Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive174

Fraudsters
I came across a wp:blp page move today that caught my eye as the article in question was moved to a title that included "fraudster" as a parenthetical disambiguation suffix. In normal circumstances, I would probably try to avoid a phrase such as "fraudster" and perhaps use "person convicted of fraud" (if we weren't talking about an article title, where brevity is obviously very important). The page move led me to Category:Fraudsters, which contains a significant number of biographies (for both living and deceased persons). In this case, and in at least two other biographies for living people, it looks like the category name was an inspiration for also including "fraudster" in related biography article titles for disambiguation. That is despite the category name itself being fairly controversial and resulting in three past move or delete discussions (each ending in no consensus on how to move forward with the category and its title, unfortunately).

I hope and pray that articles in this category and articles that have been moved or created with "fraudster" in their title are limited to individuals who have actually been convicted of fraud, but given the existence of the separate (and subordinate) Category:People convicted of fraud, I'm honestly not sure. In any event, even for individuals convicted of fraud (in which case wp:crime doesn't apply, but can lend some common sense nontheless), the spirit of wp:label would seem to suggest we should find a more neutral, verifiable, and encyclopedic way to handle this — especially for biographies of living persons. The multitude of options for how to resolve (or not resolve) the labelling issue seems to have prevented a concrete path forward for the category name itself in the past, but given the wp:blp ramifications (especially now that the category name is being used to justify including "fraudster" in wp:blp article titles), I thought it was appropriate to bring this up here. user: j (talk)  09:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I am usually against this sort of titles, unless his main profession was fraud, like Russell King (fraudster) or Emmanuel Nwude. Di Stefano has created a lot of small business; I think "businessman" is descriptive enough, and more neutral and more dispassionate. You can add inside the article that he was convicted of fraud. Leave "fraudster" for professional fraudsters who make their living out of pure fraud schemes (for example, Bernard Madoff is described only as a white collar criminal, and only after the descriptions of other professions in which he spent many years). --Enric Naval (talk) 11:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This is pretty much a direct parallel to the case of Edward Davenport (fraudster). You should have a look at the discussion at Talk:Edward Davenport (fraudster), which Jimbo Wales initiated. Please note Jimbo's comments regarding the BLP issue: "it isn't non-neutral to say that someone is a criminal, if they are, so I don't think neutrality carries the day. And the BLP issues would be more compelling for me if he were notable for something other than his crimes, which he really isn't. (Some minor notability as a flamboyant character, but not sufficient to bring him into Wikipedia, I think, were it not for his crimes.)" In the case of Di Stefano, his notability is entirely due to his controversial career as a lawyer, which it now transpires was wholly fraudulent, as he is not and never has been a bona fide lawyer. If you look at the Giovanni Di Stefano (fraudster) article, the vast majority of it concerns his legal career. There is a section about "other interests" but it's clear that (1) this is very much secondary to his legal activities, (2) was presumably funded by his frauds and (3) is largely based on his own claims, which now have to be treated with extreme scepticism. As an analogy, if we had to disambiguate Al Capone, we would presumably go with "Al Capone (gangster)" as this is his primary notability, even if Capone also had non-criminal business interests. Given that Di Stefano has four convictions for fraud between 1975-2013, has served 8.5 years in jail plus whatever he will receive today (up to 10 years), and that his principal occupation since at least 2001 has been found to be wholly fraudulent, it's entirely reasonable to describe him as "a professional fraudster who made his living out of pure fraud schemes". I might add that in court this morning he's pleaded guilty to another 4 frauds, including offences carried out while on bail awaiting trial for fraud, bringing the total number of guilty charges up to 29. Prioryman (talk) 12:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * A quick update - in the last hour he's been jailed for 14 years, which is the absolute maximum for the most serious charge, of money laundering - evidently the judge threw the book at him. The City of London Police's statement makes it clear that this was a very long-running, widespread and costly series of frauds, and even describes him as "one of life's great swindlers". I would say this more than justifies the article title. Prioryman (talk) 13:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Giovanni di Stefano is a fraudster. Fraud is, according to the evidence, the dominant theme that has run through his life. Even his few legitimate business ventures have been problematic (such as an attempt to buy MGM, that saw him deported from the US). This is his third time in court, third time convicted. He's been sent down for 14 years and described by the judge as "one of life's great swindlers". In calling him a fraudster, we are following WP:NPOV to the letter as it is basically what he is known for - his pretence to be a lawyer was also fraudulent, after all, and his main business seems to be fleecing people of quite large sums of money. Guy (Help!) 16:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Guy! Overlooking the fact that he tried to chuck me off Wikipedia when I first started editing.  Some editors here are squeamish about use of certain kinds of descriptors -- but we shouldn't worry about that sort of concern.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's accurate to say that I'm "squeamish" about saying what is a verifiable fact: he has been convicted of fraud (more than once, even). But calling him — or anybody else — a "fraudster" implies something else, entirely.  Borrowing from a past discussion, it's akin to saying someone who has stolen is a thief or someone who has lied is a liar.  The former in each case would be facts; the latter in both instances, judgments.  Perhaps there are biographies where it would be possible to say someone is inherently a "fraudster" (examples from Enric above illustrate that).  But if we can — just as verifiably, if not more so — say that they have been "convicted of fraud," we convey the point, the fact, and do so without any debatably negative wp:blp ramifications.   user: j  (talk)  17:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I am usually pretty conservative on BLP issues, but in this case I agree that "fraudster" in this case is completely appropriate. He has been convicted of fraud on a massive scale, and the judge involved was unusually scathing in his comments when sentencing.--ukexpat (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh god, did I? I am sorry! I can get it spectacularly wrong sometimes can't I? But I don't think this is one of those times. Guy (Help!) 19:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm brand new to wikipedia, and as an outside this seems an odd label to me. So odd, in fact, i originally thought it was vandalism. However i understand a little more thanks to this discussion, but still the label seems too subjective to me. Although objectively he is a convicted fraudster, i think the term itself is usually viewed from a subjected point of view. In other words, fraudster may be a technical term, but most people don't view it in its technical sense. But whatever, i dont mind either way...its interesting to see how these things are decided. DietJustice (talk) 23:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As I have stated on the talk page, he is not notable for fraud, but for his choice of clientele. To say he is just a fraudster takes away from the main reason sources indicate that he would be a subject of academic interest. Fraud is a prominent point of interest, but it is not the primary point of interest.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 02:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * From a purely academic POV he's probably most notable for his activities in serbia however its a bit hard to produce a useful disambiguation term out of that. Its also a bit hard to work out what went on there since a lot of the claims are non credible. Run a search for Giovanni Di Stefano on the magnum photo website.©Geni 10:39, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Sean Avery
At Sean Avery, an IP editor with a history of violations keeps inserting a claim that the subject is gay, with a very dubious source. I have reverted but it's come back twice. In fact, editor has inserted this info FIVE TIMES today, clearly violating WP:3RR. Page is frequently attacked by vandals, and the IP's history shows he/she has one this very same sort of thing before. Echoedmyron (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I removed the section again. The source is a tweet by the claimed boyfriend. I advised the IP that this is not a reliable source.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  23:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Someone else is adding it back now. I am out of reverts and was warned about claiming 3RR BLP exemption too much. Anyone care to remove it again? Earlier ones have been revdel as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You are never "out of reverts" to remove a clear BLP violation, such as this. In any event the article has been semi-protected.--ukexpat (talk) 20:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Aruna Irani
Year of Birth - 1952 looks suspect. She looks much older than 15 years Old in 1967 Movie - Patthar Ke Sanam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahee7 (talk • contribs) 07:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've removed the date as unreliably sourced (to IMDb).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

GOHAR SHAHI
His Holiness Riaz Ahmad Gohar Shahi is the founder of Anjuman Sarfroshan e Islam Pakistan which is a registered organization. There is no evidence to ban it. The newspapers just used the word "kaladam" at their own expense. It has many centres setup in a number of cities of Pakistan. You may visit www.asipak.com which is the official website of Anjuman Sarfroshan e Islam. It stands guards to protect shrines of ALLAH's friends. It demonstrates protests against terrorist's attacks on those shires. It is spreading the message of Love and peace for humanity. It celebrates the birthday of Hazrat Muhammad (S.A.W.W) and held ralies all over the country. There is no dispute among the central command of ASI and family of His Holiness. Annual program of Giarween is celebrated and both join and arrange the ceremony. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.186.104.41 (talk) 10:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I apologize but I don't understand what you're asking of us here. The article is protected and I see there's been some edit warring but we'd need specific information as to what is the problem here to assist you. § FreeRangeFrog croak 16:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Youssef Nada
Someone has edited the page to include a marketing plug. They inserted a section with the sub-head "special note" and wrote the following;

" Many of the details in this page are inaccurate, the subject's authorised biography by Douglas Thompson "Inside the Muslim Brotherhood: The Truth about the World's Most Powerful Political Movement" reveals more information." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.205.42.112 (talk) 18:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like it was reverted. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Lindsay Lohan
Someone said in Talk:Lindsay Lohan that there are too many details of her crimes and stuff. Do too many details violate WP:BLP? --George Ho (talk) 18:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * In some cases, yes. See WP:UNDUE. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, which detail to remove? --George Ho (talk) 00:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually I had never looked at that article, but I think it's structured quite well. It's always a big red light when there's a 'Controversy' or 'Legal troubles' section followed by 10 paragraphs of woe. But let's face it, this is what her life has become. I'd have no problem scaling back the level of detail a bit, but all of that is a matter of record now, and it has received considerable, in-depth coverage in mainstream media. Do you pick certain arrests and leave others out? Of course not. I'd say that article is commensurate to the life and events it is documenting. Again, perhaps just too much detail and citation overload. But that would result in making the article merely shorter, not better. Not qualitatively so, anyway. § FreeRangeFrog croak 01:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Hatem Bazian


The biography page for Dr. Hatem Bazian is continually removed and replaced with content that is not neutral, that is inaccurate, poorly sourced and could be considered libelous.

This is the correct page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatem_Bazian

This is the diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hatem_Bazian&oldid=548197045 by Alexbrn. If you look throughout the history, you will see that this person repeatedly removes our content and replaces it with the erroneous and patently false allegations.

For instance, in two occasions, he cites in footnote 3 and 4, The Golden Gater from 1993 and 1994. Those citations have no hyperlinks. In fact, the student newspaper he allegedly is citing, does not have archives that go back to those years so it is not possible to ascertain the veracity of his allegations.

Secondly, in footnote 5, he cites Steven Emerson, a noted anti-Muslim Islamophobe. We have disproved his allegations against Dr. Bazian in this booklet "The Truth Behind America's Terror Experts," http://www.ampalestine.org/images/yootheme/widgetkit/Resources/ZionistIslamophobeNetwork.pdf

Finally, we continually change this page to contain the biography approved by Dr. Bazian himself, but people with an agenda remove it and replace it with patently false and potentially libelous information, which is against the Wikipedia's policy on the Living Persons Biography Page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kszremski (talk • contribs) 00:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I reverted your 'version' back to the previous one, and removed all that stuff you probably didn't like about the anti-semitism, because it's worded badly, the sources are dodgy compared with the claims, and the whole thing stinks of WP:UNDUE. That said, simply replacing the contents of an article with the text you prefer is not the way to go. We work by consensus. Further, a bio needs to be balanced - while the previous version was bad, yours is worse in a way, since it's overly positive, gushing and completely unsourced. I'd also like to know what or who is 'we' in this context, please. Why do you refer to it as 'our content'? § FreeRangeFrog croak 00:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * And article subjects do not control the article's content, see WP:OWN.--ukexpat (talk) 02:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * & boomerang. Google indicates KSzremski is probably an associate of the subject. The subject has also edited the article as and made a wonderful WP:FAKE copy in his own user space that I redirected to his talk page. I think that's the "we". Anyway, now at AfD. JFHJr (㊟) 03:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

George Komsky
The article titled "George Komsky" is spam posted for self promotion by the artist. Komsky states this on his twitter page. Article should be removed per Wikipedia guidelines on spam. (PopOperaGuru (talk) 03:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC))

Also the references listed on the article are not all verifiable (ex. informermg.com is a PR website headed by his listed manager). — Preceding unsigned comment added by PopOperaGuru (talk • contribs) 03:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Lookit all the socks... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Sent to AfD -- there's a patina of sources, but it's a mirage, they're mostly press releases and generic websites; the whole thing is a PR campaign. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The main contributor, User:Ngoesseringer points to Nicole Goesseringer, owner of his PR firm who also goes by Nicole Muj, author of most (accidental exaggeration) some of the sources within the article.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

George Maharis


Am I allowed to reference an AP story published in a newspaper on the arrest of a living individual, even if it is for public indecency?

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=0oeUc68sgesC&dat=19741123&printsec=frontpage&hl=en

It's on page four.

If not, what do I need to reference the arrest? An arrest record?

Thanks for any info.

Mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.75.234.202 (talk) 18:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. Don't give it its own section, don't write four paragraphs about it, etc. Don't make it undue weight in relation to the rest of the bio. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I wrote this and it keeps getting deleted. Is it too much?

