinions are "hatred" from the "right wing" is silly.  I recall Daniel Okrent (who is not a "right winger") making quite critical comments about Krugman.   Right now, roughly 1% of the entire article contains criticism, which is a teensy bit low for such a controversial figure, indeed.  In fact, the current article is reminiscent of Lives of the Saints entirely.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no trouble with the article containing critical material on Krugman. But this sort of cherry-picking is exactly the sort of thing that WP:UNDUE is meant to prevent.  If we had a good secondary source that provided a convincing analysis of economists' opinions and summarized those opinions by saying that many prominent economists had concluded that Krugman is no longer a serious economists, then fine.  But an off-hand remark by an economist who disagrees with Krugman's position is not sufficiently noteworthy to merit inclusion.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The controversy definitely needs to be recorded, but these little nuggets of academic backbiting surely do not deserve to be taken seriously. Mangoe (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Alas -- such an opinion would mean that even less than 1% of this BLP would be critical. That you find criticism to be mere "academic backbiting" is a nice exemplar of the problem, indeed. Collect (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Wrong venue. This isn't a BLP issue.  If (-IF-) it belongs anywhere other than the article Talk page, it belongs at NPOV/N.  ► <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  21:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Collect, I've watched the econ people for years. These comments aren't substantive criticism; they are simply adherents of a rival school of economics sniping at one of the major Keynesian figures of the time. I would hope that these fellows have bothered to publish something that rises above catty comments, and I'm equally sure that if you go to enough effort you can find people who think that new classical econ is a crock and who are willing to make catty comments about them. By all means, include substantive disagreement; I'm just saying that these one-liners aren't substantive. Mangoe (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No. This board is the correct place to get more eyes on BLPs that have real world implications. Insomesia (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Look at the page you're posting on: Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period. Care to explain what is defamatory or libelous here?  (Good luck with that.)  This is an NPOV matter that is scarcely 4 days old.  It belongs on the Talk page.  ► <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  21:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

"If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard." In dealing with the content you add across multiple articles now I find it very helpful to have more eyes on the additions. I look forward to the day when I no longer have any question that the edits are NPOV and well-sourced. Insomesia (talk) 22:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Start at the beginning: "...defamatory or libelous..." That's the first threshold which must be crossed before we begin to consider "repeatedly inserted".  There's nothing defamatory or libelous at issue here, so this is really just a simple content dispute that belongs at the article's Talk page. This whole discussion is nothing but WP:FORUMSHOPPING because the OP's arguments aren't getting any traction in the correct venue.  ► <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  21:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No Belchfire. We enforce BLP policies on BLP's and when someone with a long history of causing problems and filling up discussions with personal attacks is involved it usually helps to get more eyes on the issue. If you are too impassioned to edit the article you might find something else to do. Insomesia (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There's no BLP issue here. Either you don't understand the policy or you are supporting abuse of process. ► <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  01:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No Belchfire. We edit with restraint and avoid gossip and catty remarks on BLPs. Insomesia (talk) 01:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I second FurrySings concerns. Wikipedia seems to be going to great lengths to discredit the subject of this BLP. The entire criticisms section needs to go per NPOV. Insomesia (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1% of a hagiography != "great lengths to discredit" Krugman.  Collect (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's mostly gossipy comments that should be cleaned out. Insomesia (talk) 01:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The crap is still being restored to the article. I've removed it once (with an edit summary noting the discussion here), but this has already been reverted.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Nomoskedasticity's most recent reversion of the Becker quote referred me here. As the item under is neither defamatory nor libelous I don't understand why the discussion has moved here and disturbed the continuity of the discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paul_Krugman#.22undue_weight_for_off_hand_remark.22_dismissal_of_Gary_Becker_statement.3F but as long as this discussion *remains* on this page I'm not going to make an issue of it.

I have undone User:Nomoskedasticity's removal of the Becker quote. If he, or anyone, removes the quote I ask that they make a clear, complete, *ad hominum-free* explanation of their action that addresses all relevant justifications, from both above and Talk:Paul Krugman, for including the quote. If they claim NPOV violation please address the proof that has already offered that a NPOV violation has *not* occurred. If a claim of "aren't substantive" is made please address previous justifications the significance of Becker's opinion. Deicas (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Darkstar1st performed re-adding of the quote but my request, above, stands. Deicas (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

At some level it really doesn't matter: Krugman surely doesn't give a shit about crap being posted about him on Wikipedia -- he's had a great career, makes a lot of money, etc. Anyway the article is so long that no-one is likely to notice the crap anyway. It's more a question of whether Wikipedia will continue to allow this sort of partisan editing. Probably it will... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Krugman's blog/column is self described as political, the comment about his departure from serious economics by a notable peer deserves it's proper weight. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You mean like this partisan editing? Arzel (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Zad68 has accused me of being engaged in an edit war over this issue. Unsurprisingly, I resent the accusation. When does it become appropriate to seek dispute resolution on the topic of the Becker quote? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deicas (talk • contribs) 00:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The Becker quote is being taken out of context; see Talk:Paul Krugman for discussion and a transcript of the passage in question. Mangoe (talk) 02:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

