Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive175

Darlene Grant

 * Someone claiming to be the subject requested an update at help desk. I found http://www.utexas.edu/ssw/faculty-and-staff/directory/grant/ that has links to press releases and is far newer than the wayback reference in the article now. I don't have time to fix it now, sorry--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

meredith monroe
There are a few details incorrect on Meredith Monroe site. First the references section, the contemporary theatre, film and television is not a reliable source. After speaking to the senior editor at Gala they have used a service called baseline to research the various actors they have created the biographies for. However after several emails it has come to light that none of the dates can be verified, also if she attended Milkin University.

The biography written by Kathe Tibbs in the book They Don't Wanna Wait: the Stars of Dawson Creek goes into more depth about the actors and ECW publishers said they fact check the information to the 6 actors school records.

See link to online book copy. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=u-ZPLkZMDvgC&pg=PA33&lpg=PA33&dq=meredith+monroe+hinsdale+central+high+school&source=bl&ots=z_EbDjLbrl&sig=0y_zEzP6aLZITl-UwWJUbaikxrk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dDdbUbb2FoWsOo3ngMAI&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=meredith%20monroe%20hinsdale%20central%20high%20school&f=false

In here you will find her birth date is listed as 1976 rather than 1968.

Also the details in Kathe Tibbs biography relates more with the details to the book the Dawson Creek Compilation a resource Wikipedia has used to cross reference Katie Holmes information with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay99a (talk • contribs) 10:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Biased and misleading information about Pekka Himanen
User 84.253.220.75 has distorted the content of page about Pekka Himanen, a Finnish Philosopher. He has put there references to Yellow press articles and controversial, negative sources.

Is Wikipedia so vulnerable to abuse?

Yours Ari Tenhunen Helsinki Finland — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.238.10.15 (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Generally, yes. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

According to history there has been no activity on this page since February. Finnish Wikipedia is more recent I think Pekka Himanen. It doesn't matter if they're controversial or negative, what matters is whether they're true. John of Cromer in Philippines (talk) mytime= Tue 00:38, wikitime=  16:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Tom Strickland
Email from someone representing him:


 * I am looking for a Wiki representative to assist in a change that needs to be made to Tom Strickland’s Wikipedia page. I need assistance because he requested that his page be locked several years ago because outside contacts were maliciously tampering with the content.
 * He now needs a few edits to the page, but is not able since it has been locked for content protection. Can you please let me know who can, or who I can contact, to make the changes?
 * Brecke Latham | WilmerHale
 * Senior Public Relations Specialist

I'll note to them that I've posted this here, and will suggest requests go to the talk page. BLP-experienced editors checking over the article would also be good - David Gerard (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Umm... unless I miss something, you could include in that reply that it isn't locked, and can be edited at will. So unless they're going out of their way to respect WP:COI, that's an odd request anyway --Saalstin (talk) 17:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * They should still use the talk page to request edits to avoid WP:COI. I have the article on watch, I'll be happy to help them. § FreeRangeFrog croak 17:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll help out too. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Mick Fleetwood
A major part of Mick Fleetwood's personal history is missing. Sara Lynn Recor, Stevie Nick's best friend and inspiration for her song"Sara", moved in with Fleetwood in November 1978. Mick and Stevie were at the end of the affair that prompted the demise of Mick's marriage to Jenny Boyd. Although Mick and Sara's relationship was tumultuous, they married on April 24, 1988. They were subsequently separated in 1992, and the divorce was final in January of 1995.

Contributed by Sara Fleetwood 19:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

This statement is true and correct It would be nice if one reference page could include these facts. My sourse is myself...please give me my props! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuskitall (talk • contribs) 19:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Please understand that Wikipedia summarizes what reliable sources say about a topic. We have no way to verify the identity you claim, or the accuracy of this information. I am not saying that it is wrong. I am saying that we need to reference any such information to a published reliable source. Can you suggest such sources for the information you want to see added?  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  01:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Naomi Campbell
I would like to point out that Wikipedia has Naomi Campbell's age as 142 years old. You should fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.117.212.39 (talk) 02:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I reverted it. You, too, can revert vandalism. Click "View History" and then "undo" when available. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 02:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Campaign for "santorum" neologism
Is Campaign for "santorum" neologism properly placed in and  ?