On November 23, 1974, the The News and Courier of Charleston, South Carolina ran a story titled "Actor Booked on Charge of Perversion" on page four. http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=0oeUc68sgesC&dat=19741123&printsec=frontpage&hl=en The article states Maharis was "arrested for investigation of sexual perversion with another man at a service station...Police said Maharis was observed by officers who had staked out the restroom in West Los Angeles because of complaints." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.75.234.202 (talk) 19:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * No, rather: "On November 23, 1974 Maharis was arrested for alleged indecency by police officers who were monitoring a West Los Angeles public restroom after receiving complaints from residents of the area." And your citation right after that. Ideally two. If you can find a follow-up report on whether or not actual charges were filed, or what the outcome of the case was (if any), that would be great. § FreeRangeFrog croak 19:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - I reposted using your language and with further confirmation. What do I do if the post I just added is deleted? 50.75.234.202 (talk) 22:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That looks good. It won't be reverted, since it's perfectly within policy. If that happens let us know. And thank you for seeking help on this. I wish everyone did that :) § FreeRangeFrog croak 22:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the constructive help! 50.75.234.202 (talk) 23:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

It was reverted by George Ho, who now says he is going to request protection. If I'm within guidelines, the arrest will stay, correct? 50.75.234.202 (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I posted a comment on the talk page asking for clarification. § FreeRangeFrog croak 00:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a tabloid. WP:BLP governs issues of weight and whether such "stuff" belongs in a BLP. Collect (talk) 00:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I've taken it out. The entire episode amounts to an arrest and a no-contest guilty plea to trespassing. This is about as serious as a traffic violation and has no place in a BLP. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The information should be kept out because it would fall under WP:BLPCRIME. Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

William C. Rader again


It looks like both the haters and the "his miracle cure saved my child!" are back. additional eyes would be helpful. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  11:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Relevant post also at WP:FRINGE/N.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 01:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Self-published genocide accusations
There are some odd accusations of genocide in this version of Genocide under municipal laws. The section of Finland accuses Luo Gan of genocide. The only source is the self-published web page of the Finnish chapter of Falun Gong. There may be similar allegation in other sections. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Goodluck Jonathan


Please take a look at the last few days of this article's history, it looks like I inadvertently stepped into a fairly large scale edit war. Roger (talk) 17:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've added the banner on top of the talk page and left a comment inviting the parties to come work out the issue(s) here. § FreeRangeFrog croak 19:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It does not seem to have had any effect. From what I can figure out it's a dispute between an editor concerned about "incorrect" content while the other is concerned that the layout of the version supported by the first editor does not comply with MOSBIO. The solution might be for an admin to intervene and help the two parties to get the correct content in the correct layout. Roger (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've requested protection. If that's done then the IPs will have no choice but to live with the version they don't like, or come in here and discuss the problem. There isn't much more we can do. I see how a sort of merge is needed there, but there needs to be consensus as to what and how to merge. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for starting this. I apologize for not starting it myself; it's long overdue now. The original concerns that were brought up were that of the format -- mainly anons were pushing for a controversies section for non-controversies. It became more clear over time that they were actually concerned with keeping the controversies section and some BLP violations and not with the format. The lead poisoning outbreak is minor, recent, and, as far as I can tell, factually accurate; fuel subsidy section was comprised of criticism mainly from his direct political opponents and not based on any actual criticism; the bomb blast resulted in the arrested suspect - a former rebel who recently accepted amnesty - blaming Jonathan; and Jonathan renaming the University of Lagos (actually did receive some mild negative attention, but still not a "controversy"). Because it is a BLP, I've tried to limit this and integrate them into his tenure while keeping each subject a part of the page as a whole (without Undue weight of course). Since becoming more comfortable with this information and its sourcing, I've started to look elsewhere to expand other aspects of the page that weren't in the controversies -- I have gone through his coverage in the BBC and NYT to start with a background and to see which actions received the most attention. So that's where I have been coming from, and have worked on acting with Good Faith, although I've incidentally became involved in an edit war. Since then I've tried to step back and thoroughly encourage talk page discussion. Dreambeaver  (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If the IPs will not engage in discussion, go ahead and start doing what you need to do. I'll watch the page and help you out if they start reverting you. I requested semi-protection days ago to let you work in peace, but it was denied. We'd need a lot more warring for a sysop to consider protection, I guess. So get your edits and sourcing done, and we'll go from there. As for the BLP issues, you know the drill - negative information requires substantial referencing to reliable sources, which I doubt are in short supply since this is the president of a sovereign nation. Just keep it within WP:UNDUE and all that. § FreeRangeFrog croak 19:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks for the assistance. Dreambeaver  (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid the edit warring is still going on, IMHO it's time for serious intervention. Roger (talk) 10:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The admin protected the wrong version, as admins are wont to do, unfortunately, and applied full protection, meaning no one can touch it. If that does not motivate the IPs to discuss, then we're pretty much out of options here, since once the protection expires they'll start up again. The only other option is to find a friendly admin, explain the situation and try to have them semi-protect the article. There's no point on taking this to WP:DRN or anything like that - if they won't discuss in the talk page to begin with. And blocking IPs is done very sparingly. If anyone has any other ideas, I'm all ears. § FreeRangeFrog croak 20:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Henry Cavill
I'd like some extra eyes over at Henry Cavill if at all possible. The subject is a native of Jersey, an island which (as I have recently found out) is generally considered part of the British Isles, though it is not a part of the United Kingdom and is geographically distinct from the other islands that comprise the UK. In any case, our article currently describes him as a "British actor," which may or may not be appropriate (if someone knows for sure, that would be great), and in the categories as "English," a designation which I am certain is inappropriate.

Evidently, there is a source which does designate him as English, though I strongly suspect they did so out of ignorance. Jersey is not a part of the UK, let alone a part of England, and wouldn't claims otherwise call into question a publication's status as a reliable source?

So, to boil this down to a question: If an otherwise reliable source makes a dubious (and evidently groundless) designation of nationality, how do we properly address the source's claims in compliance with WP:BLP and WP:RS? Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 00:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Jersey is a British Crown Dependency. Note the first word: they are British somethings. Cf. Puerto Rico or Guam. More properly, Jersey is part of the United Kingdom, but mostly only in legal/immigration contexts, which should be specified in articles: it seems nationality may be one such instance (UK citizen but not EU citizen is possible). It certainly is not a nation state, nor sovereign state. A Jersey national may have a UK passport but without being an EU citizen.
 * I agree it's no part of England.
 * And sources need not be reliable for all things. If it's outweighed, either by common knowledge (above) or other sources, abandon its assertion. Does that help? JFHJr (㊟) 03:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ahem. "British actor" is fine, textually and categorically. JFHJr (㊟) 03:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the replies. I have two reverts on the article today. If someone wants to take out the "English" cats, feel free. If not, I'll do it in twenty hours. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 04:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I take it you didn't actually check my last change, last night? I didn't revert you I changed all the cats to British. But as Cavill has spent his life since a young age in England (boarding school into career) it is possible strong Nat ties exist and English cats may be supported by sources. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 10:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope, I didn't check your most recent change, mostly because I'm on a very slow connection and am spending most of my time working toward a deadline off-site. I should have checked, and I apologize for not doing so. I was also wrong about my number of reverts (I did it once, not twice). To be fair, your edit summary strongly implied that you were reinstating the English cats, since you stated that the French-language source backed up the categories ("Anglais" means English, not British). Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 10:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Rosmah Mansor
OTRS received an e-mail reporting vandalism. I reverted it to what looked like the last good version and further pruned it. There is, I think, still scope for further pruning per WP:UNDUE and I suspect that the IPs will be back as the subject has apparently been the subject of some adverse comment. More eyes on this one would be helpful. Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 13:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Iman Crosson
I'm happy to report that this article doesn't have any of the "traditional" BLP issues this noticeboard usually gets, however I'm requesting that my fellow BLP pager stalkers keep an eye on this article. I've just reduced this article to a stub, because the prior version had multiple issues, notably terrible sourcing, reference overload, excessive trivia, tabloid prose etc. Thanks. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 16:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Eileen Daly


A couple of Wikipedia users repeatedly add descriptions of sex acts or simulated sex acts from films in which the actress Eileen Daly has appeared. These acts were not 'glossed over' merely omitted in fine detail as it has a direct impact on the employment prospects of the lady concerned and are causing her direct financial harm.

I believe that this user has a direct intention to cause harm to the subject in contravention of Wikipedia guidelines regarding Living Person.

User - Urgederin

Also link to birth details (01/06/1963 Dulwich) is incorrectly added as "Eileen Daly" is not her original birth name.

Dean-Geoghegan (talk) 19:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for reporting this. I see that some details were also added using non-reliable or primary sources, so the reverts were fine. We'll keep an eye on it. § FreeRangeFrog croak 19:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Manu V. Devadevan
The contents of this article are not verifiable. Also references are poorly cited. Please consider deleting as information looks to be made up for publicity purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.98.21.245 (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Bob Harris (sportscaster)


Biography with a tendency toward puffery, with a WP:OWNERSHIP issue. Would appreciate more eyes on this. Thanks, 99.0.83.243 (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Left a WP:OWN warning on their talk page, and will trim a bit. Excessive gushing and puffery. § FreeRangeFrog croak 00:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Michael DeKort
User MrJacksonThomas continually changes the page that is written about me after I try to correct it. If you would like proof of his errors and omissions and that I am correct please let me know. I am Michael DeKort — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imispgh (talk • contribs) 00:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

So you have regressed to the point of promoting your lawsuit via your own Wiki page? Your unsourced accusations about others in government and the business world are anything but objective and you are the last person on here who should be trying to delete the cited contributions of other members, Dekort.CG-9 Supporter (talk) 02:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * i have stubbed the article as all the content was based on improper primary source court documents which are not at all appropriate for a WP:BLP and then tagged it for PROD as I found no third party reliably published sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  05:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Phil X
This article has been in a pretty deplorable state for a while, and recent edits made it worse. FYI, Phil X is best known as a kind of "demonstration" guitar player for a vintage guitar place--he's got a ton of YouTube videos where he shows off his chops, and his chops are really good. (He's kind of a cocky guy, but he is real good.) I can't judge if he has independent notability--the claims were there in the article, but they're not verified, they're inflated, and I don't know if they add up to notability per WP:BAND. Perhaps some of you guitar-playing hipsters can have a look? Drmies (talk) 02:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "Eruption" starts at around 4 minutes in. Drmies (talk) 02:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Without a doubt on guitar he is a BAMF. Notability?  YouTube is not a RS.  Jes sayin.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 02:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I've blocked the editor for this edit, a promotional copyvio. It's a temporary block, and I realize fully well that they might well claim my involvement--but I have no interest in the article one way or another, and if anyone wants to put this up at AN they have my blessing. Drmies (talk) 02:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

George Komsky (2)
Selmaflora294, RedPenOfDoom and I have entered into a serious disagreement over Selmaflora294 insertion of the following information into the George Komsky article. The problem RedPenOfDoom and myself have with this edit is that Selmaflora294 is using WP:SYNTH to justify that it is a cited statement, while RPOD and I are arguing that there isn't any proof that the performance was broadcast nationally to 17 million like the synth claims. While we have repeatedly explained synth to this new user they still used an edit summary of "I see what you mean... Now the proper source, that actually cites my the subject is there, the other citation is to prove the 17.7 million number". I've reached 3RR, and am considering if continued reversions are the proper way to deal with this, or if there is another way to make clear to Selmaflora294 that they need to find a single reliable source. We have already exhausted the talk page options. Please advise.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * on a side note I just figured out that I miss-counted my reverts, and I have broken WP:3RR to remove what I genuinely believe is WP:OR. But...I should both disclose that and face the music, whatever tune is playing.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The material you removed in your fourth revert has now been removed by others. I suggest you not edit the article at all for a while as a sign of good faith. You don't necessarily have to "face the music".--Bbb23 (talk) 04:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That is solid advise, and I will take a short break (24 hours I believe is the length of a 3RR ban) from that article.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The material does in fact violate SYNTH. But I'm going to suggest that we let it go for now. The article will surely be deleted; that's the resolution. The only alternative is 3RR reports, and it doesn't strike me as worth it. Selma is likely headed for a block anyway as a consequence of an SPI report I filed. Of course, if others want to drive Ngoess... into a 3RR violation and then report it, fine (and it might become necessary if the article ends up being kept) -- but with a little patience this one will resolve itself. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * But if we do that we may miss the deadline! (couldn't help myself).Coffeepusher (talk) 04:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Kenny Anderson (basketball)
Can I please get some eyes on Kenny Anderson (basketball), specifically the "Personal life" section? An IP editor is persistently adding poorly sourced information about divorces and children's ages, among other things. Thanks. The IP editor has also blanked his talk page, which makes communication difficult. I've tried to explain a few problems at Talk:Kenny Anderson (basketball). Zagal e jo^^^ 01:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I made a comment to the effect that reliable sources are mandatory, on the article's talk page.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  04:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate that. Would you be willing to add the page to your watchlist (if you haven't done so?) I'm pretty sure I'm the only regular user who's been paying attention to it, and it's stressful to fight off the tabloid stuff by myself. I'd like to remove most of that personal life section, since it relies too heavily on poor sources like the New York Post. Unfortunately, doing so has proven to be difficult. Zagal e jo^^^ 05:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Any thoughts? The IP has just re-added the poorly sourced information on the children's ages, and more questionable content. I'd just protect the page myself, but I don't want to be chastised for being wp:involved. Zagal e jo^^^ 04:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to note the names and birthdates of his children. The relationship with DJ Spinderella is fair game, but there are better sources. Onus of finding/supplying a reliable source is on the one who wants to add that material. Location (talk) 02:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I didnt blank my talk page. I put our entire conversation User: Zagalejo's talk page.

My problem with Zagalejo is that instead of adding information, s/he took out information not liked. Look at the edit history. Months ago Zagalejo deleted all the information in the personal section even thought it was documented. To me you are trying to whitewash his history. Kenny irresponsible action of multiple kids born in the same year with the same name to different mothers is his fault not oures. To leave it out is wrong as it is documented: in washington pist, court records, espn, etc. Yes it is embarrasing, but it is fact. Elizabeth Taylor's page doesnt hide her numerous marriages, her cheating with married Eddie Fisher while Eddie was still married to Debbie Reynolds; Ingrid Bergman's page doesnt hid that she had an affair with and got pregnant by Rossellini while still married to her husband; so why should Kenny Anderson's page hide his deeds? I agree that children should be kept out of it. However, his children are public figures in that they are mtv shows, modelling, attempting music careers...in short they have out themselves out there publicly. When I restored the information, Zagalejo said the onus is on me. So I found sources, then Zagalejo said the sources werent good enough. Surely you see how this is frustrating. All I see is Z deleting information, but not making the effort to FIND information. I am frustrated by this. The NYPost is once of my sources. Z didnt like it. But the NYpost cites court records! Then Zagalejo refuted my nypost ref with a hellobeautiful(blog) and twitter from Tami Akbar(bias). How are blogs/twitter--which are just 5 years old-- more reputable than the NYPost which has been around since 1801 ? That is why I wanted included that Tami didnt make the claim of not receiving a divorce settlement until 9yrs later while promoting a new reality show she was on.