As discussion of the Paul Krugman article seems to have moved/been moved here, to biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Paul_Krugman, from Talk:Paul_Krugman -- is is reasonable & proper for me to request that an administrator editprotect Talk:Paul_Krugman with a view toward keeping all the discussion in one location? How would I go about making such a request? Deicas (talk) 02:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No.   03:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "No"? "No" what?  I don't understand -- please clarify? Deicas (talk) 03:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Any possible on-topic use of this BLPN discussion has now come to a close, so I will answer this question for you on your own User Talk page.   03:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

user:KTC has reverted Paul Krugman to the 25 Dec version "before all this [disputation] started" and "protected from editing until January 20, 2013 or until disputes have been resolved". As this reversion removed several distinct edits, (e.g. Enron section removal, 2003 Economist citation, Becker quote, New York review of books citation, etc.) -- with a view toward maintaining discussion clarity: is it possible & appropriate to create one section of BLPN for each item under dispute? Deicas (talk) 03:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No. Read the big blue box titled "Welcome to the biographies of living persons noticeboard" at the top of this page to understand what kinds of issues this board is for.    03:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * FurrySings started the discussion here at 15:26, 8 January 2013. Per my statement above "User:Nomoskedasticity's most recent reversion of the Becker quote referred me here.  As the item under is neither defamatory nor libelous I don't understand why the discussion has moved here and disturbed the continuity of the discussion at ..." Talk:Paul_Krugman.  If this discussion shouldn't be occuring here, at BLPN, perhaps someone can persuade the BLPN administrator to kick us off this page?  How should that request be made? Deicas (talk) 03:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Krugman is a BLP subject. The issue is posted here because his article is being used as a repository for various negative criticisms that likely don't belong in his article at all. Insomesia (talk) 08:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Howard Lederer comments on Chris Ferguson: A BLP question


For those up for some reading on a talk page, click the link above. Else...

TL;DR User:Kahnsky has brought up a possible point to add on Chris Ferguson's talk page which could be added, but which I contend with. So, with as little bias as possible...

I contend on BLP grounds that comments made in an interview by Howard Lederer, whose reputation has lowered significantly due to his involvement in a scandal (noted at the bottom paragraph of this section). His subsequent interviews on the case have had their truths called into doubt by members of the poker community. However, such comments might bring an important insight into Chris Ferguson's involvement in the case, who has otherwise remained silent on the matter. I cannot find sources criticising this particular interview, nor comments in the poker community, so it's simply a personal opinion of mine. I'd appreciate any thoughts from people! JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 04:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't add it unless his opinions stated have a degree of notability in independent secondary sources. The comments are just his opinions unsupported by any facts or people. see, Biographies of living persons AND PSTS You really  can  04:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Youtube as a source for a BLP where opinions are expressed? 10 foot pole time. Collect (talk) 13:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The Wanted

 * Concerning the section on their page, "Third Strike" *

The third album WILL NOT be called Third Strike. (source is provided by another user)Collaborations with artists mentioned is not true except for Dappy. The song they have collaborated on WILL NOT BE ON THE WANTED'S ALBUM! It is currently on Dappy's latest album, Bad Intentions.

Details about the third album HAVE NOT been leaked by the record label or the band members themselves, therefore there is no solid proof of any album details, except it is set for release in APRIL 2012, NOT March 2013.

Please remove all sections of the article where the wrongly named album Third Strike is mentioned. This is very disrespectful and misleading to fans, and most importantly, the band members themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldnightlocks (talk • contribs) 08:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Commented out as WP:Crystal ball. There is an article on it as well, but someone should likely AfD that article. Collect (talk) 13:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

New editors being offered BLPs to edit
See GettingStarted which points new users to articles to edit, which includes BLPs. This has been raised at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 123. I agree it is likely to cause more BLP violations. Dougweller (talk) 14:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Recent changes with this tag are at . Dougweller (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Joel Osteen
Should information be added to the Joel Osteen section about accountability regarding Joel Osteen Ministries? No newspaper article, I know of, covers this but a source was added "ministrywatch.com." According to their website "MinistryWatch.com’s request for basic information" went ignored. I am not sure that is a controversy. This group could be anybody. Also not even from the BBB site "Charity participation in BBB review is voluntary."

http://ministrywatch.com/pdf/donoralert2011.pdf MinistryWatch.com

http://www.bbb.org/charity-reviews/national/religious/joel-osteen-ministries-in-houston-tx-24569