I rather think it runs afounl of the specific dictum that the Category:Homophobia specifically states
 * articles about individuals, groups, or media must not be placed in this category'

but another editor repeatedly reverts it with the comment "article is not about an individual, group, or media"

The article appears on its face to relate to an "individual", and also to relate to "media" so I am at a loss as to why this specific article would be exempt from prior Wikipedia specific decisions thereon. It also seems to fall under WP:BLP which pretty much means we have always considered it to be about an "individual" as well. Thanks. Collect (talk) 20:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. Per WP:BLPCAT, we need to be extremely circumspect with categories implying negative associations for living people. I would definitely remove Category:Homophobia from this article. Category:LGBT rights in the United States is more of a gray area, since its inclusion doesn't necessarily imply anything negative. Regardless of the article's current title, it substantially relates to a living person and is thus largely subject to WP:BLP; Collect is correct, and arguments to the contrary don't really hold water. MastCell Talk 21:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to chime in here in agreement, even if this weren't a BLP issue, I don't think either category is a particularly good fit for the article. Get 'em out of there. --j⚛e deckertalk 21:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. This poor justification seems like yet another CRYBLP out of many this article has been subjected to. However, Joe is right that the categories are not a great fit; in particular, the subject seems more related to Category:Anti-homophobia than Category:Homophobia. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 08:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with Collect and MastCell above that Category:Homophobia and Category:Anti-homophobia should be removed from the article in accordance with WP:BLPCAT. The article directly concerns an individual and hence BLP should apply. There are no negative connotations with Category:LGBT rights in the United States so this can arguably be retained since the controversy was created when a group of LGBT rights activists spoke out in opposition to a politician whose ideas they perceived as a threat to their civil rights. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 08:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * “a politician whose ideas they perceived as a threat to their civil rights” meaning a presidential candidate proudly asserting his position in favor of sodomy laws. If WP:BLPCAT applies here, it does not mandate removal, but only that “the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources”, because Rick Santorum’s campaign rhetoric is quite “relevant to their public life or notability”. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 09:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * For this article to fit in Category:Homophobia, homophobia would have to play a significant part in the story. The controversy was triggered by Santorum's various offensive statements, but homophobia is just one possible motivation for his pronouncements. If he's attributed his behaviour to homophobia, or said he hates or holds in contempt LGBT people, or if the highest quality scholarly sources all agree that he is homophobic, then the events described in the article are a spectacular social consequence of homophobia and the article belongs in the category. However, that his behaviour has been blamed by his opponents on homophobia is not, on its own, enough to justify inclusion in the category.


 * I don't know about Category:LGBT rights in the United States. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think Category:Anti-homophobia would be more apt than the two categories in the OP.
 * This campaign’s originator, Dan Savage, has called Rick Santorum “the most notorious homophobe in the race”. However, he would also say Santorum’s agenda was both anti-straight and anti-gay. And did, on The Young Turks:
 * “What a lot of people will wake up to, as they get more familiar with Rick Santorum, is that he has an anti-straight freedom agenda. He doesn’t have just an anti-gay agenda. He has an anti-straight agenda when it comes to reproductive freedom, when it comes to birth control, when it comes to masturbation, pornography — all sorts of things that heterosexuals enjoy very much.”
 * But Rick’s far too self-righteous to perceive his own homophobia. He seems to think if his views are based on the Bible, they can’t be prejudiced:
 * “I had Piers Morgan call me a bigot. Because I believe what the Catholic Church teaches with respect to homosexuality, I’m a bigot. So now I'm a bigot? Because I believe what the Bible teaches. Now, 2,000 years of teaching and moral theology is now bigoted! And of course we don’t elect bigots to office.”
 * (Strom Thurmond’s career suggests otherwise.) ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 12:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Anthony asks for scholarly sources:
 * Harris, W. C. 2006. “‘In My Day It Used to Be Called a Limp Wrist’: Flip-Floppers, Nelly Boys, and Homophobic Rhetoric in the 2004 US Presidential Campaign.” The Journal of American Culture 29 (3) (September): 278–295 (link): "The latest inductee to the gay Vichy Hall of Fame is Robert L. Traynham, director of communications for vehemently homophobic Sen. Rick Santorum "
 * Sender, Katherine. 2004. Business, Not Politics: The Making of the Gay Market. Between Men--between Women. New York: Columbia University Press: "Urban Outfitters, whose owners, Richard and Margaret Hayne, had contributed $13,150 to notoriously homophobic Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum's campaign funds ", p. 4
 * Mark Driscoll. "Reverse Postcoloniality." Social Text 22.1 (2004): 59-84 (link): "The wartime patriotically correct homophobic coding of alterity has relegitimized and unleashed right-wing virulence, as in Republican senator Rick Santorum's April 2003 Associated Press interview, where he wildly compared "homosexual acts" to "man on child""
 * ...happy to oblige. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ...:) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Those sources do not meet the BLP requirements for strong sourcing for contentious claims (labelling a person with a pejorative term is a contentious claim) - especially since calling someone "homophobic" in the examples given seems pretty clearly not a "statement of fact" but of opinion by individuals.  WP:BLP is pretty clear on this sort of thing, and saying "X called Y a (insert epithet)" does not make Y that pejorative epithet.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Which is not a claim made anywhere in our article. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I would remind Robin to not personally attack Rick Santorum in the talk page. Arzel (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 01:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Definitely shouldn't be in the category homophobia. The second category probably isn't a BLP issue. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Shepard Smith
Shepard Smith has had discussions about whether it is proper to use allegations of homosexuality in his BLP.