I am continually trying to find sources but Zagalejo IS NOT. Look at the edit history. Zagalejo didn't like my sources for Tami receiving half of Kenny's estate and child support, so I found additional sources, but STILL Zagalejo is not satisfied. The onus is NOT on me solely, it is on you too! If you dont like my sources, RESEARCH AND FIND ONE YOU DO LIKE instead of just reverting! Also I find a source, Zagalejo then attacked my sentence structure! I feel this is just nitpicking. 71.191.244.33 (talk) 18:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP is a policy. We have to get things right. You can't assume that someone will eventually find a source for something, especially if the information involves living people. That's irresponsible.
 * The children's birth years are still a problem, and have to be removed. You never responded to any of the specific arguments I made about the birth years. And I'll tell you right now that I don't intend to go searching for their birthdates. That's just creepy. Why do we need that information?
 * I did make an effort to find information on the Oprah appearance, but came up empty. Now there seems to be confusion over when the show aired. (Note that the new TV Guide reference doesn't mention her name anywhere; you're making an assumption.)
 * Anyway, I stand by all my edits. Wikipedia has to be more responsible about biographies of living people. So many people have complained over the years about problems in their wiki bios. It's important to make sure everything is well-sourced. I'm still not comfortable with having so much content sourced to the New York Post. Even though it's an old paper, it doesn't have a great reputation. The article on the New York Post says it "was rated the least-credible major news outlet in New York". I mean, look at the headline in the page being used as a source: "EX CRYING FOUL ON HOOPSTER; DEADBEAT $TIFFS HIS CHILDREN, SHE SAYS". They spell "stiffs" with a dollar sign! Does that look like a sober, serious source to you? We don't know exactly what they're getting from the court documents.
 * Sigh.... some days I hate Wikipedia. Does anyone else want to chime in? I'm just going to protect the page myself, because we're not making the right kind of progress. Come what may. Zagal e jo^^^ 00:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

James R. Fouts


There's an edit war going on over the page of the mayor of Warren, Michigan, one of the largest cities in Michigan. An admin has noted this and has edit protected the page until today (3 April 2013). One side of the edit war is posting persistent political attacks, and the other side is repeatedly reloading an insubstantial "official biography". Some help would be appreciated in sorting out references, ascertaining facts, and making the page accurate and WP:NPOV. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 20:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The edit protection is over, and one other editor not previously involved in the edit war has stepped in with a constructive edit. I'm trying to wade through the thicket of what's there and edit down the "Controversy" section being mindful of WP:UNDUE. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 19:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Peter John Ross
I have done some investigation into this article about film maker Peter John Ross. I am questioning why this article is on wikipeida. It also appears, after reading some of this man's writing that he wrote the article himself. While he released a feature film Horrors of War the film did not sell, at all. It was panned by critics, having a 2 out 10 star rating. External documentation shows that Ross claims to have "worldwide distribution" which is actually just an account with Amazon.com. His "short films" are all YouTube videos that he has somehow slipped by Imdb, with the channel containing his 30 credits - 176 other videos - having a lifetime view count over 7 years of 800,000 views. The magazine he writes for Videomaker, has a circulation of 17,000 people. This man is not notable, nor does he deserve to be given the status of notability since he has clearly not earned it. I personally know people with much prolific careers who have not been able to retain a Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodywoody1 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Trisha Paytas
I've made an entry in the talk for the entry for Trisha Paytas, indicating that I can't find any evidence to substantiate the claim that she is the worlds fastest talker. I believe that, if I were to edit the page, the edit would be reversed pretty quickly and drama would ensure.

To be honest - I believe that this particular entry fails to meet notability ... unless we intend to include every person who has 250,000 followers on Youtube.

I suggest that a more experienced person than I look into the matter.

124.168.84.223 (talk) 13:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I've taken a look and decided to nominate it for deletion.Coffeepusher (talk) 13:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I also deleted the poorly sourced material for now. --Malerooster (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There's some evidence that she might be notable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree both with her being marginally notable, and with removal of the fastest talker line. Looking around, it appears she used that as her talent on America's Got Talent, but that doesn't make her the world's fastest. --GRuban (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Aaron Robinson (composer)
An article subject has expressed concerns at Talk:Aaron Robinson (composer). I'm not going to be online much over the next 3.5 days, so regrettably don't have time to investigate or assist. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I left a similar message at WP:composer looking to get help for this guy.Moxy (talk) 17:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Justin Trudeau
Justin Trudeau is the subject of a large amount of stuff about a charity boxing match which has been seen over 100,000 times on YouTube. For some strange reason, I consider this of minimal importance, but others seem to regrd it as a defining moment in his life. Edit is:. Talk page discussion includes:  Given that the video of Trudeau's knockout has received over 100,000 views on Youtube is a testament to the popularity of this event which, amazingly enough, I regard as not showing importance nor notability. Further opinions are solicited. Collect (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC) The reduced version (yes it was longer!) is:
 * During March of 2012 Trudeau was involved in a charity boxing match with Conservative senator, Patrick Brazeau. The event was held in order to raise money for the annual Fight for the Cure event in Ottawa. [55] Trudeau won the fight which was labelled an upset and resulted in the pony tail of Brazeau being cut off as part of the bet. A re-match was declined by Trudeau who stated a request to return to his parliamentary duties. Collect (talk) 21:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I can see including just the first two sentences above in the Advocacy section; I might tweak the wording a bit, but the substance seems okay. It'd be nice to know what Fight for the Cure is about (briefly).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Julian Ruck- Unknown author using page for blatant self-promotion and criticism of peers
This page is being routinely used by its subject for self-promotion. While everything that is mentioned is well cited, deeper investigation unveils references are always to his own writing on other sites. The page needs to be thoroughly edited by someone with no stake in the subject and then locked so the subject cannot continue to use it in this manner. Potentially this page could be deleted entirely as the subject, a self-published author with no awards or record of significant sales, clearly does not meet notability guidelines for biographies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyhorse185 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Now at AFD here: Articles for deletion/Julian Ruck.--ukexpat (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The massive level of SPA activity probably indicates the following articles also need attention, particularly as to general reliable sourcing standards, WP:BOMBARD (especially with primary sources), WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:FAKE:


 * I'm not sure if I'd know paid contribution if I saw it, but the variety makes me wonder. JFHJr (㊟) 00:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems is the common link. +1 for paid advertising. JFHJr (㊟) 03:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Ed Salamon
Help! I was only trying to change my picture to a more recent one (people often use the wiki photo in news items and I want it to correctly represnt me) and now my listing has these notices:

A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page. (April 2013)

This article may be an autobiography, or has been extensively edited by the subject or an institution related to the subject. It may need editing to conform to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. There may be relevant discussion on the talk page. (April 2013)

I was successful in deleting the old photo and in uploading one into the Wiki commons, but could not put that photo on the page. After repeated tries I got a note saying that I shouldn't be editing my own page. Can someone help get my photo up and remove those notices. Ed Salamon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edsalamon (talk • contribs) 21:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I was the person who added the tags and note. You had just made 13 edits to your own page which does look alot like writing a autobiography but on closer inspection this set of edits was almost entirely duplicates and the end result was just to change one photo so I admit that no harm was done. Mtpaley (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I reverted your previous page and deleted a broken link but that was itself reverted. You need to argue your point of view but given that the challenge is WP:BURDEN and the issue is a photo of you I cant see why it should be a problem. Mtpaley (talk) 22:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

My computer still shows the tags and the pre-estisting copy has not been restored. How do I argue this. I am not a wiki contributor, I was only trying to change my photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edsalamon (talk • contribs) 22:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Everyone is potentially a contributor but for the moment 'TheRedPenOfDoom' seems to have taken ownership of cleaning up this page. I would recommend getting into discussion with this user. Mtpaley (talk) 22:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I tried that and there seems to be no contact email for the "Red Pen of Doom". THANKS to anyone who can help get the original entry restored. It was virtually all correct and supported by the articles listed as references. I could point him to the right ones. This is a terrible thing to have happened over updating a picture. Ed Salamon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edsalamon (talk • contribs) 22:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Add something to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TheRedPenOfDoom Mtpaley (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC) Also add your argument to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ed_Salamon Mtpaley (talk) 22:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd say Mr. Salamon can edit his bio, and we can oversight and assist if needed. If we're not going to fix it ourselves, then let him do it. § FreeRangeFrog croak 04:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I created User:Canoe1967/Ed Salamon from an older version. I don't know which references refer to which statements though. Once they are lined up then we can discuss moving them back into the article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Eric Ollerenshaw
User:HackneyCarriage56 is not quite a single purpose account but he or she seems to spend most of their edits making detailed edits about Eric Ollerenshaw or Ben Wallace (politician). Particularly in the case of Eric Ollerenshaw there does seem to be an animus against him and a number of allegations are made in one case not citing a source and in another case citing a source behind a paywall. While I think that there are some edits that if made in a (far) more neutral way would be of value - for example Ollerenshaw was a involved with a councillor who was involved in electoral fraud, this does seem to be a rather reckless attitude to BLP.

Also concerned that the user may be a sock of an experienced editor who doesn't want to get dirty as there is a very good grasp of Wikipedia markup and policy over such a short period. Also the name itself HackneyCarriage56 does seem to point to an animus towards Ollerenshaw the previous leader of the Hackney Conservatives.

JASpencer (talk) 21:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement
Tag team editors are determined to preserve poorly sourced, contentious, derogatory material about an organization of living persons. The article is already under 1RR probation and is the subject of an ongoing ArbCom proceeding. These tag team editors have misrepresented what the sources actually say. The contentious material is in the "Agenda" section, in the second paragraph after the lede, and alleges that the Tea Party movement is "anti-immigrant." Nearly all the reliable sources on this topic say that the TPm is actually opposed to "ILLEGAL immigration," or "amnesty for illegal immigrants," or "comprehensive immigration reform" — the third phrase is a code equivalent to the first two.

"Anti-immigration," however, is code for "racist" and it's right at the beginning of the article, a position which gives it enormous WP:WEIGHT. The editors who are determined to keep it in do not have consensus. They know they're outnumbered and they've resorted to misrepresenting what most of their tiny handful of sources actually say. For example, one source says that TPm is linked to the Patriot movement, which is clearly anti-immigration. Claiming that TPm is anti-immigration as a result of this alleged link is guilt by association. The tag team editors are also a good fit for WP:WEASEL, using deceptive language on the article Talk page to advance their position.

European and British editors are cautioned that the word "anti-immigration" has a very different and more innocuous meaning for them, since various EU treaties created an open border situation. Here in America, "anti-immigration" really does imply racism. I've been told that there is no BLP problem here. I disagree. It's negative, poorly sourced information about a group of living people. With America's history of slavery, followed by a century of Jim Crow laws, few accusations are more pernicious in American politics than a charge of racism.

Even if there is no BLP problem, WP:NOCONSENSUS covers this situation: "However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter ..." This doesn't even require that the contentious information must be negative. It doesn't require that the "living people" must be individuals rather than groups. It is a much more broad prohibition than WP:BLP. And it's policy, not a guideline or essay.

I respectfully request that even if there is no BLP problem here, the WP:NOCONSENSUS policy (as well as what WP:FRINGE says about minority opinions) should be enforced. "TPm is anti-immigration" is definitely a minority opinion. Therefore, putting it in the second paragraph after the lede gives it too much weight per WP:FRINGE. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid it's clear that WP:BLPN is a wrong noticeboard; as no living persons are even identified, not to say named, there is no way this applies. I don't even see WP:NOCONSENSUS as applying, even though I think the statement is only marginally sourced, and quite possibly should not be in the article.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * To the contrary Arthur, Sarah Palin, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Dick Armey, Michele Bachmann, Glenn Beck, Rick Santelli, and several other politicians and public figures have been named in the article mainspace as Tea Party members, as well as people who aren't really public figures such as Ned Ryun, Trevor Leach, Ryan Hecker, Steve Beren and Keli Carender. This is the right noticeboard, particularly since there isn't a noticeboard for WP:NOCONSENSUS. WP:BLP is the closest approximation for what WP:NOCONSENSUS says about this situation. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I think we have some forum shopping going on here. This isn't the right board, please let the discussion play itself out.04:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I've just been directed by a member of the tag team, in a rather pointed fashion, to bring my concerns to the BLP noticeboard. Read this edit summary: "There is no BLP issue as you were told before. Bring it up at wp:BLPN like told before or drop it." In fact, he indicates that this isn't the first time I've been instructed to bring my concerns to the BLP noticeboard: "like told before." This time, I'll just do as I'm told and accept the fact that he knows more about the correct noticeboard to use than I do. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize there was a discrepancy between the European and U.S. understanding of "anti-immigration", but I will concur that, in the U.S., being "anti-immigration" is much, much different than being "against (or opposed to) illegal immigration." The former implies one is opposing immigration as a practice; the latter is debating legalities of process of immigration. Though, saying someone is "anti-immigration" is hardly claiming racism (perhaps "isolationism"...but not necessarily racism)...the two terms are not the same, and for BLP purposes should not be used interchangeably.   Ditch &#8733;  04:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I really disagree that there is a BLP problem here. No specific person is named as being anti-immigration.  WP:BLPGROUP suggests that there might be a problem if the group were small, but in fact the group is very large.  The issue can be sorted out via discussion that isn't burdened by the extra obligations of BLP.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * In fact, the word "generally" is used at the beginning of the statement that the TPm is anti-immigration, which means that ALL persons who are specifically identified as Tea Party members (partial, but by no means complete list provided above) are smeared with this broad brush, unless they're specifically called out elsewhere in the article as not being opposed to immigration. You see, that's one of the reasons why this anti-immigration claim is so mendacious. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 05:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, even if you feel there'sno BLP issue, how do you feel about WP:NOCONSENSUS and WP:FRINGE? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 05:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * if it isn't a BLP issue then this is the wrong forum. I suggest you take the advise given to you on your original post and give it a few more days so consensus can be guaged, and afterward if it is still WP:NOCONSENSUS you can take it back to the ANI board without the appearance of forum shopping.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Thomas Homer-Dixon
A request for some BLP gurus to take a look at recent edits to the Thomas Homer-Dixon article. I think it violates BLP policy in that it is not NPOV, seems to be a personal attack, and does not improve the article as an encyclopedic entry on this person. From of an incredible number of articles by this person over the past 2 decades this editor focuses on one, showing a great lack of balance. Thanks for your help. Jbghewer (talk) 14:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * looking at the entry I don't think placing the exchange itself in the career section violates WP:BLP, although it definitely violates WP:WEIGHT in two ways. First I am wondering if an exchange that started four days ago is appropriate for entry.  Second the exchange itself is taking up over a third of the "career" section.  I would personally cut it down to two or three sentences, or delete it altogether, but that is up to the community on that page as to what is appropriate.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Emily Ovenden
This user: [] is determined to insert information about child abuse convictions of Graham Ovenden into the articles of his estranged wife and daughter. This seems to be a BLP concern, as the respective articles are only one paragraph long, and this does not seem to be relevant in this context, and perhaps implies some connection between the daughter, and sexual abuse. Could this please be stopped. 81.141.31.196 (talk) 18:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no discussion of it on the talk pages. One could keep reverting them an claim 3RR exemption for BLP and then report them at the 3RR notice board. I would except I got in trouble last time I did. I gave up reverting BLP contentiuos pending consensus.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Emily Ovenden has been protected. Will try to use up my 3RR as well on the other. Was it reported? And yeah, you can get nailed to the wall over a 3RR even if you claim a BLP exception, especially if you drag something that isn't a BLP vio along with a revert. E.g., "John Foo is a child molester and bubble gum sculptor". Gods help you if you included the sculptor bit along with the contentious part. § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * as someone who mistakenly pulled that card recently (miscounted), it is HIGHLY recommended that you take it to the BLP noticeboard BEFORE you make the forth revert and ask for input (except in cases of very obvious defamation or obvious vandalism, in which case make sure you are placing the proper warning tags on the other parties page) without confirmation from this page that it is a violation of WP:BLP you could get nailed on a simple content dispute violation in spite of your intentions on this matter.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * (For avoidance of doubt here, Coffeepusher is referring to themselves, not to FreeRangeFrog) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Ottmar Schreiner
Can someone verify he's actually dead as two users seem to be claiming (they aren't adding sources for this). King Jakob  C2 21:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * try http://www.fr-online.de/politik/spd-politiker-verstorben-ottmar-schreiner-ist-tot,1472596,22300556.html Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes he is. § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * They weren't very hard to find really were they, old croak? Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Nein § FreeRangeFrog  croak 02:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Tommy Lee Jones