Basileias (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Ministry Watch's own website should not be used as a source for a Ministry Watch claim. In a BLP, a secondary source is necessary. Collect (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds fair. The BBB part, though, I think should stay, since the BBB is a generally respected institution. Perhaps, though, it should be moved out of the "Criticisms and controversy" section, since at this point it's more just a statement that they chose not to participate? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The BBB, IIRC, states that "non-participation" should not be construed as a negative opinion. Collect (talk) 01:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Mohammed Nizamul Huq
I was asked on my talk page to look at the article, and the article looked like a hit piece to me. So I stubbed it I would appreciate input if this was the correct course of action? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I feel that in the light of which was one of the main sources for the article, Nasim's notability arises from being a Bangladesh Supreme Court Justice who was involved with a major political and judicial scandal. Hence I feel the contents of the article was quite legitimate. I don't think it went out of its way to criticise the subject. It just relayed information that was found in reputable journals like the Washington Post, the Economist, and the Huffington Post. If anyone would like to add other noteworthy information about the judge that has been published in reputable journals, I think they should add to what was already there, and the stub should be reverted to the previous article prior this. Aminul802 (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Could we have some comments here please? It's been more than five days. I'd like to reinstate my version before Darkness Shines reduced this to a stub. Thank you for your assistance! Aminul802 (talk) 02:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The old version of the article didn't look negative. Rather dull, in truth. Facts are facts.-- <font color="#FFD700">Auric  <font color="#00FF00">talk  03:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In that case, I'll renew the old article. Thank you for your input. Regards, Aminul802 (talk) 11:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear Auric, are you sure the old version didn't look negative? I've counted the sentence of old one, which is currently reverted by Aminul802. There I found 45 words to describe who is Mohammed Nizamul Huq, other 190 words explain how bad he is!! Does it follow WP:BLPSTYLE rule? It clearly says --
 * Pages that are unsourced and negative in tone, especially when they appear to have been created to disparage the subject, should be deleted at once if there is no policy-compliant version to revert to
 * So I think it should be reverted to DS's version.--Freemesm (talk) 14:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Negative, perhaps, but not unsourced.-- <font color="#FFD700">Auric  <font color="#00FF00">talk  15:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Doesn't it enough to tell it violates WP:BLPSTYLE rule? Because it states that-
 * Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; --Freemesm (talk) 15:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see any "disparaging" or attacking. I admit the sourcing of the scandal section needs work, but the Complaint section seems sound. The problem, as I see it, is that there simply isn't enough positive material available to balance the negative. -- <font color="#FFD700">Auric  <font color="#00FF00">talk  15:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Auric, for your reasonable opinion.--Freemesm (talk) 16:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I've undid the version, as this discussion has not finished yet. Moreover Mr. Aminul cited there news blog's reference without mentioning that. It is WP:NEWSBLOG vio. I'm trying to make this article neutral. Please provide input according to wiki rules.--Freemesm (talk) 15:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Freemesm, I don't think you've understood what Auric is saying that there's not enough positive material in the article. I think he's saying that there's not enough positive material available. Hence the article sounding somewhat negative is understandable. I personally see no reason you should be editing Aminul's material out, all of which is well-referenced. Your reference to WP:NEWSBLOG doesn't make sense here. The policy says that "These may be acceptable sources." It doesn't prohibit their use, and here I think an economist blog post, which I know to have high editorial oversight, is perfectly acceptable. Aminul had waited three days after Auric's approving comment regarding his edits before reverting Darkness Shines deletions. It seems very unreasonable for you to undo them at a moments notice. First allow for other editors, like myself add their contributions. I will revert the article to the state Aminul left it, and we can work on that basis. Tariqmia (talk) 04:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * popping up from newly created account (Mr. Tariqmia's account has created today!) and reverting any edit don't follow the WP:CIVIL. Whatever, at first you must try to understand, what does WP:NEWSBLOG says. Off course, economics blog publishes high profile articles. But If you site this kind of blog, you must state that it is from a news blog site. Because WP:NEWSBLOG says--
 * Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact checking process.
 * I think it is clear now. Another thing you mention here  I think he's saying that there's not enough positive material available. Hence the article sounding somewhat negative is understandable. I personally see no reason you should be editing Aminul's material out, all of which is well-referenced. . My advice is, please read the WP:BLPSTYLE. It will clarify your concept about why only negative materials should not be in an article, no matter whether the blaming part is well cited or not. Thank you and welcome to wikipedia. :) --Freemesm (talk) 05:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Freemesm, I refer you to Please do not bite the newcomers. You should be WP:AGF with him/her. As for your arguments, I don't believe there is much use arguing with you here. I'm going to RfC this. Can a third party comment please? Aminul802 (talk) 06:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear Aminul, please don't attack personally. I'm not attacking newcomer, but trying to tell him about wiki editing procedure.--Freemesm (talk) 08:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Freemesm, I agree with Aminul. Tariqmia (talk) 06:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear Tariqmia,have you read my previous comment? Did it seems rough to you? I'm just trying to tell you that in which way you did mistake and how you can over come it. Even I Welcome you in your talk page. How do you agree with Aminul? If you need any help, please knock me on my talk Page. Wish you having good time on wikipedia.-Freemesm (talk) 07:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Freemesm, As a newcomer, I am taken back with the comment "suspicious activity from newly created account" that I noted on the revision history. Aside from that, if you think the article is negative, it will help if you can add more positive information. The public needs to know all relevant information. I find Aminul802 additions well-referenced. Tariqmia (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Tariqmia, welcome to Wiki! I'm sorry that you've had a bit of a rough entry. Sometimes disagreements can get out of hand. I'm sure you'll get the hang of it. I look forward to your future edits. Best wishes, Aminul802 (ta lk) 06:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Btw, I've RfC'd here. Aminul802 (talk) 07:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Here you call for RfC and on the other hand you've reverted the article to controversial edition! oh, great!--Freemesm (talk) 08:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The article has been locked for a week in the stubbed version. I've removed the RfC from the article talk page based on Aminul802's block.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Derwick Associates
I was pinged to look into the reliability of the sources used in this article, and responded on the RS Noticeboard. Not only are many of the sources marginal to not at all reliable, but I am concerned there may be BLP vios. I don't have time to get involved-- perhaps someone will look at my post to the RSN. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 02:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Use of an "anonymous source" is only one of its problems. The writer of the article appears not to understand the concept of "subsidiaries" and the use of "surcharge" on a contract appears to be a translation issue at best.  I left in the part about it not being an official agent of GE etc. but the sources do not appear to really show that this was a problem.  A mess. I also removed the part where it states without sourcing that it suing over the Wikipedia article. Collect (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing the heavy lifting there, Collect-- it was a general mess, so I identified the publishers (almost all missing) and cleaned out more text that was dubiously sourced. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Recent additions to: Joseph A. Califano, Jr.
I'm enquiring for a second opinion about a few recent additions to Joseph A. Califano, Jr., namely (source provided doesn't work; this is concerning because for a Catholic annulment and remarriage is considered sinful),  (implying that he was terminated for spending unauthorized time in Hawaii at state expense), and  (no context at all for inclusion; just randomly thrown in there). All of these statements were sourced to what appear to be reliable sources but have a distinct hint of libel/defamation, perhaps because of WP:UNDUE. I have removed them for now pending discussion; [34] and [35] may be worth re-adding but I doubt [36] has any value unless significant context can be added on why this is important to his biography. Thoughts? <font style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"> Intelligent  sium  03:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a tricky subject because it appears that many of the controversial things that secondary sources discuss about him come from his own book (e.g. priest abuse during high school and marriage annulment). I recommend finding a copy if you want to factcheck claims that are being made.  With that said, BLPs have a higher standard for material that should be included and I'm looking into the page history now. Andrew327 17:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Ronnie Radke
The article: Ronnie Radke. The violation: a repeated edit of this person's death. Allegedly he died yesterday (January 10, 2013, at 6:13 P.M.), but there are no sources cited, there is nothing in the news, and a bot is arguing with me about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vampirexpriestess (talk • contribs) 04:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Google and Google News searches make me believe that he is, in fact, alive. I just left a message on the IP user's talk page and will monitor the BLP moving forward.  Are there any issues with the BLP as it currently stands? Andrew327 17:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait for an obit to be published. I had similar with John Weaver (artist). A friend of his emailed me when he passed and I added it to the article which was reverted. I phoned his local paper and they hadn't heard about it. It took over a month before the obit was published. We are not in a hurry here.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Mahira Khan
Irrelevant tabloid gossip has been included under the title 'Family Problems'. Mahria Khan has denied a divorce and as of December 2012 is still married. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.77.79 (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for raising this issue. I've removed the section in question until a more reliable source can be found. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Jim Warren (computer specialist)


Concerns re: both neutrality and editing by the subject. Lots of unsourced claims, and as happens when there's conflict of interest or oversight by an article's subject, unverifiable or trivial content relating to private life and/or personal motivations. Could use some attention from objective editors. 99.136.252.89 (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Cheryl Ritchko-Buley

 * I feel this article needs a move. Better sources have been found since it was brought up at the help desk. She has married and changed her name. If no one objects in the next few days, I will just move it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

David Devlin
This recently created article is very messy and promises only to get messier. I've made a number of edits to try to keep it source-compliant, but there are larger issues of notability and overstatement. Based on the sources, my view is that the subject is just barely a cinematographer. He's more a crew member who's been mentioned alongside much more famous people, and as a crew member, he's worked on some very notable films. He appears to be inheriting his notability from these more famous people and films. However, there are some sources that indicate that he was the director of photography (fancy term for cinematographer) on some music videos. He also was nominated for a not-very-notable prize.

The sourcing in general is poor, and I just reverted edits using IMDb and Tumblr as sources. I was considering AfDing it but decided I'd prefer more preliminary thoughts. If anyone has any interest in looking at it, that would be great.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * According to the logs, this article has been deleted and recreated 3 (!) different times by 3 different users. -- <font color="#FFD700">Auric  <font color="#00FF00">talk  01:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * True, but for very different reasons. The first was an expired prod. The second was because the creator requested it. The last, which was in 2009 (the first two were in 2007), was a completely different person.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've read the article and the references, finding thin support for notability, with the misdemeanor compounded by misleading reference titles, the purpose to exaggerate the subject's place in the source material. Now tagged for notability and improvement of references, and a good candidate for AfD. 99.136.252.89 (talk) 03:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Gary Burghoff
A new account is editing Gary Burghoff (known as Radar O'Reilly from M*A*S*H to most of us) to change the middle name from Richard to Rich. Two sources (IMDB and TMZ, neither ideal but at least usable) use "Richard". The new account has changed it four times in the past two days, with reverts from myself and, claiming both a personal relationship with Burghoff, and that Burghoff's book of poetry are sufficient to verify this. I read the first chapter online using the Amazon preview feature, the book does indeed state that Burghoff's mother's maiden name is Rich (the alleged source of the name) but says nothing about a) it being the source of his name or b) it actually being his name. Some assistance from the noticeboard would be appreciated. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest Gary R. Burghoff--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Personal communications are not a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes, see WP:RS. If Mr Burghoff wants this corrected, he should use the process set out at WP:BIOSELF to contact Wikipedia.--ukexpat (talk) 20:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't edit BLPs very much, would the IMDB and TMZ be considered reliable for these purposes? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No - IMDB is a user-created source, like WIkipedia, and TMZ is an online tabloid.--ukexpat (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * TMZ has been acceptable as a BLPN source in the past, for instance, when Michael Jackson's death was reported. 216.93.234.239 (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n85385961.html Library of Congress doesn't list a middle name, this other site: http://www.nndb.com/people/755/000022689/ states Rich. Should we include both and a footnote or just delete the middle name?--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe NNDB is also user-generated and unreliable (all y'all probably know better than I). I am in favour of simply deleting the middle name.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. I removed the middle name pending consensus.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