On the Wikipedia page related to Tommy Lee Jones, someone has inserted false information about Tommy Lee Jones being convicted of rape in 1983. I would remove this, but don't know how. Thanks.
 * Fixed, thanks for reporting it. § FreeRangeFrog croak 02:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Oliver McGee


I first came across this because it was tagged as A7. The tag was clearly wrong, but I considered deleting it anyway per G11. Meanwhile, another editor (rightly) removed the tag. I decided if I cut the article way back, it would no longer read like a promotional resume, so I did that. This is the version before I edited it. Pretty ugly. This is the version after I edited it. Since that time, there have been WP:SPAs adding back all the material. The IPs may be the same person as they all geolocate to Southern California. What the article really needs is improvement from my version, which is no doubt too stubby. Instead, it's back to this mind-boggling piece of junk. Any help would be appreciated.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Bbb. I've reverted the mess back to your version. If this continues I'll request the page be protected from edit warring and resume-like content. 99.0.83.243 (talk) 00:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * omg what a marshmallow. On watch. § FreeRangeFrog croak 00:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Page protection requested. At some point perhaps a sock or meatpuppet investigation will be appropriate. 99.0.83.243 (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Now at AfD. JFHJr (㊟) 22:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Andrew Helm


My concern is that very little of the sourcing here meets the high standards of BLP. There is some WP:CIRCULAR to other WP articles, a lot of IMDB in violation of WP:ELPEREN, a lot of WP:PRIMARY, a dead link or two, lots of unsourced credits, and a bit of WP:PEACOCK here and there. This article could use a lot more eyes. Substandard sourcing should be removed and, where possible, replaced with high-quality WP:RS that meets the standards for a BLP. Thank you. Qworty (talk) 16:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * the problem is that I can't seem to find any reliable sources for this guy. The interviews I can find are convention interviews (which don't establish notability unless done by a reliable source, which they are not) and the one already provided in the article.  Can anyone else find a source I am just missing?Coffeepusher (talk) 17:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. Does anyone think, then, that this would be a good candidate for AfD? Qworty (talk) 18:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't been able to find anything to satisfy notability standards, so I've gone ahead now and taken it to AfD . Qworty (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The article has been substantially resourced. Please take a look.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 15:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding WP:ELPEREN, the appropriate use of accurate information in IMDB is being discussed on the talk page, such that it is not a black and white issue. Wordsword1Wordsword1 (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Harold S. Koplewicz
This article has been the subject of persistent BLP violations by three users who have set up accounts purely to write on this subject. See link

The article is continuously and persistently edited by User: Ramondelante, User: Pennphdabd, and User: Aacowen2020 to be negative in tone, and contained many veiled anti-Semitic references until yesterday. I have politely asked all of them to stop, yet they continue to revert all edits back to their desired discussion of various issues without balance or neutrality,and of highly questionable encyclopedic value.

Most recently, has unilaterally removed a {db-attack} tag, reverted to an old version of the page and made a couple of superficial edits.

Since the subject is of questionable notability, I'd request assistance in determining whether the article belongs on WP at all. Jacksonjones1972 (talk) 21:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

This article continues to be subject to continuous insertion of non NPOV material by User: Ramondelante, who unilaterally rejects all edit attempts. Jacksonjones1972 (talk) 03:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The article is now at AfD, but it's clear it will be kept. There does seem to be an attempt to attack here, but just as much there is an attempt to whitewash.   DGG has indicated he will clean it up once the AfD finishes.  This does not mean that the article will be written in the way the subject might prefer.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Tommy Mars
The article States that Tommy Mars real name is Tommy Bariaco. His real name is Tommy Mariano. I went to school with him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.185.119 (talk) 17:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Totally unreffed BLP, have added tag, probably needs a good go-over and a source or two. To the OP, can you provide a reliable source that gives Tommy's birth name? The fact that you know that his name was xxx is no help at all.  Captain Screebo Parley! 17:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The OP is correct. I found a 1980 interview in Contemporary Keyboard magazine that includes this phrase: "Tommy Mars (whose real name is Thomas Mariano, he wants us to know) . . ." I will change the article.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  18:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Article infobox
This article hasn't got an infobox. I am busy on other projects if someone would like to look into a box and possible expansion. Seems a shame we have infboxes on other LP articles but not this one.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Karen Finney
The Wikipedia entry about me is incorrect. I was not born in Virginia. Additionally, I am no longer a political consultant or writing for The Hill, am now an Anchor for MSNBC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.229.49 (talk) 01:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Another editor and I have removed Virginia from the article. The problem with The Hill is the indication that you're a columnist there is recent, and we'd have to find a reliable source saying that it's over. Do you have one?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * In this case, you can probably reword things to avoid the issue - eg, "Finney has written for...". Zagal e jo^^^ 02:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It would also be nice to get a good picture of you. Otherwise some fool may upload and crop this fuzzy one. We can help expand your article but we need to do it according to policies.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Lilly Ledbetter
A few days ago I removed this section which was added by User:Creonitus. Creonitus additions were removed by four different editors but he reverted their changes. Yesterday, he restored the deleted material and expanded it.

The sources he used are:
 * http://ninthjustice.nationaljournal.com/2009/05/the-right-should.php
 * http://www.openmarket.org/2012/09/07/fact-checking-lilly-ledbetters-false-speech-at-the-democratic-national-convention/
 * http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2012/09/10/updated-not-two-decades-after-all-lilly-ledbetter-deceived-dnc-knew-of-her-pay-disparity-since-1992/}
 * http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/LedbetterJoinAppendix.pdf
 * http://www.senate.gov/fplayers/CommPlayer/commFlashPlayer.cfm?fn=judiciary070110&st=xxx

I do not think that primary sources and blogs are acceptable sources for a BLP. I'm not so sure about the National Journal blog. I'd like to have some extra eyes on the article if possible. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 12:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

(Reposted from Talk:Lilly Ledbetter): To resolve any concerns, I plan to edit the article by removing the blog sources and the current National Journal source and replacing them with the following journal and newspaper sources: "Misconceptions about Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co." by Hans Bader in the Journal Engage Volume 13, Issue 3 October 2012 (http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/detail/misconceptions-about-ledbetter-v-goodyear-tire-rubber-co); “Pay Discrimination Claims After Ledbetter” by David A. Copus in the Defense Counsel Journal, Volume 75, page 300, Oct. 1, 2008 (75 Def. Counsel J. 300 (2008)); and "Does The Ledbetter Law Benefit Workers, Or Lawyers?" by Stuart Taylor Jr. in the National Journal, January 31, 2009 (Updated January 30, 2011) (http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/does-the-ledbetter-law-benefit-workers-or-lawyers--20090131?mrefid=site_search). Please let me know if there are any objections.-- Creonitus (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creonitus (talk • contribs)

Margaret Thatcher
She recently died so some more eyes monitoring for vandalism etc would be good. And yes BLP still applies - recently dead with living relatives who may be impacted. Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 12:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Adam Boulton's obit of her (SkyNews) is likely to be used by someone - though it would never pass Wikipedia policies ... But the film also depicted unflinchingly the politician's descent into senile dementia, hastened by the death of her beloved husband, Denis. seems a tad egregious. Collect (talk) 13:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

John Fleming (U.S. politician)
re-adds:
 *  2012 abortion statement 
 * In February 2012, Fleming received criticism in the media for mistakenly thinking that a parody in The Onion about Planned Parenthood was an actual news story.[35][36]

Sourced to the "Minden Press Herald" in a "dead link" and to a blog post on the "Atlantic Wire" from Dino Grandoni - and then placed with a "red flag heading" about "abortion" in a BLP. It was not in any findable news archive (Atlantic Wire blogs, last I checked, are not a generaly accepted news sourse for contentious claims) and the story is of trivial signigficance to be given a full sub-section of any BLP. I was told by another editor that NPOV requires we give weight to this titem with its subsection title, and then removal would violate NPOV. I personally consider this on the same level as adding Gore's mssteps to the Al Gore BLP, or any other silly season type trivia - but using abortion which is covered by ArbCom dicta to such an article is, IMO, UNDUE from the start. Further views are welcome. Collect (talk) 12:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Did I miss something? Both references work, and neither is the Minden Press Herald.-- Auric    talk  13:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm a dedicated reader of the Atlantic's on-line material but a snark that didn't make it past the Wire is not exactly overwhelming in its notability. It's inclusion seems to me to a strain to find negative material. Mangoe (talk) 13:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Decidedly undue weight for a BLP. Arzel (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that the inclusion is undue weight especially since it didn't result in anything etc. Now if he had introduced policy based on his misread then we could include it, but this is simply a Political gaffe and not worthy of inclusion.  Must have been a slow news week when it happened.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Paul Frampton


Some will remember that this article was the subject of a small drama here due to an editor deciding that they were going to use Mr. Frampton's bio to document all drug-related crime in the world, including inventing a supposed "cartel", etc. Eventually said editor was blocked for BLP vios. The section about the subject's arrest and conviction was trimmed down (more info in the talk page). In the meantime, we've received a large number of emails via OTRS asking us to remove the section in question, and delete all information regarding the criminal conviction. A few of those emails were from the subject himself. Obviously we cannot do that, but it is fairly obvious that the section is a bit long if nothing else, and could use some trimming, not to mention one or two additional backing sources. I'm working on a bunch of other stuff so I can't get to that until tomorrow night at the latest, so if someone has a few minutes to fire up the BLP chainsaw and prune it, we'd be much obliged. § FreeRangeFrog croak 17:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Prior names for people who have undergone gender reassignment
On Talk:Kim Petras, there is currently a discussion going on about how/where to mention Kim's former name. Kim was born with male biological features, but asserted a female identity as early as 2, and had medical intervention starting around when she was 12, completing a full gender transition by the time she was 16. The question is whether or not the lead sentence should contain her former name, in the same way (in my thinking) that we would include the former name for anyone who changed names (e.g., someone who's name changed during marriage). Another user is arguing that prominently displaying the name is somehow adding to the subject's victimization; I admit not quite following the argument so I'll let the user's talk page comments speak for themselves so that I don't misrepresent them. I know that on some articles about transgendered people we include the former name in the lead, but in others we do not, and I'm not sure if there's a good standard, or if it's just random variance, or if, in fact, there is one "correct" approach per policy. Any thoughts, or prior discussion on the matter that you can point me to? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:39, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Though I am sympathetic to the reports that mentioning the birth name may cause her distress, I think that we have to recognize that her notability derives to a large extent from discussion of sex reassignment surgery at a young age. Accordingly, the birth name seems an entirely appropriate bit of biographical information. People change their names for many reasons and we routinely report well-referenced birth names in many biographies. So, my initial thought is that the birth name should stay in the article, but not be unduly emphasized. I remain receptive to well-reasoned counterarguments.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  03:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I am in agreement with Cullen328, particularly in this case where almost every reliable source mentioned the former name and in some cases only referred to her as "Tim." As long as it remains only the two mentions, once in the lede (due to the fact that some people may only know her as Tim) and once in the article then I don't see a problem.  Now I do believe that this should be a case by case basis, I can foresee some circumstances where I may feel really differently about this.  Caroline Cossey is an example where a mention in the lede would be inappropriate since she was never in the public eye under any other name than Caroline, but in the body would be ok.  And still there are other occasions when any mention would be completely inappropriate.

Coffeepusher (talk) 03:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I really don't think there is anyone out there who only knows her as Tim! The name only comes up because tabloid style news reporting tends to delight in this sort of thing! Kystal (talk) 21:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)Kystal
 * And to clarify my position as well: I wouldn't even consider removing the name entirely from this specific article, but neither has the other person involved suggested that. It is, as others pointed out, a matter of prominence. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Qwyrxian! :) Yes, the discussion is indeed about prominence. I feel that putting the name in the lede and in bold is inappropriate. For the record Little_Green_Rosetta is right to guess that I do (wrongly???) think there should be NO mention personally but you will note that I used to be quite involved in writing the entry some years ago and we didn't get into an argument on the matter. Giving it undue prominence is for me really crossing the line tho. I think putting it in the lede (the first thing you read about her!) makes it appear like it is some important piece of information, rather than some rather tawdry bit of data about a former nickname. It's clearly not a name she uses or wishes to use and is mostly used in the context of bullying, including a lot of vandalism we have had to the entry itself over the years. In fact the way it is now gives more prominence to it than much of the vandalism dared to! The idea that she was well known under the nickname Tim at some point doesn't hold to much scrutiny, we didn't start with a Tim Petras entry and have to change it to Kim, the wiki entry was always for Kim. If she was well known by the nickname Tim, then why was there no wiki entry before? Kystal (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the MOS (wrongly) disagrees and thinks there should be no mention.  little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 04:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * So I just re-read the guideline concerning LGBTQ(IA) transgender names, it appears that since she became notable prior to the gender change (a contestable point I know, but lets roll with it for a second) it is up to the community to decide if the name in the lede is appropriate. My feeling is in this case it should be maintained in the lede, as it stands, due to the significant amount of reliable sources that use either the birth name or both names.

Coffeepusher (talk) 04:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Firstly I'd say that's more than a contestable point as you appear to be equating surgery with said "gender change", as you put it. Secondly you bring up something that has only occurred to me recently but talking of "birth names" (presumably referring to the name on a birth certificate?) I think it to be VERY unlikely that Tim is the name on her birth certificate, as here in Europe at least, it is normally only used as a nickname. Anyway the wiki guidelines talk more in terms of given names than "birth names" so I think we should avoid talking in terms of the latter as it just seems to be muddying the waters.Kystal (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Katherine Hull-Kirk asked at the help desk to change her name. Her birth name is still in the lead because readers may know her better by that one as well as RS to her earlier career. Just an example some may wish to see.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to say I'm really shocked when people in this discussion keep comparing getting married to a childhood of being forced into living with the wrong gender assignment. It just leaves me open mouthed! I should point out that you aren't the first to mention this and I've been politely trying to ignore it but...Kystal (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If an statue is sculpted without tear ducts and then starts weeping liquid we do not ignore the fact that when it was first created it did not weep.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yikes! Well that's definitely not a thread I'm interested in going down! ;)Kystal (talk) 00:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I think we may be muddying up the water more than is needed for this issue by bringing in metaphors and similar but different issues. to clarify on my own terminology I was referring to "birth name" as the name she was given at birth, I am not sure why that is a "muddy" point, but I am willing to use whatever terminology you care to use to signify the name her parents gave her prior to her awakening at the age of 2. The policy we are discussing is here here, and it says that "For transgender and intersex people it is usually unneeded to put information on their gender, including an apparently male or female birth name, in the lead of the article, especially on a BLP. Often this should be woven into an 'Early life' section" yet it follows it with "In cases where a gender variant person is notable under a prior name, listing in the lede and infobox should be agreed upon by consensus to do so." My point is that there are more reliable sources in the article that use both names, than just use Kim. This is not an insignificant point, and show that she was notable under "Tim, the youngest transexual" before she was notable under "Kim the singer." So now what we need is community consensus on the name in the lede. you guy's asked for by the policy there is no problem either way you guy's choose to go. Now I am not sure about these claims to "bullying," "traumatizing," "victimizing," or how it will perpetuate violence upon Kim but I am hoping that such claims are backed up by interviews rather than speculation.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I probably made a very unclear point myself. Apologies also for the "muddying the waters" thing. It's a common phrase this side of the Atlantic! The point I was really trying to make is that Tim is usually a nickname and we have no actual evidence it was her birthname. No sources that state that, it is an assumption. It's also an assumption that is unlikely to be true given its use as a nickname. This is really, really helpful: "For transgender and intersex people it is usually unneeded to put information on their gender, including an apparently male or female birth name, in the lead of the article, especially on a BLP. Often this should be woven into an 'Early life' section". I hadn't read that bit but ironically that's EXACTLY what we used to have (the entry seems to have deteriorated a lot these last few years). It seems clear to me from that quote that we should definitely not list a gendered nickname in the lede. Thanks!Kystal (talk) 00:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that Kystal is a single purpose account used exclusively for editing Talk:Kim Petras, and has been that way since Feb 10, 2009. Kystal, is there a COI in this discussion?Coffeepusher (talk) 23:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You will also notice that I've not updated the entry since like about 2010 or something, but I've been dealing with other things. If there was a COI that would probably not be the case. For the record, there is no COI.Kystal (talk) 00:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That is actually not the point Kystal, the point is that the only article you have edited since 2009 is this one, and prior to that point you only made...16 edits, all of which are related to copyright from the point of view of the artists. This makes you a SPA. Coffeepusher (talk) 01:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ouch! So what you are saying is that the point is nothing to do with whether I have a COI or not (I don't, just to be super clear) but that I am an SPA? I really have to go to sleep right now (It's stupid o clock here) but I'll look into this... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kystal (talk • contribs) 01:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * that isn't an "ouch" point, but a point of concern especially for a BLP. It shows you are on wikipedia for one reason, to edit the Kim Petras article.  If your edits don't show a form of activism or censorship there isn't a problem. Coffeepusher (talk) 01:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have struck through my comments because after looking over the details of Kystal's edits I don't believe there is a problem with them editing. My furthering the conversation outside of pointing out that Kystal is a SPA implies more suspicion than is warranted at this time.  My apologies for misdirecting the conversation.Coffeepusher (talk) 02:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I changed the infobox from to. Is something going on that isn't in the article?-- Auric    talk  00:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec)I didn't bother translating the non-English sources but the two English ones are yellow journals. Do we have a normal source as to the male name and when it changed? The RS notice board may help. We can't claim her birth name was female and stating that 'she had a male name until..' would look silly because we don't have an RS to an actual male birth name.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm under the impression that theres no requirement for a birth name in the way you mean.Kystal (talk) 01:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I am under the impression that stern magazine is a reliable source, and I just translated the article (googlewize mind you, but it does it good enough to get the idea) and the article not only was written pre-music, but talks about how Tim moved to Kim around 2007...unofficially.Coffeepusher (talk) 01:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

There isn't and can't be a hard-and-fast rule about the inclusion or exclusion of a transgender person's birth name; it really depends on the circumstances.

For instance, if a transgender person was already notable enough for an article under their birth name and then pursued SRS — such as Chaz Bono, Alec Butler, Laura Jane Grace or Patrick Califia — then we do have to include the birth name, because we're misrepresenting their prior careers if we don't. Grace was credited by her male name, not her female one, on all of the band's albums prior to her transition, and Butler was credited by his female name, not his male one, on all of the plays he published prior to his — and thus, like it or not, we're simply lying if we don't acknowledge those facts. Or if their birth name is relevant in other ways, which it sounds like it might be at Kim Petras, then a brief mention of it is also probably warranted if it can be properly sourced.

But there are also many other cases, such as a person who's only ever been notable under their current name, where the birth name just invades a living person's privacy for no valid or compelling reason beyond trivia or prurient invasiveness.

Accordingly, the rule is not that we should always include a trans person's prior name, but it also isn't that we can never include it. We should certainly opt for exclusion whenever possible on WP:BLPPRIVACY grounds, but there are still some times when the birth name is unavoidably necessary to the context of the person's notability and must therefore be included. The question at Kim Petras, thus, is whether her former name is relevant in the context of her notability or not — inclusion or exclusion is dictated entirely by the answer to that question rather than by any specific policy one way or the other. Bearcat (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Bearcat, I applaud you for your sensible and lucid explanation, with which I agree completely.--ukexpat (talk) 01:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * That does seem really clear! The situation we have here is that she wasn't even notable enough to have an article before the Kim Petras article and that we don't really have clear evidence of what her birth name was. The disagreement started after Kims former nickname was given undue prominence in the lede. We weren't discussing the more minor mention of said nickname later on, although having discussed it here, I am now questioning whether this should not be included at all. I question whether a former nickname is UNAVOIDABLY necessary to the context of her notability or if it is just a bit of a tabloid tidbit to try and make the story seem more exciting and "sunsational". Kystal (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that a discussion of "birth name" which narrowly equates this to mean "the name written on the person's birth certificate" is going off on a somewhat irrelevant tangent. With the single exception of Barrack Obama, I can't think of any notable persons whose birth certificates are a matter of discussion.  "Birth name" indicates the name that they were called before the name change.  If there are reliable sources that she was named "Tim" before becoming "Kim," it's not relevant, or even interesting, what was written on the birth certificate.
 * Per the Project LGBT guidelines quoted earlier, it seems to me that the correct answer is that the name should be in the article, but not boldfaced and not in the lede unless she is notable under that name, which doesn't seem to be the case here. 128.156.10.80 (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Meryl Davis
Incorrect information was published recently regarding Ms. Davis' eyesight (claiming she has depth perception issues with her right eye). This is not correct, and has been removed from this article repeatedly, however someone keeps putting it back. I work with the sports management organization that represents Ms. Davis and we would request that this be removed. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moongazer67 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * well unfortunately it is a cited statement. The exact quote is ""When she was younger she would pretty much hug the boards because she had no depth perception," her mother, Cheryl, said. She also has trouble seeing with her right eye." The citation is here.  There are a couple of things you should probably familiarize yourself with before we move on.  I would recomend you read our reliable source guidelines which state what type of articles are admissible on wikipedia, varifiability which explains what content is allowed, Because you are close to the subject you should probably read our conflict of interest policy...and because of the number of single purpose accounts on this page you should also read Wikipedia's rules for using multiple accounts.
 * I understand that you believe that statement is untrue due to your close relationship with the subject of the article, now as I already said, the statement itself is cited, and verified which means as far as wikipedia is concerned it is true, and isn't of itself defamatory so this really is an issue that the community on that page should deal with.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think this answer is satisfactory, on multiple grounds. Instead of refusing the request, you should ask Moongazer67 with help in correcting the article.  Moongazer67, contra Coffeepusher, it is absolutely false that "as far as wikipedia is concerned it is true".  We seek to never have any false statements in Wikipedia, ever.  However, our best defense against false statements is to be very very careful about sourcing.  Can you help us understand how we might best verify what you are saying?  Has she given a statement somewhere, or is there something you could email privately to our email ticket system to prove what you are saying?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Jimbo, thank you for the comment and I agree that I worded verification poorly. I would resist the notion that I refused the request though.  Just to clarify, I've been keeping track of the history, and the page appears to have come to a consensus in favor of Moongazer67's request, so no direct action from an outside party was necessary.  Now you are correct that I failed to ask for further clarification, I tend to side with community consensus over conflict of interest parties, a sentiment which is shown in my reply.(however in this case I think this is a weight issue more than anything else).  Besides what you have already said, how could I have operated differently in this case?Coffeepusher (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for being so gracious. What I would recommend is to very carefully avoid ever giving the impression that Wikipedia doesn't care what is true, and cares only what is in reliable sources.  That's a dead meme these days.  It is because we care about what is true that we are so careful about reliable sources.  We acknowledge that those sources are sometimes wrong and note that this presents a tough challenge for us - as it would for any thoughtful and serious encyclopedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that is solid advise and I will edit appropriately.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

A. P. J. Abdul Kalam
User:Wasifwasif is edit warring on a biographical article and adding dubious claims to a person' religion by linking to unreliable sources. Even after leaving messages on his talkpage he keeps re-adding the same. Please at look at the article A. P. J. Abdul Kalam. Thanks--Neelkamala (talk) 10:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * See WP:BLPCAT; the references that were being used were not sufficient, and I've removed it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reverting the disruptive edits by User:Wasifwasif. He was claiming A. P. J. Abdul Kalam was a muslim and making changes to Islam in India article as well. I hope you take a look there and intervene in the matter. Thanks. --Neelkamala (talk) 11:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Another issue, User:Wasifwasif is continuing his addition of unsourced edits at Abdul Nazer Mahdani. Is there no way to end his disruptive editing? --Neelkamala (talk) 11:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Report at WP:ANI. Make sure it won't WP:BOOMERANG, though.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Laszlo Csizsik Csatary
Laszlo Csizsik Csatary was nowhere near the places he is accused of war crimes. All the accusations are hearsay and mistaken identity. There were more than one Csatary Laszlos in the area at the time. One was a prison warden. The present Csizsik Csatary Laszlo was acquitted more than once in different countries (one being Canada) of the so called war crimes he did not commit and could not have committed because he was stationed elsewhere. There is documented proof of that. Time to leave this man alone. He is innocent and everyone investigating the case knows it. His relatives were also with him and can testify to the fact that he was nowhere near where these atrocities took place. They were committed by others. By the way, Hungary was an occupied country by Germany in March 1944. Hungarians lost their personal freedom after that date until 1990. Read the history books and listen to the historians if you want the real truth not just false media hype. The man was a police officer and like many police officers, when he retires he has enemies, namely the criminals he arrests. Is this the reward a man gets for serving his country as a police officer? Shame on all who accuse him! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.170.57.173 (talk) 11:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think Talk:László_Csizsik-Csatáry would be a better place to voice your concerns. You will have to provide proof of what you claim.  Captain Screebo Parley! 12:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Donald A. Nixon bio
This completely unsourced article is more of an encomium to Donald A. Nixon than a dispassionate article about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.121.153.20 (talk) 19:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I PRODed it. polarscribe (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It can't be deleted by WP:PROD, because it has been prodded and deprodded before.  The article did have a few sources until they were deleted in November 2012 .  I'm not sure yet if I think that the prior version demonstrates notability either. Someone may want to look at this more closely to see if the article should go to AfD. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Andi Anderson


This is a biography of a porn performer created recently by User:Procrastinator16. It contains some extremely specific information with very poor sourcing. Perhaps someone with more knowledge in this area could find better sources or stub it down. Other articles created by the same user could use some attention as well. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Definitely inappropriate, badly sourced personal details with references to a MySpace blog and YouTube. Removed. § FreeRangeFrog croak 02:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Peter John Ross


The AfD template, above, is mostly for source review when it comes to coverage of the subject. I've nominated this article for deletion, but I'm open to withdrawing it, as I've done before. I think I'm impartial enough, but I don't have all the time in the world. Making matters worse, the subject is heavily and obviously involved. But a few of the links he offers might be worthwhile. I'll watch here and there for input, but I might be slow. Thanks for any hands and eyes. JFHJr (㊟) 01:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * John Ross is a dab page, and the AFD doesn't exist? Having one of those Tuesdays? ;) § FreeRangeFrog croak 02:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Aye, my apologies. Peter John Ross. JFHJr (㊟) 03:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Indian American?
Is there a guideline about describing the nationality of a BLP subject in the lead? For example: Or do we just use the terminology reported in reliable sources (assuming they mention nationality) All insights are welcome. Thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 14:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Someone is born in India but now lives in and has notoriety in the US? ie Deepak Chopra or S.T. Joshi. Do we call them Indian American authors?
 * 2) If someone is born in USA but their parents were born in India?  Do we call them Indian American?
 * WP:RS to WP:V, as ever. GiantSnowman 14:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Snowman. What if the sources don't mention nationality? That's usually when this comes up and I guess that is my real question.-- — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 14:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well 'Indian American' is not a nationality. If reliable sources don't confirm nationality/ethnicity etc., then we should not mention it in the lede, and instead explain the situation in the prose - 'X was born in New York to Indian parents' - again supported by RS. Assuming someone is Indian American because of POB/heritage is, while no doubt accurate, still technically WP:OR. GiantSnowman 14:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Excellent answer. Thanks for your insight and assistance!--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 14:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The relevant guideline is WP:OPENPARAGRAPH, which says, in part, In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable. Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability. Elizium23 (talk) 02:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Adrian Dix - needs full protect or at least semi-protect
Politically-hostile and highly POV in tone material regarding this individual, who is the leader of the New Democratic Party in British Columbia and is pretty much a shoo-in for the upcoming May election and the target of attack ads featuring the same material that is trying to be POV'd and conflated here, has reached 10RR if all the IPs and SPAs used are reckoned into it; formal 3RR does not occur because there are slight changes, often with more of an invective/accusatory tone, to avoid breaking the rules; the IP user who did the latest has done it at least twice before. This is campaign season, and this article will be subject to more of this. I reversed the latest re-additions by the IP user and a new SPA. It's time for this article to have a semi-protect at least, more like a full protect. The edit comment from the IP user in that sequence claimed that it was not POV, when it obviously was, and that because it was cited that made it OK....but the cite is to one of the attack ads on this, and attack ads are notably unreliable and also POV-charged.Skookum1 (talk) 04:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Please note User_talk:Skookum1 my comments in response to the SPA who just came at me on my talkpage, claiming he's been using Wikipedia for "many, many years" but used a mock category as a section title, and didn't sign. If he/she has used Wikipedia a lot, it could very well be a sock for a previously banned SPA user or IP user and I urge this SPA's IP be investigated....there are news stories btw about this person's party using government money/servers to interlope on the internet, if it's a BC government server that should be made public.Skookum1 (talk) 04:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This "experienced user" has just assailed me on WP:CANTALK and is wanting me to be banned for standing in his way. Yes, I do write on news forums and am often critical of this government/party, and am familiar with all their tactics as seen in the news forums; this is just more of the same, and is clearly coming from someone tied to the BC Liberal campaign.Skookum1 (talk) 04:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Skookum1 that "...I urge this SPA's IP be investigated..." then will be shown that it is at least 3-4 different individuals who are trying to bring the truth to the Adrian Dix webpage; and, it is Skookum1, an admitted pro-NDP and anti-Liberal, who is continually updating the webpage to reflect his biased opinion. At that point Skookum1 should be banned. For the record, unlike Skookum1, I personally have absolutely no direct or indirect political affiliation and have never blogged or commented anywhere online for or against the Liberals or NDP. downtownvanman 05:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Your claims are disingenuous, as have been your talking points claiming neutrality, when you accuse me of being an NDPer, simply for not wanting BC Liberal talking points and undue weight given to this matter, in the same tone of invective as by anti-NDP/anti-NDP blog/forum posts are.....I am not an NDPer, though there are Wikipedians who are publicly NDP and also Tory (none that I know of admit to being BC Liberal.....); you also claim to have been working on Wikipedia articles for years, but there's no evidence of that so far at all, and I don't believe you about not having a political affiliation, just as you can claim neutrality when your posts and accusations demonstrate anything but, the very evident fact of the matter is that you have persistently sought to portray Mr Dix in a defamatory matter and parroting the political campaign against him; and you have done nothing else on Wikipedia since creating your account, other than attack me. What is relevant here at BLP is that biographies of living persons cannot contain material that is slanted or biased; you may claim your (poorly edited and composed) editions, and the citation leading to the BC Liberal attack ad, are "neutral" but they are not.  Certainly not in intent.  That you have made this a "get Skookum1" campaign also suggests another agenda as you seem fully aware of me from forumspace, despite your protestations that you have neither blogged against nor for the NDP or the Liberals.....you are perhaps, a Conservative then?  Because you're something and for all your weasel words and accusations, it's clear that this one article and me is why you're here.  Unless you are the IP user who added similar material before, which makes this more of a 10RR than a 4RR violation.......your accusations and threats to see that I'm banned are becoming tiresome.....Skookum1 (talk) 13:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm concerned with 64.46.28.210 & downtownvanman. The former appears on the article yesterday & after leaving this morning, the latter appears. GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * All evidence suggests that this article has been a battleground between various partisans in BC/Canadian politics, some of whom have been outed in the real world press. This is bordering on a bad faith notice given Skookum1's public-revealed motives. In any case the article is being watched like a hawk for all directions. Mangoe (talk) 17:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * At least one of the people who contacted OTRS over their outrage that the article was protected was rather rude and quite frankly paranoid, asking if we were associated with the political party in question. Very little good faith here. § FreeRangeFrog croak 17:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