...I'm assuming that by clicking "edit", and then adding my text, I can jump in the fray. I suppose no middle name is better than a wrong one. But Gary is very proud of the "Rich" family name. I've contacted support at whatever link was posted for me, and will attempt no more edits until I can source a so-called reliable source, even though I felt I gave enough avenues for verification of what is, really, a very small and simple edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cartoonistguy47 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's Rich, of course. IMDB isn't much more reliable than Wikipedia, so of course we wouldn't consult it in a situation like this where there is some dispute. Here's a newspaper article that explicitly says the middle name is Rich: . It's important to recognize that a lot of new sources that aren't careful with tihs are probably taking whatever is on IMDB, and it is easy to see how IMDB could get a detail like this wrong. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 21:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It is standard practice to remove disputed material pending proper sources or OTRS action. The reason that this is not a "small and simple edit" is that there appears to be at least one reliable source that verifies "Richard", we have none (leaving aside your personal communications, which, as we have indicated, are not reliable for Wikipedia purposes) that support "Rich".--ukexpat (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What is the reliable source that says "Richard"? ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 21:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your patience. I don't know if OTRS is the right venue to help. Wikipedia has a policy that many find strange. We don't always provide facts but are forced to provide information that other sources have published. It may be a pain, but Mr. Burghoff may wish to contact our source sites to correct their information. Reliable sources/Noticeboard may help as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't consider TMZ unreliable for something like this. "Rich" is of course short for Richard, but we don't know if it's actually a short form of a common name, or a unique name based on a family history.  I'm still inclined to leave it out, pending more sources.  Of the ones we have, the Toledo Blade article is the best, but I don't think it's a slam-dunk.  More sources would definitely help.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 22:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A newspaper clearly stating someone's middle name—in the absence of any RS to the contrary—isn't enough? ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 22:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Is this a case where we can use a birth certificate being a primary document?--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Do we have access to it? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 22:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * An editor claiming to be Burghoff's friend, isn't enough to keep his prefferd version. GoodDay (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course not. Newspaper articles should be enough, though. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 22:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅✅✅. Leave it out as contentious, trivial to the article content, waste of editing time, wait for sources, etc, etc, etc.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Is it contentious? Who thinks it's "Richard"? We have a newspaper confirming that it is "Rich". I'm trying to get some clarification on what the reliable source is that says it is "Richard"; can someone please include the citation here? Thanks! ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 23:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is the only source a found for "Rich:" . I found these for "Richard:", , , , . The problem with these, though, are that they are not reliable sources. So "Rich," since it came from a newspaper, seems like the best alternative. United States Man (talk) 02:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the Toledo Blade article is sufficient. It is from 1985, and it seems that it draws directly from an interview with Burghoff. "Gary Burghoff: An Update", November 18, 1985. I think it is the best source for the question of middle name, in its humble way. Binksternet (talk) 23:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, looking further into it, I can see the Toledo Blade, printing a wire article taken from Knight News Service, got some things wrong, such as the birth year (1952 vs. 1943) and the small Wisconsin town for high school. The small town is not Delhaven, it is Delavan. Burghoff attended Delavan-Durien High School for three years, a fact that should be added to the bio. Binksternet (talk) 07:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ech...given the difficulty in sourcing this and the "dueling of basement sources" going on, I'm in favour of simply leaving it out. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In addition to the the Toledo Blade, TV Guide has also listed Burghoff's middle name as Rich. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 07:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all for diligent searches. I changed it back to 'Rich' only. Although more sources differ, it seems consensus and the more reliable sources assert this name.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Godfrey Bloom
Could somebody take a look at Godfrey Bloom, please? This article is about a politician. I think there are two overlapping problems: I think that accusations of shouting nazi slogans in the European parliament should be properly sourced, and handled carefully... bobrayner (talk) 15:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sometimes a little unduly-promotional content gets added to the article;
 * There has been some controversy over things that Bloom recently said (or didn't say), which also involves claims about another living person, and sourcing isn't great.

Charley Reese
The article includes quotes from the subject. The final quote listed ("Members of a Christian cult that supports the Zionist state simply demonstrate to the world their ignorance of Christianity and Judaism, as well as their pathetic naïveté."" is NOT from Charley Reese, but is from Jared Levy, in Antiwar.com on May 13, 2007.

The quote should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billpage3 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Done. Thanks for letting us know about this - do be aware that you can remove such clear errors yourself if you wish.


 * For watchers here, that article seems to have a whole host of other unreferenced or poorly referenced potentially negative material; it could do with a tidy up. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Mark Janicello


A monumental puff pastry of an article, which per talk page notice appears to have begun as an autobiography, and been expanded by COI accounts. I've begun to copy edit, removing bad links, unacceptable references and promotional content, though I'm still leaving way too much unsourced filler. I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that perhaps the most notable endeavor, aside from multiple bit parts in musicals on and off Broadway and a nice 1993 NYTimes piece, was the winning of a KFC $15,000 talent contest. I'd appreciate further thoughts, which could curtail unnecessary time and effort trying to repair this, especially if it's a candidate for deletion. Perhaps most of the article can be removed, while retaining content connected to the Times mentions and KFC contest. 99.136.252.89 (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A veritable marshmallow of a BLP. I was editing when the IP beat me to some of the editing <g> but the seeming list of every performance was over the top so I deleted it as well. Collect (talk) 21:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please have a go at it. I think I was far too generous, and am increasingly inclined to think that the article can be cut to a few paragraphs. Nothing about the artwork or gallery, for instance, appears notable. 99.136.252.89 (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Jacqueline Hassink
An editor who alleges to be an associate of the BLP subject, has objected to having this photo in the BLP   saying: " In my opinion, choosing a single photo (this one or another) to define an artist that has been working for numerous years is absurd. Why would one project trump another? How is it possible to quantify a photo's importance over the others? Even if the text underneath the photos explains the project perfectly well, it's still very restraining towards her whole body of work. I think that without the photo there would be no debate as to which photos of her works should be seen on Wikipedia. If the viewer/researcher wants to go further and see more photos, he or she is more than welcome to browse the official website. Plus, if we look at some other wikipedia pages of living artists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rineke_Dijkstra, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taryn_Simon, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roni_Horn etc), the editors also chose to not upload a photo on the article." I am not familiar with the protocol for this. Any comments, insights or suggestions? --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 23:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's just a content disagreement. To include or not include an existing (free use, from the looks of it) image in an article is up to the editor(s) involved with the content. If there is consensus about using or not using the image, then great. Otherwise it can be discussed, and I see that's been done in the talk page. There's no BLP issue here, since the photograph is not being used in a way that would disparage the subject. That she or her friends think it shouldn't be included is, again, a matter of taste and/or content. In fact, if they indeed have control over the copyright of images related to this person's work, I'd invite them to upload an actual photograph to grace the bio, plus more images to create a gallery or something. The more, the merrier. § FreeRangeFrog croak 23:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