User G-Zay and BLP concerns
Tonight, I was going through the queues on OTRS when I came across this one. Basically for those people who do not have access to OTRS, the person is claiming that Gay-Z is falsifying information on articles, to the point where libel is being committed under the guise of "reliable sources," which are actually sources that they are making up. In December, Gay-Z was brought to AN/I here, but this OTRS request brings up the concerns again, with more information. I was wondering if anything should be done, as I do believe that they have made a good case to investigate, although it would help if someone with OTRS access could help. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Beyond BLP concerns, the ticket raised an interesting point around using Wikipedia (and the 'power' it derives from being trusted by Google) to spread rumors which might possibly harm the company and/or franchises in question. I think this is something that should be conceivably taken to WP:ANI and perhaps a community-imposed topic ban for the user explored. There are content disputes, there are BLP issues, and then there's this type of thing. I'm especially troubled by the evidence around the allegation that the user inserted gossipy material into an article, and then went to an external forum to say "look what I found in Wikipedia". That's definitely problematic. § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have gone ahead and opened a thread here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Subrata Roy
A slow edit war is going at Subrata Roy with back and forth addition and deletions. Request some moderator to look into it. Thanks--Neelkamala (talk) 10:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Munir Moosa Sadruddin
Munir Moosa Sadruddin has been associated with the field of education and research for 10 years. He has written several articles and research papers on National and International Platforms. He is associated with several Non-Governmental Organizations, working for the cause of Children health and education.

He is an independent researcher and a PhD Scholar from Hamdard Institute of Education and Social Sciences. His vision is to bridge media with education. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Munirmoosasadruddin (talk • contribs) 20:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. This noticeboard is for reporting problems with biographies that exist in Wikipedia. If you're asking if you can create an article, this is a better venue. And judging by your username, you might also want to read this and this. § FreeRangeFrog croak 20:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Peripheral BLP concerns at Secular Islam Summit
At Secular Islam Summit, we have a lone user edit-warring (eg. ) to restore two edits: one, the addition of information about scholar Yvonne Haddad intended to undermine her comments on the "summit" (stating that her institution at Georgetown is named after a Saudi prince), and the removal of information from her comment which both misrepresents it and which gives the impression that the people she is speaking about are radical Islamists. The first addition is sourced and accurate, but the sources aren't related in any way to the subject of the article (WP:NOR) and it's obviously intended to portray her as biased; we could just as well source the fact that she's written and edited several books on the subject published with various reputable academic presses, that she is a Christian who isn't being personally attacked by the demagogues in question, etc. In her comments about the speakers, leaving it at "the speakers are extreme in their views" in a section related to Islamism necessarily suggests that they are Islamists, and it is necessary either to include the full quote or to paraphrase. Both the attempt to portray Haddad as partisan and the implications about the summit speakers are BLP concerns. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 14:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Nicolas Maduro Page
Nicolas Maduro page has a WP:Weight issue, possibly due to sourced criticism getting removed or argued over.

Global press criticism of the last month is and some even before that is missing, (reincarnated Chavez as a bird speaking to him / cursing voters)

Profile photo has an unlikeness to the BLP subject as well, like putting a toothy, overjoyed Vladimir Putin as his profile picture. Just my two cents - MehWP2323 (talk) 20:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Zack Kopplin


There is one editor on this page that is continually deleting sourced material. They also earlier attempted to add defamatory sections based on their own personal opinions that were deleted. Given the recent coverage of this issue on major news channels, there are likely to be more people targeting the page.

Ideally, the page should be fixed and potentially protected for a few months or at least watched to avoid this recurring.128.42.159.220 (talk) 00:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There is as far as I can see a mix of unreliable sources (like YouTube) and some synthesis of what the sources are saying. The best way to counter "I saw da vidz they don't mention him" is to not use videos. I'm sure a transcript or written story exists to back up each of those claims. Also, take care with some of those sources, they looked like blogs to me. § FreeRangeFrog croak 00:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * So the most important recording is part of a news article, which describes the information in the recording, and backs up the most important part of the section. The rest is extraneous and can be cleaned up.  The larger issue is the continued deletion of a large amount of content, which even if specific sources need to be changed, is all-together backed up. 128.42.159.220 (talk) 01:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Once all that is properly sourced then there's no need to remove it, and thus the IP doing so can be told not to. But I'm having a hard time doing so right now after looking at what was removed. Maybe some good material got dragged along, but a lot of that wasn't particularly good. Especially the synthesis. You need to write what the sources are saying, not what you think they say. § FreeRangeFrog croak 01:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Easy to delete the synthesis then. Also take a look at the other edits specifically the criticism section that was shortly inserted by one of the editors.  It was one gigantic violation of NPOV and based on Facebook comments.128.42.159.220 (talk) 01:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Deleted the synthesis now. Still expect that the rest will be deleted.  Nothing is/was actually backed up by videos except for the video of Michele Bachmann's statements, which I imagine is appropriate and was never at issue.128.42.159.220 (talk) 01:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That looks better, thank you. I've left a message in the other editor's talk page. § FreeRangeFrog croak 03:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

For regular BLPN helpers, see talk
Hi all, a (few) dozen regulars or so? and it does get very tiring eternally wikilinking people's posts, trying to work out who they are talking about, or adding the template.

Please see my talk page discussion/suggestion here. I would like your feedback, as I do not wish to unilaterally impose a major change to a well-frequented page, I think the changes are a major improvement, and, for the moment, I have a +1 and have made subsequent changes that seem more coherent (i.e. in the "Volunteer suggestions" section of the header it now refers to placing the template before considering removing it). I don't have to name you, you know who you are, feedback please, 'Be Bold' as may be, but collegiality concerning such a high-volume page as this.  Captain Screebo Parley! 19:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, if there's no feedback then I'll just go ahead and make the changes this weekend. Word of advice!  Captain Screebo Parley! 13:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Quin Snyder photo
This is regarding File:Quin Snyder.jpg. one editor suggested: "don't needlessly antagonize people. wikipedia doesn't need more enemies." another: "The subject had complained about it and it is of very poor quality. Find another one." Editor Zagalejo suggests: "It's not worth making people angry. You don't want someone to end up complaining to the press."

Do they have legitimate BLP concerns? The photo of Snyder currently available on Commons is the one free photo of the person I can find. Arbor to SJ (talk) 05:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Well the answer to "The subject had complained about it and it is of very poor quality. Find another one" is "please ask the subject to provide a better quality image with an appropriate copyright release". The only way I could see an image being a BLP violation was if it caught the subject in flagrante delicto.--ukexpat (talk) 12:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:MUG disagrees with you. Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And it says Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. - where is the disparagement in File:Quin Snyder.jpg? It's a crop from an image taken at a game. It's a bit fuzzy but is that disparaging?--ukexpat (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It makes the article look amateurish. That can cause the subject to be embarrassed. Synder's camp might be even worried that people will blame them for the poor image. (Based on what I've seen on feedback pages, a lot of people still assume that Wikipedia articles are controlled by the article subjects.) Zagal e jo^^^ 00:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've proposed a compromise. Arbor to SJ (talk) 05:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * In the interest of avoiding a fragmented discussion, Arbor to SJ's proposal was: "My proposal for a compromise: leave the infobox blank, but put the 2012 photo of Snyder within the coaching career section.—Bagumba (talk) 17:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

This was discussed originally at the conflict of interest noticeboard (see here). I started a thread here to deal with the obvious BLP issues. As for the image, there is absolutely no requirement to have one. What we have is a low-quality image that someone claiming to represent the subject has complained about. If it were a decent quality image, I would try to find out what exactly the problem is, but it isn't decent quality. Just leave it out. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I just emailed a team executive in Russia. I kept it simple in case they need to google translate. I gave them a link to OTRS at commmons which does have a Russian version. We may wish to leave the image out for a while in case they do provide a better one.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Strs2010, who claims to represent Snyder, already committed to providing an alternative photo. My suggestion is to assume good faith and provide a reasonable time for this to be completed. Otherwise, I fail to see where the photo, viewed as a thumbnail, is of poor quality. Clicking on the photo and viewing instead in a higher resolution is another story, but that is a minor point and a product of being limited to free content.  It seems more beneficial to have a thumbnail with his resemblance, than to worry about the poor quality in the limited cases someone expands it.—Bagumba (talk) 17:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've also left a note for Strs2010 to comment here.—Bagumba (talk) 17:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * @Strs2010. I have my email on: Special:EmailUser/Canoe1967. If you send a photo I can upload it to commons. The backlog is a little long at their OTRS but they usually assume good faith with my uploads. We can put it in Mr. Snyder's article as soon as I get it and deal with the paperwork later. Just have the rights holder (usually the photographer) give you a verbal/email ok and make sure they know what a 'free licence' is. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ is one of the most common ones.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I can do the OTRS handling if we're able to get an image sent. I'll watch this thread. – Connormah (talk) 23:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Katheryn Winnick


Persistent removal of sourced content. The question is whether the source is reliable, and, secondarily, whether the account claiming to be the subject's manager is more believable. 99.0.83.243 (talk) 02:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll help to watch and review things. But I'll note no apparent previous discussion here or on the talk page. That's the best place to go if discussion hasn't been elsewhere. There's also WP:RSN for the particular source(s) in question. I hope you'll take the source to talk and/or to RSN. Conflict of interest problems in BLPs are equally pertinent to WP:COIN, and WP:SPI if multiple accounts are abused. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 02:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I've determined Toro is a self-published source (see also rules specifically by and regarding living persons). I've also determined it's not particularly reliable. Its information can be questioned with any reasonable objection. Here, the information isn't particularly controversial, except to the point of the apparent agent and WP:SPA's idea of WP:BUTITSTRUE. That aside, it's a reasonable objection given the source. In this case, it happens to be that no solidly reliable source is offered for such a drastic (lead line no less!) change to this subject's basic biographical features. I'll revert on WP:BLP grounds. JFHJr (㊟) 02:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for researching this. I'll leave a note at the agent's talk page. 99.0.83.243 (talk) 03:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what makes you think Toro is a self-published source, but the magazine article is a interview with her and why on earth would they just make up the fact that her name is Katerena Anna Vinitska? Anyone could come on here and say they are the actor themselves, or an agent or manager and say something isn't true when it is. I don't find her "manger's" statements reliable at all. I think the birth name should stay until it can proven that it's not true. Lady Lotus (talk) 13:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Toro (magazine) a self published source? What? Absolutely not. It had a 4 year run, had a sizable staff, and gathered a slew of awards. This is the 2005 edition we're talking about, print, not web-only. --GRuban (talk) 14:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's also repeated in the National Post, so clearly they trust it. Note the "manager's" comment: "I am her manager and her legal name is NOT Katarena Anna Vinitskya" - he's not claiming it never was. We don't know the status of her legal name. We do, however, have reliable sources that it was her birth name, so that's what we should say (as we do for Marilyn Monroe, for example). --GRuban (talk) 14:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

DOB court case
This might be of interest to some here. GiantSnowman 12:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And quite right too. It's a travesty that costs orders aren't the norm in the US. If that been a UK court case, she would be paying most of the defendants' legal costs too.--ukexpat (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Given the recent UK legal reforms, it is likely she would be paying all of the defendant's costs. GiantSnowman 15:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * We should distinguish between costs and attorney fees. Generally in the U.S., the loser pays costs but not fees.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Michelle Collins


Issue regarding the subject's birth date. We received an email asking us to amend the year to 1962, while 1961 is supported by a reference to an interview in the Daily Mail where she admitted to being 48 years old in 2009. For the time being I've declined it, citing that source, but if anyone has some time to find a reliable secondary source that would support 1962 we can add a note to that effect in the intro, and amend the infobox appropriately. § FreeRangeFrog croak 19:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * According to the brith records at http://www.findmypast.co.uk two "Michelle D. Collinses" were born in Hackney, one in 1960 and another in 1962. Note that sometimes if the birth was in December x the birth is registered in January x+1. But this wouldn't be the case if her birthday is 28 May.  So the Daily Mail article is wrong; she was 47 in December 2009, not 48, although it is hardly well known for its accuracy.  Is original research OK if it's to correct a basic factual error?  Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh no look Daily Mail contradicting itself http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2048399/Michelle-Collins-London-fashion-designers-snooty-theyre-friendlier-North.html Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Good find. So now we have three competing sources. One we cannot use, because it would violate WP:BLPPRIMARY (nonetheless, good find as well). The second seems to be valid in the sense that I doubt they'd publish something she said without her having said it. The third contradicts the second, and is from the same source. We could ask the person who emailed us for a photocopy of her passport or birth cert, but that would run us into WP:BLPPRIMARY as well. So, what we do in these cases? We friggin' remove the date altogether, and add a note to the intro clarifying why we don't know the date. Thoughts? § FreeRangeFrog croak 19:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * How do we know her birthday is 28 May? Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no idea. Thus my point that it has to go. § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Natalie Gauci
Over at Natalie Gauci we're having some issues with someone claiming to be the subject of the article repeatedly blanking sections of the article on the basis that "I am no longer existing as this brand" and "It is damaging to my art and my career". The content of the article looks fair enough to me, and supported by sufficient sources; the user's primary objection seems to be that the article includes information on Gauci's involvement with Australian Idol, specifically that she won the competition in 2007. I've s-protected the article but the user is now posting on the talk page demanding the article be taken down and posting a (not valid, as it has too many digits) phone number on the talk page.

I am not at all convinced that this person is Natalie Gauci, but some further eyes and opinions on the article would be welcomed. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC).


 * I'm in agreement with the other editors who posted on the talk page. I've taken a look at the section under dispute, and it appears to be well cited and accurate.  More importantly it isn't defamatory in nature, rather it does just talk about her career prior to 2009.  From what I can see the main concern is that Gauci had a break with Sony, and that the editor would like anything tying Gauci to Sony removed.  If this is the actual concern then I don't think there is anything we can do for her, but I will post a question on the talk page.  Perhaps I am completely misunderstanding the controversy so I will give them another chance to say specifically what they want.Coffeepusher (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see any problems there. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't meant to be pedantic, but I remember having this problem on the Simple Wikipedia that I didn't think it was a real number either but it was (after talking to an Australian editor) because Australian numbers are a little different than the U.S ones I'd been thinking of. Strangely, the number posted by this user according to Google is for a UK-based artist named Nellie Bell. hbdragon88 (talk) 18:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There is an OTRS ticket on this matter. If this person continues to post to the talk page, please ask them to respond to the email sent yesterday in response to their earlier email. I'd recommend getting into discussions about the article so we don't end up with two parallel conversations. I will update if I believe any edits are necessary as a result of the email conversation.  HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  18:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there specific information in the ticket that could help determine just what the problem is? It seems several sections (and at times the whole page) have been blanked, so it's difficult to decide just what we need to address here, if anything. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm working on it. The best thing to do for now is to use your best judgement wrt BLP. OTRS tickets are confidential, but if any specific concerns arise, I will let you know. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you link to the ticket? I have OTRS access. Or is it in Quality? § FreeRangeFrog croak 19:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course, it's 2013041010007693. It's in quality, but if you have info-en (l) access, you should be able to read only now you have a link. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  20:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks. § FreeRangeFrog croak 20:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There's absolutely no reliable sources for this, but there are a few mentions on FB and the like that Nellie Bell is a stage name for Gauci. I've had a look back at the phone number and I'd erroneously assumed that it was an Australian number (it superficially resembled a Gold Coast, Queensland number), but it does look like it is a kosher UK number, which does match somewhat with Gauci being a music teacher in the UK.  However, I'd assume that someone who has recently moved country would know you have to prefix the phone number with an international dialing code.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC).
 * With respect, it might be best if you leave the attempts to verify her identity to OTRS. Speculating on a public noticeboard isn't likely to resolve the issue (assuming it's relevant in the first place) and is only likely to further antagonise somebody who is already unhappy with us. Thanks, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  09:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

R. J. Ellory
Would someone mind having a look at the above? It could probably do with being re-written into a single chronology to avoid placing undue weight on particular aspects. Thanks, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  10:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the one negative paragraph is well done. At least it doesn't have 10 sources and its own section. § FreeRangeFrog croak 00:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Erica Andrews
Could we get some eyes on this BLP of a recently deceased person? An editor appears to want to make this article a tribute page with puffery and dubious (Read MySpace) sourcing. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 04:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Beheaded (band)


Why does this page have "multiple issues"?

Why not? Beheaded are a successful well-known band in the Death Metal genre and deserve an article.
 * The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for music. (November 2008)

The information in the article is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LukeCollins12 (talk • contribs) 10:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This article needs additional citations for verification. (November 2008)
 * The policy we are looking at is WP:MUSIC. Right now I cannot find anything within the article except for one interview which would qualify as a reliable source.  Additionally they fail WP:MUSIC, WP:BLPNOTE, and WP:ANYBIO.  now if you can find sources and can add them to the article that will improve all of the problems, but from my understanding those tags are correct.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've nominated for deletion. Old tags haven't been improved. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 18:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Annayum Rasoolum
as per the above link, under Cast Details, information / link given is wrong. I know this person well and he is not a hindi actor...Please refer his face book account details for further  https://www.facebook.com/#!/rajesh.sharma.3720?fref=ts Rajesh sharma as the person who wants to marry Ann

(This actor born on 1st Decmber 1973 in Kollam, in a konkani family, Father 's name K.Jayatha Sharma, Mother: N Jaya Lekshmi) .He is a famous malayalam drama actor, who won Kerala State Award for Best Drama Actor in the year 2001. further details pls contact him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.237.130.202 (talk) 12:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The Annayum Rasoolum article doesn't appear to contain the word "Hindi". I didn't see any recent versions that did. I've removed the actor's name from the article because I didn't readily find confirmation of his role in reliable sources, or even IMDB. Anyway, the article is about the movie, not the actor. If the actor has an article (this one?), reliably sourced information can go there, but not things that you know to be true without a decent citation. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 17:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Allan Savory

 * Archived BLPN thread
 * Archived BLPN thread

I'm running into repeated insertions of citations on text that the sources don't actually support. I'm happy to keep removing those that obviously fail verification as to any claim at all, but I don't have full access to some sources. Could someone with better access please check out the bits that I've tagged as needing verification? I suspect it's a lot of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and even WP:CITEKILL/WP:FAKE/WP:BOMBARD, which are recurring problems in this article. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 15:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes please give it a look in, I have been otherwise occupied but of the original articles we have one non-notable offshoot that has been deleted, one that has been directed to Savory and one currently at AfD. Some editors seem to believe that adding swathes of (often) tendentiously referenced material to an article somehow makes it more valid. Please check the history as there are two recent editors who insist on piling more and more information into the Savory article, and I haven't had the time to look into everything either, but I do agree that in this subject area some editors insert assertions with references, and the references do not back up what has been added.  Captain Screebo Parley! 16:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If non-accessible sources are being used to support extraordinary claims, I'd say let's kill 'em. I don't have problems with a 30-year old magazine being used as a citation for the fact that the subject used to drive a blue Ford Fairmont, but when the claim is controversial or delicate, it should have multiple reliable sources. If not, then the claims should be removed. § FreeRangeFrog croak 19:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * JFHJr is right and this really does need more eyes, I have just removed a WP:FAKE reference called "Bring back the buffalo", which was purportedly referencing a whole section about Savory's political involvement in the Rhodesian civil war (it's a bit long, Ctrl-F to find the mentions of Savory if you're interested). Holistic management has been recreated after it's deletion here and there is definitely some WP:CITEKILL there too.  Captain Screebo Parley! 13:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Related articles holistic management and Holistic Management International are undergoing significant discussion. Talk:Holistic management identifies significant problems with the article, which was recently deleted by consensus and recreated shortly after. HMI is being discussed at deletion review. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 00:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Martha Rosler, false facts repeatedly inserted


First: sorry I am not a wikipedia expert, so can't say this with more weight.

Someone keeps changing the Martha Rosler biography to say she was born in Canada, and that she lives in Toronto. This is untrue. She was born in Brooklyn where she currently lives.

I have corrected the error several times now, and two people (called 'Themindseye', and 'I dream of horses') keep reinstating the false information. And because Wikipedia is now cited as an authority, including by google, Ms Rosler is now being erroneously introduced in important public fora as Canadian when she is not.

Here is some correct biographical info, first from the artist's own site:
 * http://www.martharosler.net/about/index.html
 * http://www.egs.edu/faculty/martha-rosler/biography/

It doesn't take much to check these facts, so I suspect a prank.

sincerely, Deborah 124.169.154.4 (talk) 23:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Claims in biographies require reliable sources. Since neither the Canadian or American nationalities or birth place can be sourced, then we have to remove both. We cannot use primary sources either, so your links are out as well. If you can give us a secondary source with the correct information then we can use that, otherwise the article will have to omit that information. § FreeRangeFrog croak 23:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Good morning, and thank you. The article has now been changed, though it now includes the sentence, 'She has also lived and taught in Canada', which is not true either, except for guest lectures.

Is the European Graduate School site not a secondary source? (that is a genuine question)

thank you again, Deborah — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.154.4 (talk) 00:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Well the policy that would apply would actually be WP:SELFPUB which doesnt prohibit self published primary sources for non-controversial issues. 'X was born and lives in X' cited to their own professional website would fall under that banner. Unless there is some sort of controversy over their upbringing, which can happen - people claiming to be one nationality when they are another etc Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with OIDDDE. This is uncontroversial. BLPSPS is fine as long as it's not used to claim something is significant (notability), or make contentious claims (verifiability). JFHJr (㊟) 00:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I agree that there's nothing extraordinary or contentious being sourced from there, so self-pubs are really not an issue. § FreeRangeFrog croak 00:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Jane Davidson
An edit war needs to be avoided on the Jane Davidson page. A user Lstokes71 is removing content that is written from a neutral point of view, is verifiable and is not original research. This article has a history of edits from people wishing to portray the person it is about from a non-neutral point of view. I have reverted the edit where Lstokes71 removed a section I added which I ensured met WP:NPOV following a long discussion over how criticisms made about the subject can be written in an unbiased way. Lstokes71 seems to want to censor the truth, not only from reliable sources but clearly verifiable ones as well. Admin needs to take action --Politicool (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You are being quite disingenuous here, and I'm honestly thinking of taking this to WP:AN/I. The fact that she edited her Wikipedia bio becomes mostly irrelevant when you remember that a month later it was reported to this noticeboard, and I removed all the poorly-sourced and poorly-worded mishmash of weasely and obviously biased criticism. At the time, we had a discussion about why that material was removed, as it can be seen in the talk page, and apparently you walked away not happy but at least acknowledging that the material had to go given its rather poor state. You could have added it back, with reliable sources and appropriate NPOV, and no one would have said a peep. In fact, had you inserted criticism in the way you are well aware is the correct one, I would have helped with the reverts from her associates or friends or whatever those SPAs are. And now apparently her actions are big news, but the journalists who wrote the story failed to note that her changes were reverted by you (manually adding back or augmenting the poorly sourced and undue criticism no less) and then mostly removed again by me, based on clear policy-based concerns rather than preference or bias. Quite interesting how you chose to name the section 'Wicigate', which you either made up, or pulled from "Crocels News", which is far from being a reliable source. § FreeRangeFrog croak 20:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes the term 'Wicigate' was from Crocels News. But regardless of that website, are you saying that that the Western Mail is not a reliable source? Are you saying that the Wales Online website that means you can verify that Western Mail article is not a reliable source? I may be a bit close to the issue, in that I know Jane Davidson personally. I edited this "selective" information in only following the original article about her not declaring her appointment. When she was in office she was very unpopular locally for getting out of tough local decisions by citing "conflict of interest." So when she didn't declare this conflict of interest I was furious. So while I may have a bias because of her double-standards, I am no less biased and have no less a conflict of interest than the others who edit that page, who try to make her out to be better than she is. --78.148.56.102 (talk) 14:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I am saying Crocels is not a reliable source. If I thought the others weren't either, I would have outright removed the material from the article. And if the source isn't reliable, then the term isn't, either. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've had a look at their about page and I can't see how it does not meet WP:SOURCE, especially as it seems to be run by a limited company with articles written by experts. You think otherwise? --Politicool (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * So we accept them as a reliable source because they say they are? § FreeRangeFrog croak 20:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * How else do you suggest? What is the benchmark you use to interpret the WP:SOURCE policy in terms of inclusion v. exclusion? --Politicool (talk) 13:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The same way we determine notability for subjects - establishing that others trust the source. As far as I can tell from Google that site is part of a large network of self-published websites with no notability whatsoever, and no secondary mentions of note anywhere, but if I'm mistaken then I'm sure it would be simple to prove me wrong. § FreeRangeFrog croak 20:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * How do you define self-published? Crocels News is published by a company not a person, as with blogs. Does Microsoft self-publish MSN? Do JPress self-publish the Worksop Guardian? Are you saying that if Microsoft launched a website called, 'Chavspark' which was targeted at a small market that it wouldn't be notable enough to be linked to? Notability does not apply to permalinks only articles. No one is asking for an article on Crocels News. Are you saying you are going to edit out all the hyperlinks on Wikipedia articles to websites that don't meet WP:Notability? What next, forcing every editor to see if a company is listed on the stock-exchange before linking to one of their websites?! --Politicool (talk) 21:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I agree with the Frog. Which is a shame, since Crocels is clearly trying to be a reliable news source. But in some time looking, I haven't found any other reliable sources treating them as one. The difference with MSN, etc., is precisely that other reliable sources - other news agencies, books, magazines - cite them, quote them, follow up on their stories, treat the things they publish as likely true. That's what "reliable" means in this context. I looked for Crocels, and the only sources that I can see referring to Crocels are other Crocels sites. Looking a bit more closely, it seems that Crocels is mostly a gentleman named Jonathan Bishop. The name Mark Beech crops up at times, but more than half of all Crocels items that I can find are written by Bishop personally, including this wonderful piece in which he refers to himself, in the third person, as an Internet trolling expert. Besides that he seems to be a minor Welsh politician, which inherently gives him an interest in the success or failure of Davidson, another Welsh politician. Those are all additional factors that seem to make it self published, and potentially biased. But first and most important thing, as our amphibian friend croaks, is that we can't establish that other reliable sources generally trust them for such important matters as saying bad things about living people. --GRuban (talk) 18:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. We seem to have an article on Mark Beech - described as "an unemployed career politician". I see Politicool has edited it. It seems a bit overegged "became the first member of his family to stand for the UK Parliament"; "broke the Official Monster Raving Loony Party record for the lowest ever number of votes after polling just 1 vote". Droll, but I suspect it wouldn't stand up to an WP:AFD. --GRuban (talk) 19:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * My analysis of the source seems to indicate there's a large number of self-referential websites operated by the same company or individuals. Part of what makes a source reliable is how much other people out there seem to trust them, and I couldn't find any instances of anyone doing so. I might be completely wrong, but that's just my perception. I'll also note that, according to our internal search and Google, this article is the only instance of Crocels being used as a reference or an external link. Nothing wrong with that again, but if Politicool wants to introduce them as a reliable source, the onus is on him to prove they are. § FreeRangeFrog croak 19:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Historical figures sometimes considered autistic


This may not be the right forum, but I'm sure it will be read by the right people. Historical figures sometimes considered autistic seems harmless enoug when it speculates that Lewis Carroll or Emily Dickinson were autistic-- but the page also makes the WP:FRINGE claim that Adolph Hitler is "sometimes ocnsidered autistic".

In this case the "living persons" are modern people with autism, and I worried about BLP-esque concerns about how Historical figures sometimes considered autistic could affect modern populations. At the same time, there's no bad faith at play here--  there are two authors who have speculated Hitler might, potentially, be autistic.

Note, these claim would be WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE on the Adolph Hitler biography article, but genuinely meet the minimal inclusion standards for Historical figures sometimes considered autistic. We need consistency at Historical figures sometimes considered autistic, but at the same time, I think comparing Hitler to any group of living persons raises some BLP concerns.