False information in a User's sandbox
User:Halloween3100/sandbox contains false information about Nicki Minaj. The user, User:Halloween3100, is on their final warning for repeatedly falsifying information about Nicki Minaj in article space. Should the false information be removed from their sandbox? 216.93.234.239 (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a procedure to deal with information on users' sandboxes and subpages, but this is not really a problem until and unless that information gets inserted into the actual article. If that happens and reverting the additions doesn't work, don't get into an edit war, but just please report it here, or request that the page be protected over at WP:RFPP. § FreeRangeFrog croak 23:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Kevin Clash
Edit war (of which I am a participant) over what should be included in the lead. Basically if we should be vague and say "alleged Sexual misconduct", or further identify that the specific sexual misconduct was "alleged sexual relationships with underage boys". Other eyes/opinions welcome. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I replaced it with 'minors', which is specific enough but eliminates the gender issue, although as he has identified as being gay doesn't strike me as particularly onerous or damaging. But it is a bit weasel-y. Also, the lede has no footnotes whatsoever. That should be a higher priority than other semantics, especially since the references to that issue are already in the article. § FreeRangeFrog croak 00:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Kristin Korb
"Internationally recognized vocalist and bass player currently residing in Denmark. Since moving to Los Angeles in 2002, she has performed all over not only LA, but all of North America. She still has time for the educational outreach and teaches at Azuza Pacific and University Southern California where she is coordinator of vocal jazz studies.

Has performed and recorded with such Jazz legends as Llew Mathews, Kim Richmond, Steve Barnes, and Ray Brown, Jeff Hamilton.[3]"

Not encyclopedia language used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.243.224.4 (talk) 02:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really a BLP violation; just an easily corrected bit of bad writing. Bearcat (talk) 06:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Salman Khan
Does this edit reach level of RevDel? If so, please hide this. Thanks! Forgot to put name 06:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If the source was not reliable then your revert was perfectly valid under the BLP policy. Don't know if it merits a revdel since it is out there already, but the important thing is that it was removed. § FreeRangeFrog croak 22:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Lynette Nusbacher (2nd nomination)
This AfD completed its seven days a few hours ago. Because of its BLP connections and especially because its subject has been in contact regarding the AfD, I think we ought to close it, one way or another, as soon as possible. I'd be grateful if an uninvolved admin would take the time to take a look. Many thanks. I'm going to cross-post to AN --Dweller (talk) 10:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The AfD was closed as "delete". bobrayner (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Gustl Mollath
Can anyone who speaks German please verify the references used in this BLP please. I have removed unsourced and some sourced to primary & blogs but am unable to verify the rest. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I looked at the first four and they look fine to me. § FreeRangeFrog croak 22:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Veer Gidwaney
Is this really a notable person? His biography consists of a mention in a magazine and a few sentences. Sounds pretty NN to me.
 * First off, be sure to sign your posts using four tildes, like so: ~ . Regarding the BLP's notability, an argument could be made either way.  The article has WP:NPOV problems and needs more sources, and if you want to propose its deletion you should use AFD. Andrew327 06:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Quinn Norton
Please watch this BLP - recent undue addition sourced to some legal doc - relates to Aaron Swartz - You  really  can  22:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Leo Trich
left a libelous comment at Talk:Leo Trich:. Seems like an oversight and block is in order.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Is no one going to respond?--GrapedApe (talk) 02:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You removed the dumb addition, it's no longer there. I don't see that as requiring revdel, but if you feel it does post to WP:AN and request it from a sysop. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Carmen Ortiz
Editorializing and WP:UNDUE in the wake of the Aaron Swartz tragedy, I'm out the door for today, a few extra eyes there would be appreciated. --j⚛e deckertalk 19:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Reverted a few minor unhelpful edits. Doesn't look like the vandalism storm I rather expected, but we'll see. In my watchlist now. § FreeRangeFrog croak 22:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, appreciated. As an update, I've seen three or more BLP violations in the past three hours and have put in a temporary semi-protect, requested review of that protection at WP:RFPP, and have indicated that at this point I'll walk away from the article.  --j⚛e deckertalk 22:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

There has been a removal of pertinent information by User:Canoe1967 and a restoration of the same by me. So you know. -Mardus (talk) 08:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's recentism and undue and it should be removed until consensus has been reached on the talk page as to what should actually appear. You're doing it wrong. Viriditas (talk) 10:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Disagree. -Mardus (talk) 10:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I would agree with Viriditas, you ought to discuss your additions first as this is a BLP. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So should Viriditas. -Mardus (talk) 10:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've redirected the undue attack content to Aaron Swartz where it belongs. Viriditas (talk) 21:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a whitewash. -Mardus (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it's policy. Please actually read BLP and show that you understand it. Viriditas (talk) 03:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