I genuinely don't have a good answer to this-- we need to be consistent, but we need to avoid negatively affecting the lives of living persons. Advice? --HectorMoffet (talk) 12:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That is taking BLP a bit too far. We can't keep people we don't like out of groups to avoid offending the groups. Hitler was also a vegetarian, should we hide that fact to avoid offending vegetarians? --GRuban (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * We have lots of reliable sources to indicate Hitler really was a vegetarian. Autistic Hitler is a very fringe theory put forward by in a work called 'pseudoscience'.   Note I don't object to the listing of Jeffrey Dahmer on the page, because he actually met with many psychiatrists who could, at least in theory, diagnose him;   That's very different than random speculation about historical figures, where the 'diagnosis' wasn't formalized until decades or centuries after the individual's life-- in those cases, the evidence amounts to "What if this famous historical person was Autistic?" . --HectorMoffet (talk) 21:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with GRuban, the WP:BLP guidelines are not intended to protect groups of people from historical research, provided that research is accurate and contained in WP:RS. Additionally I think we are probably extending the definition of "harm to living persons" outside the realm of the possible.  The problem I'm seeing is that you were just fine with this category, which I personally see problems with but that is for another forum, and its criteria for inclusion, up until someone you didn't like was added.  I truly don't mean any disrespect but I don't think there is a WP:EXCEPTHITLER policy.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree WP:BLP isn't literally at play here-- large groups aren't a 'person'.  It's more that the article needs attention from people who get the spirit of BLP.   Right now, it's mostly collection of speculations from a single pseudoscientific author.  Diagnostics are hard enough on the living, diagnosing the past is problematic, but I don't have a quick solution-- which is why I'm here.   I agree, for example, that WP:EXCEPTHITLER would just be WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  --HectorMoffet (talk) 21:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

When an article title contains a weasel word like "sometimes" - that in itself is a huge red flag. Quite honestly, I think the article is a attempt to push a fringe theory by giving it an entire article by itself. There is but one source for the vast majority of it and that suggests a huge undue weight problem. I would suggest adding small sections to each individual person's biography and deleting the page. polarscribe (talk) 21:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I, for one, have a hard time fathoming that this article even exists. "Sometimes considered" in an article title? Really? Where does this rabbit hole end?  Ditch &#8733;  01:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia users sometimes considered sarcastic. polarscribe (talk) 02:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, BLPN readers, especially Polarscribe and DitchFisher, for the insight that the problem lies in the broadness of the article title. Looking at the article's last AFD, an editor has made a similar comment and proposed a rename that would narrow the scope of the article and remove weasel words from the title. I've now proposed a rename to the title suggested by at the last AFD. I suspect the rename will meet with consensus and solve the problem. Thanks for the insight, I had a hunch that even though WP:BLP wasn't at play, BLPN readership would be able to help. --HectorMoffet (talk) 08:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Frank L. VanderSloot
In regard to the above article, it would be helpful if somebody would remove two contentious sentences from the article, here, while their use is being debated on the talk page, here. An intervention might help avoid another in a series of edit wars, which have bedeviled this article. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * George's post merely exacerbates the problem he has been creating, in asserting that the sentences need to be deleted instead of fixed. George perceives certain problems -- but instead of fixing them he simply deletes.  I have been trying to address his concerns, though it was difficult as he declined to specify what they were.  Now that he has done so, the constructive path forward is to call for other editors to help fix the sentences.  (Whether fixing is in fact necessary depends on the cogency of his talk-page points...)  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I see no problems with the sources in question - MSNBC and National Journal are, almost by definition, reliable sources. polarscribe (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

His attorneys sent "threatening letters" to 'Forbes', 'Mother Jones' and 'Salon' insisting that they remove articles on his public statements regarding gay rights and Melaleuca's business practices; he had previously used similar tactics regarding local political blogs in Idaho seems to be a statement of opinion - and thus should not be in Wikipedia's voice but should be attributed to those holding those opinions. Collect (talk) 00:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC) BTW, MSNBC may be reliable for news content cited for facts, but opinion shows for some odd reason deal with opinions - thus are not reliable for statements of fact in Wikipedia's voice. Collect (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it is an undisputed fact that such letters were sent. See this article on Salon.com. polarscribe (talk) 00:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And that they were "threatening"? And that he had used "similar tactics"?  Seems like opinion there -- the "fact" is that VdS' attorneys sent letters asking for retractions and removal from internet archives of articles theat they objected to.  The rest is "opinion" and should not be made in Wikipedia's voice.   Greenwald's "article" on Salon is so obviously an opinion piece that one can not use it as a "fact" source for "threats" - especially since one might well consider any letter from any lawyer on any topic to be a "threat."  Cheers -- but opinions must be cited as opinion and not asserted as fact in Wikipedia's voice.  Collect (talk) 00:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it is not opinion that a letter which threatens legal action is "threatening." If the letter says "do something or we'll file a lawsuit," that is, objectively, a "threatening letter." There is no opinion in that statement. Either way, the words in question are in quotation marks, which makes it clear that those were Greenwald's words. And yes, if letters making legal threats were sent to one organization, and letters making similar legal threats were sent to another organization, then that is a similar action. I suppose you could object to the very-mildly-loaded word "tactics," but I already edited that word out of the article as part of a rewrite. polarscribe (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking at the article, and thanks to most of you above for keeping personal remarks out of the equation. The more people with the article on their watch lists, the better. Your friend in Wikidom, GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Brooke Medicine Eagle
is an article about a controversial medicine woman. Her website says that she has ancestors in 6 Native American tribes, but this has been contested in a statement by the Center for the SPIRIT (Support and Protection of Indian Religions and Indigenous Traditions).. A search for this Center and its director John Lavelle, a native American lawyer, turns up enough material for me to see this as a reliable source, eg and. This appears to me to be at least as good a source as her website. One editor has been contesting it.

While I'm at it, this article by Marie Annette Jaimes, Ward Churchill's wife, is used to back the statement "Edwards was a subject in a scholarly article about American Indian women, where the roots of her name and ancestry were documented, along with a description of a vision she claimed to have experienced. When I see that something has been documented I expect some sort of documentation, but all I can find about her ancestry is the statement "She is the great, great grand-niece of Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce," and about her name is "Brooke Medicine Eagle, which is a sacred name meaning "Daughter of the Rainbow of the Morning Star Clan Whose Helpers are the Sun and the Moon" with no documentation/evidence for either. I think this sentence should be reworded to simply attribute those statements to Jaimes without a claim that they are documented. (And my attempt to document "Daughter of the Rainbow of the Morning Star Clan Whose Helpers are the Sun and the Moon" came up pretty dry,besides Jaimes the best I could do was which makes me wonder whether Jaimes is just reporting what she was told by Edwards (Brooke Medicine Eagle's surname). Dougweller (talk) 06:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sympathetic to the issue here, but a person's known web site is a reliable source for information attributed to her - i.e., claims about her ancestry, etc. Whereas the Sonoma County Free Press doesn't really seem like a journalistic organization (despite the name) - it's something more akin to a personal blog. Is there really no better source? Also, an article in a peer-reviewed academic publication (which the Journal of American Indian Education is) can be assumed (barring evidence to the contrary) to have met a reasonable standard of quality by virtue of the peer review process. It is a reliable source for those statements absent significant reason to believe otherwise. polarscribe (talk) 06:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * As long as the statement in the Sonoma County Free Press is properly attributed, I think it can and should be used. (Otherwise Wikipedia turns into a platform for people's claims about themselves.)  I do think attribution could be more precise -- which Native American group(s) made that assertion -- but I think it is usable. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * no, proper attribution does not cover random rants against a living person posted on random sites. The Sonoma County Free Press is clearly not a professional paper, they dont even keep the link to their "[ http://www.sonomacountyfreepress.com/columns.html columns]" live. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  06:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I also object to the use of the word "claimed" in regards to her vision/spiritual experience - we don't say "Black Elk claimed to have a vision" or "Joseph Smith claimed to have a vision." We can't refute someone's account of a spiritual experience. polarscribe (talk) 06:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the problem with the article as-was is that 2/3 of the bodytext was devoted to criticism and attacks sourced to an apparently-defunct organization and a 1984 AIM conference. That was, in my opinion, undue weight on those issues given their age and the lack of anything resembling serious follow-up. If we had a 10-paragraph article about her, her various activities in life, etc., a full paragraph on those criticisms might be warranted. But if there's not much to say about her, turning her Wikipedia article into a space to dredge up, rehash and elongate ancient allegations doesn't seem to square with the spirit of what we're trying to do. polarscribe (talk) 06:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that her website can be used so long as we make it clear it's her claim, not fact. I should add that the edit summary says "Deleted reference contained inaccurate and potentially libelous statements per WP:LBL. Group quoted no longer exists, unreachable, and quotation is unsourced" I don't know whether the group still exists (or if that matters) but Professor John P. LaVelle is alive and well. and the edit summary can be seen as referring to him. I see that the Sonoma County Free Press is used in an article in the Journal of Religious & Theological Information and another article in Dialectical Anthropology as well as various books., so I'm not convinced we can dismiss it as a personal blog. Dougweller (talk) 06:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And can we adhere to BLP policy in this discussion please, Professor LaVelle was the director of SPIRIT and calling the statement a 'random rant' looks like something we should avoid. Dougweller (talk) 06:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I see there's been quite a bit of editing since I started this discussion. I'm happy with the current version except for the phrasing "where the roots of her name and ancestry were explored". They weren't explored at all. Jaimes gives a meaning for her name but offers no source, and a statement that she is the great, great grand-niece of Chief Joseph (again unsourced) which I don't think you can call an exploration. If we want to use this, we should attribute it to Jaimes and simply say "according to Jaimes she is the great, great grand-niece..." or similar wording, for both statements (especially without any sources, as these might just be Jaimes repeating what she was told). Dougweller (talk) 07:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And thanks to Polarscribe, that's been fixed. Dougweller (talk) 07:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I meant to post something about that but it got eaten. Your point there is very fair. polarscribe (talk) 07:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

How on earth does this source (american-buddha.com) meet WP:RS? I don't see anyone here claiming it does, but it's used four times in the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Self-trout. I think it was first added by the editor who objected to the Sonoma County Free Press and then used by at least one other editor with an edit summary "need to incorporate this source into the article ...though it sounds like its been written from a press pack" - I meant to mention it here but forgot (morning for me, I've been showering, breakfast, etc in between edits). I did challenge it on the editor's talk page. Clearly not a RS. Dougweller (talk) 08:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If we're considering the Sonoma County Free Press a reliable source (which I find highly dubious) for negative attacks on the article subject, I would object to removing a similarly-dubious source for positive information about the article subject. Personally, I think they both ought to be removed, but as long as we're leaving one in, I can't support a double-standard which admits material from one random not-much-more-than-a-blog site and discards material from another random not-much-more-than-a-blog site. polarscribe (talk) 19:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * More to the point, it appears that that material is from a published (dead-tree) book - Sisters of the Earth: Women's Prose and Poetry About Nature, and ought to be sourced to that published (dead-tree) book, rather than a Web site which apparently hosts the text. I'll track down the real source and attribute it. polarscribe (talk) 19:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Given the development of the article yesterday, I am now less inclined to argue for keeping the "Sonoma Country Free Press" source. The addition of other sources means that removal of SCFP would not leave the article unbalanced; it's clear that some Native American groups have challenged her claims about heritage, but that idea is now supported by other sources.  The statement from the SPIRIT Center is reliable in regard to its own views, but it might be considered to fall foul of WP:BLPPRIMARY (though I think the point could probably be argued either way).  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Abdelghani Mustafa Abdelghani
I don't know if I'm in the right place, or what is.

Anyway, I thought this page was deleted yesterday, and talk page suggests September last year too. Anyway, he's back!

John of Cromer in Philippines (talk) mytime= Sun 20:29, wikitime=  12:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've submitted it for CSDG4; some SALT will likely be needed here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've nominated the single-purpose image in the article for deletion at Commons. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 02:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

John Fullbright: Fluffy or just right?
This seems fluffy to me. Or am I being too harsh? Feedback is appreciated. Thanks.
 * Music reviewer at No Depression wrote in her blog: "People who hadn’t heard Fullbright previously were stopped in their tracks by the brilliance of this 24 year old whose mature lyrics have an immediate impact."
 * The title of the release pays homage to the farm house where he grew up. Fullbright states: "Every song on this record was written in that house, and I was kind of written in that house. In the studio with his backing musicians, Fullbright was almost immediately captivated by what he was hearing.
 * Although he initially thought he would leave the studio with a demo record, he says: "We got lost in it in those three hours we were recording. We all looked at each other and thought, ‘No, this is the record. It’s not going to get any better than this anywhere else.
 * Favorable reviews include the The Washington Times which said: "From the Ground Up proves to be a killer debut, pairing sharply worded stories that resonate with confident performances that pop."
 * Fullbright performed at a Rock and Roll Hall of Fame tribute concert honoring Chuck Berry on October 27, 2012. The concert - part of the Hall's American Music Masters Series - took place in Cleveland at the State Theater. Fullbright played keyboard and harmonica on "Downbound Train
 * In his review of the show for Cleveland Scene, Jeff Niesel wrote: "While the New York Dolls David Johansen and Motorhead’s Lemmy Kilmister brought star power to the show, it was little known Americana singer-pianist John Fullbright who really shined on his contribution, a moody rendition of “Downbound Train.”[16]
 * On December 5, 2012, From the Ground Up was nominated for a Grammy Award in the category Best Americana Album. [17] Fullbright says that he was scrubbing his bathtub when he learned that From the Ground Up - which he says co-producer Wes Sharon refers to as "the little record that could" - had received a Grammy nomination.[18] Fullbright performed "Gawd Above" at the Grammy Pre-Telecast show which was streamed live on the Grammy Awards website
 * --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 14:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Puffy - so clip some more. Praise from non-notable critics is not generally useful - sorta like movie blurbs from some of the "most quoted reviewers" from exceedingly minor papers.  Or whatshername who wrote a gazillion "must read" book reviews for Amazon. Collect (talk) 14:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, WP:NOT a compendium of everything ever said about someone, positive or negative. polarscribe (talk) 19:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it's fine and that perhaps you are being too harsh. The article was nominated for deletion when I jumped in to help. It's well researched, sourced, and factual. Whether a critic is notable or not is subjective. There are so many other articles in greater need of attention, IMHO. Having my work under what is starting to feel like continual scrutiny is very discouraging when my only objective is to improve articles while conforming to the Wikipedia guidelines, as I understand them. Kmzundel (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I commend Kmzundel again, as I have in the past with a barnstar, for saving the article from deletion. Kmzundel invited me to this article via a post on my talk page and it has been on my watchlist ever since. Normally I would just cut the fluff out without a second thought but because Kmzundel has a different view and is a bit sensitive about his/her work, I have tried on two occasions (this is the second) to illicit opinions from other editors. In each case the response from uninvolved editors has been the same: the article contains fan trivia and needs pruning.  However, since I'm being accused now of "continual scrutiny",  I'll leave it to other editors to put on their watch list and clean up the fluff if they so desire. I'm going to remove it from my watchlist now. Thanks everyone for your participation. --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 15:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)