User talk:AaronSw
Attacks on and accusations against Ortiz have been made by editors (and restored by one editor) at the Swartz memorial page. <font style="color:blue;background:yellow;">Kiefer <font style="color:blue;">.Wolfowitz 19:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Jodi Arias
Jodi Arias is accused of the. At issue here is the inclusion of the List of people executed in Arizona in the "See also" section of the article. The accused is not related to the List of people executed in Arizona because she has not been convicted yet. Associating her to that list, even indirectly, is a violation of her BLP. This is my opinion. I would welcome the opinions of the participants here. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 00:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Removed the entire See Also section. That link is contentious at best since she has not been convicted of anything, let alone executed. Also the way the link was worded was misleading. § FreeRangeFrog croak 00:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. This is a death penalty case in Arizona.  That is no secret.  That is a matter of public record.  And that has been extensively covered by the media and reliable sources.  As such, I have added to the "see also" section a link for Capital punishment in Arizona.  Another editor has removed it, indicating that it is prejudicial to the case.  The editor's edit summary says, in part, "Have you prejudged the outcome of the case? If so it is a WP:BLP violation".  I took it to the Talk Page to seek consensus.  The other editor stated: "This is a misleading link. It directs to List of people executed in Arizona. She has not been judged yet, let alone executed. This is a prejudicial link to the outcome of the case and violates BLP."  My reply was: "Some of the 50 states have articles entitled "Capital punishment in XYZ state".  Some of the 50 states have articles entitled "List of people executed in XYZ state".  Some have both.  (See the "nav box" / template below.)"  Because this is a death penalty case in Arizona, I feel that this is an appropriate (and relevant) link for the "see also" list.  Furthermore, I don't understand the accusation that a Wikipedia "see also" list can "prejudice" a case.  Thanks.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * @FreeRangeFrog: Thank you. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 00:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Can someone please explain to me (A) how a link to "capital punishment in Arizona" is not relevant to a case that is a capital punishment case in the state of Arizona? And, (B) how a Wikipedia "see also" link can possibly "prejudice" a case?  And, (C) how user FreeRangeFrog can unilaterally make a decision about an item on which consensus is being sought at the Talk Page, without his/her even participating?  Thanks!  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The Murder of Travis Alexander article currently also contains a link to Capital punishment in the United States. Is this also a BLP violation?  Must this also be removed?  If so, why?  If not, how is a link entitled "Capital punishment in the United States" any different than a link entitled "Capital punishment in Arizona"?   Thank you!  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's the issue here - the editor didn't mean that the link would prejudice the outcome, but that it was unacceptably implying she will be executed, before the actual decision is sent down. Moreover, the List of people executed in Arizona article is just that - a list of people executed, and to a reader clicking the link it would appear as if we were trying to suggest that Arias was imminently going to be added to that list. Now, if the article List of people executed in Arizona included a substantial discussion of the capital punishment process and history in the state of Arizona, that would be different. Also, in the majority of cases there are either two articles, or the one article is Capital punishment in foo (cf. Capital punishment in Nebraska) and the list redirects to it. The link to Capital punishment in the US is acceptable by your own reasoning, because it is a capital punishment case. <font style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"> Intelligent  sium  01:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 01:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Because you linked the Arizona one to the list of the actual people executed and not to an article talking about the Capital punishment process. These are two different things. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 01:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I am creating an article entitled "Capital punishment in Arizona" (similar to Capital punishment in Nebraska). And we all agree that that is an acceptable "see also" link?  Or no?  Please advise.  Thanks.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That would be no problem imo. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 01:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * @Joseph: I removed the template from here since we all know what it refers to. The problem is that a) You are linking to a List of people executed by the state of Arizona while wording the link as Capital punishment in Arizona. That in and of itself is misleading. And b) This has nothing whatsoever to do with capital punishment. That the prosecutors will or won't seek the death penalty is irrelevant, since the trial just started. She could cop a deal and get life in prison for all we know. The trial just started. No one has been convicted of anything, let alone executed. When and if she is convicted and sentenced to death, you are free to add a link to an article about the death penalty, and when and if she is executed, you are free to add her to the list of people executed by the State of Arizona. Until that series of events come to pass, your additions are just unwarranted speculation, which have no place in an article that refers even obliquely to a living person. § FreeRangeFrog croak 01:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Excellent points. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 01:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Not excellent points at all. Unless I am misreading or misunderstanding you.  The prosecutor already has sought the death penalty.  So, this is a capital punishment/death penalty case right now, regardless of any future developments.  Future developments (such as those you cite) in no way are relevant to where the case stands right now, at this moment.  It is, right now, a death penalty case.  We don't need to wait for a conviction or an execution to mention (and to link to) the concept of death penalty/capital punishment.  That notion is absurd.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you saw my reply above but I said that it may be ok to link to an article about the death penalty if you create one from scratch. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 01:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I did see that, thanks. My post (immediately above) is a reply to User:FreeRangeFrog's post immediately above that.  Unless I misunderstand his/her post, that notion is absurd (that we have to wait for a conviction or an execution to even mention/link to the concept of death penalty/capital punishment).  There is no speculation whatsoever.  She is, as we speak, being tried in a death penalty case.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * User:FreeRangeFrog made some excellent and lucid points. Now the detail if the death penalty should link or not is a matter of taste.I tend to agree with FreeRangeFrog's points but for the sake of consensus I can see your side too. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  01:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, but now we're back to the basics of the death penalty, when the initial problem was your addition of a misleading 'See also' link. Yes, it is perfectly valid to include something about the death penalty if there are sources that back up the fact that the prosecution is seeking it. I leave it to you to figure out what that is - as far as I can tell there's no Category:Death penalty cases in the United States or anything that resembles it. Everything else you've argued about including is speculatory in nature, and therefore unsuitable for inclusion. § FreeRangeFrog croak 01:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * FreeRangeFrog, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about at all. I am not in any way talking about a "category" (such as Category:Death penalty cases in the United States).  I am referring to the link/article entitled Capital punishment in the United States (as I mentioned above).  And I am also referring to the link/article Capital punishment in Arizona (similar to Capital punishment in Nebraska) (as I also mentioned above).  I don't see how, as you put it, "everything that I've argued about including is speculatory".  And, I also don't see how my proposed links/articles are, as you put it, "unsuitable for inclusion".  Please clarify.  Thanks.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that once you create "Capital punishment in Arizona" the issue will be resolved and you can link to it from the article. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  02:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. However, FreeRangeFrog's post (immediately above) seems to contradict the agreement that you and I have.  And, FreeRangeFrog has demonstrated that he/she will unilaterally remove/delete something with which he does not agree.  So, I am asking him to clarify a point he made that I do not understand and that makes no sense (in the context of the above discussion).  Thanks.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The origin of the dispute was your addition of a 'See also' link that was both misleading and incorrect. If you create that article, I have no problem with including a link to it from this one, especially since I see Dr.K. agrees as well. Also, in the future please use only one colon ':' per indentation level, rather than multiple ones. It makes the discussion harder to follow. § FreeRangeFrog croak 02:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you FreeRangeFrog for your comments. It was very nice talking to you. Take care. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 02:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * FreeRangeFrog, your reply here directly contradicts your preceding reply above. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * User:FreeRangeFrog has already accepted a link of the newly-created article as have I. So there is nothing more to resolve here. Talking about this in more detail will not accomplish anything different because the matter is resolved. I don't think further analysing or discussing any statements already made will help in any way. Perhaps we should all just move on. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 17:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I did move on.  You are the one extending this dialogue.  My prior comment was a factual statement to make FreeRangeFrog aware of the fact that his/her two replies contradicted one another.  I was not asking for any resolution to anything.  I said that I would create the new article, and I did so.  Thanks.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not extending anything. You cannot just make a "factual statement" which points to a perceived contradiction in the points made by a user and not expect that someone may reply to your point. After consensus is reached, pointing to a contradiction invites a counter-reply and it just unduly prolongs a discussion. You, also telling me that I prolonged the discussion was uncalled for so I had to reply to you. This should settle the matter. If however you feel like having the last word please do. Just don't accuse me of anything unfair so that I don't have to reply to you. Thanks. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 21:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We both agree that this issue has been settled. We all agreed that I would create a new link (Capital punishment in Arizona) and that that link would be acceptable in the article.  I did that.  So, we can all move on.  Nonetheless, FreeRangeFrog's two most recent repies contradicted each other, so I pointed that out to him/her.  Thanks.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, they did not, especially since it was you who started moving the goalposts, first claiming that your link to a listing of people executed by Arizona was factual and correct, and then doing a 180 and saying that you were going to write your own article and link to it instead. I objected to the first one (and so did Mr.K.), and I said the second one was fine, because it did not introduce a negative bias or preconceived notion of the person's eventual fate. Are we done? § FreeRangeFrog croak 22:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's hope so. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 22:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Your exact words were, quote: "Everything else you've argued about including is speculatory in nature, and therefore unsuitable for inclusion", unquote. This comment by you was well into the "depths" of the conversation; it was not way up "at the top" (i.e., beginning) of the discussion.  You will note that you used the word "everything".  So, yes, your replies were indeed contradictions.  Thanks.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Joseph, please realise that analysing past comments for inconsistencies serves no practical purpose other than to antagonise other editors and make them want to reply. This noticeboard served its stated purpose by assisting everyone involved to reach consensus on the matter. There is no need for further rounds of criticism and rebuttal. I would hope no further discussion takes place. Let's all please move on. I expect no reply to this comment. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  23:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Is that not hypocritical? You two keep replying (i.e., keeping this thread going) ... and then chastise me for replying back?  LOL.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Am I supposed to reply to your reply? I guess better not, otherwise I run the risk of keeping the thread going. I'm not sure how you managed to get an exemption from that but I won't ask any questions. :) Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  03:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We have had something of a little tit-for-tat above. Some of it, I believe, in good humor.  No harm intended.  At the end of the day, we all resolved the problem at hand.  And we were all happy with the "compromise", of sorts (i.e., my creation of the new link to replace the offending link).  So, it all worked out well.  Thanks for the discussion and for your help in resolving the problem.  Best, Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree and thank you for your kind comments. Thank you also for taking the time to create the article which resolved the issue and enriched the encyclopaedia at the same time. Take care. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 13:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Thomas J. Donahue
A recently deceased editor introduced a lot of defamatory material in this article. <font style="color:blue;background:yellow;">Kiefer <font style="color:blue;">.Wolfowitz 01:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh my, he said he "fixed a typo" and marked it as minor. Yay. § FreeRangeFrog croak 03:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I removed the BLP violations, which also violated NPOV and RS. <font style="color:blue;background:yellow;">Kiefer <font style="color:blue;">.Wolfowitz 10:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Still needs some sources. I fixed some really strange wording as well. Collect (talk) 14:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Martin Hartwell
Could someone take a look at this edit from a few months ago (only just noticed it). Someone claiming to be the subject's wife suggests that many of the facts in the article are wrong because of edits by (or facts attributed to, her argument isn't entirely clear) someone else involved in the events being discussed. AFAICT her edit was reverted and none of her complaints have been addressed - whether that's right or wrong I leave to you. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, whether she's his wife or not is irrelevant, but she does have a point - I am seeing the same story with the 'Marten' spelling. I'd move it except that there seem to be more Martin than Martens. I'll add a note about the spelling since it's supported by enough sources. § FreeRangeFrog croak 02:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Also created a redirect from alternate spelling, so hopefully that will be enough to satisfy the person who complained. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Rae (Raphael) McGrath
Rae McGrath, born 5 November 1947 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.13.46 (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there something in particular you would like us to examine? We would be happy to do so, but first you need to provide us with a link to an article and an explanation of what you think needs attention. Andrew327 17:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)