One editor states:
 * The BLP page discusses self-identification only in relation to categories, not well-cited prose. The WP:BLPCAT section cannot be stretched to cover prose when it does not make any such distinction.

I had suggested that:
 * Allegations that Smith is gay have received attention in the media, but he has not commented publicly regarding his sexual orientation. In 2005 a columnist wrote that Smith had flirted with him at a gay bar in Washington, DC.[12] The 2009 documentary film Outrage portrayed Smith as a closeted gay and accused him of hypocrisy for not supporting gay marriage.[13][14] Out Magazine ranked Smith as the 8th most powerful gay man or woman in America in 2013.[15]

does not meet the requirements for making claims in a BLP about a person's sexuality, as there is no reliable source making more than "allegations." from the Washington Blade only states that Smith does not discuss sex. is from Out.com which is scarcely a "reliable source" as required, IMO, by WP:BLP.

Further input on this divergence of opinion is requested. Collect (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Unless the subject comes out, or unless a reliable source publishes definitive evidence of his sexuality, all that is speculative and gossipy in nature. I'm fine with Out.com or whomever beating that horse into the ground, but we are not a tabloid. It would be quite different if, say, he had been arrested soliciting a male prostitute, as has been the downfall of some closeted politicians and religious figures. Even then, it's our responsibility to avoid asserting anything about the facts and events we document (which is the whole point of WP:BLPCAT). I'd have no problem going to bat to prevent all that from getting into the article, until there is a clearly reliable, non-biased source that reports on the issue. LGBT activists are clearly biased at best in this context. § FreeRangeFrog croak 22:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The media has repeatedly focused on Smith's sexuality. It is not Wikipedia's place to try and figure out the truth of his sexuality, whatever that may be, but he is a public figure who is the subject of much speculation, so we report the most prominent of these. At Talk:Shepard_Smith you will see that a lot of articles have been written by newspaper reporters and prominent, notable bloggers who have made allegations about Smith's sexuality. This is not a case of trying to categorize Smith as LGBT, so the BLPCAT guideline does not apply. Instead, we should look at another section of WP:BLP, the subsection of WP:WELLKNOWN. This section applies to well-cited prose, not to categories, and it allows well-cited but controversial prose in biographies of public figures. Certainly, a TV anchor is a public figure. The way forward is to conservatively assess which are the most prominent of the prominent allegations, and briefly tell the reader what they allege. We make no attempt to judge Smith; we just report the fuss in the media. Binksternet (talk) 23:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The Media? Let's see -- the sources you furnish do not show a preoccupation with his sexuality?  NYT search  (The New York Times is a moderately well-known journal) shows 449 hits for "Shepard Smith."   Zero saying he is "homosexual"   Zero.  New York Times. Zero NYT stories link Smith to being "gay". Zero.  As in the null set.  Yet you aver the "media" can not have enough of alleging that he is gay?  On which planet, pray tell?  Collect (talk) 23:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You have prepared a straw man argument for the purpose of knocking it down. I pointed to a page of reliable sources, not an assertion that NYT published anything about Smith, or that the media in general have an untoward focus on his sexuality. No, all I have asserted is that a dozen reliable sources have made allegations or commented on the allegations. I hold that the dozen sources demonstrate enough media focus to help us determine that the repeated, long-standing, unanswered allegations are an important theme in Smith's life. Binksternet (talk) 00:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with the Frog. Every source listed is not reliable for a very controversial statement about a living person; they're gossip, ambiguous, editorial, self-published, have their own axe to grind, or all five. Find a published statement from Smith. Without that, we need cast iron reliable sources. These aren't them. --GRuban (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Frog's argument was based on BLPCAT which does not apply. Binksternet (talk) 00:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Not it wasn't, I just mentioned it. That said, show us a reliable source that has speculated about the subject's sexuality, and we'll close this conversation. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. So far I'm not seeing those. § FreeRangeFrog croak 00:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I only listed reliable sources, but if you are looking for the most prominent one it would have to be Outrage (2009 film), which generated by itself quite a lot of commentary, including the LA Weekly magazine. Binksternet (talk) 00:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's notable, but not a reliable source for such an important and controversial claim. You'll notice the Washington Post, CNN and NPR refused to report its claims, and even the LATimes prefaced with a big "alleged". We don't report highly controversial potentially harmful claims like that without much better sources than that. --GRuban (talk) 01:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That is clearly a biased source if I ever saw one. Lack of bias is part of what makes a source reliable. § FreeRangeFrog croak 01:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You say "lack of bias is part of what makes a source reliable" but this is 180 degrees away from our policy which says "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." It's strange to see how much misunderstanding about WP's pillars is displayed on this page. Binksternet (talk) 01:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * When you're talking about opera or engineering, yes. Not when you're planning to use crappy sources to make assertions about a person's sexuality. See WP:BLPSOURCES. To me, all you have here is the equivalent of tabloid journalism. § FreeRangeFrog croak 23:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I side with FreeRangeFrog, GRuban and Collect on this issue. We need impeccably reliable sources to report such an assertion, namely, those with a reputation for professional editorial control and fact checking. Personally, I am 100% in favor of LGTB equality but Wikipedia does not exist to aid those who who have an agenda to "out" alleged closeted conservative public figures. To assert that we have to repeat what "prominent, notable" bloggers have to say is a bit strange, as a "prominent" and "notable" source is not at all equivalent to a "reliable source". After all, Weekly World News and Der Stürmer were both prominent and notable publications, but neither had a single shred of reliability. Bloggers lacking professional editorial control aren't reliable sources, in my opinion, for controversial BLP assertions like this.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  05:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Major media: Patrick Goldstein is a notable mainstream professional reporter, the film critic for the major metro newspaper the Los Angeles Times. He and fellow columnist James Rainey discuss the Outrage film in their regular column "The Big Picture." They mention that Shepard Smith is outed in the film and even comment on how it is not fair to Smith as he is not very hypocritical compared to the majority of other allegedly closeted politicians depicted in the film. Binksternet (talk) 15:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * NO SUCH REVIEW IS ON THE LOS ANGELES TIMES SITE AT ALL Nor in any news archive.  Is this clear?  Using a non-existent cite is one sure way to get evicted from the room -- and I think you may well have crossed that line here.   So kindly either give a live link to a real news source making the claim or ...  Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You certainly are hot about this issue, but the aim is off. Anybody can see that the newspaper has published the story at http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/the_big_picture/2009/04/outraged-kirby-dick-kicks-open-washingtons-closet-door-.html, which is the regular film critic column called "The Big Picture", written by notable journalist Patrick Goldstein and his co-writer James Rainey, a longstanding columnist. Our inarguable policy of verifiability asks us to make certain the material has been published in some form, which it has. Binksternet (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Your source makes NO CLAIM WHATSOEVER THAT SMITH IS GAY. In fact it states I'm also not entirely convinced that he has any good reason to out Fox News' Smith ... But Dick doesn't pretend to be objective at all.  A far cry from your attempt to abuse a BLP and to violate Wikipedia policy on multiple pages.   When your own source states the opposite of what you wish to use it for that is a misues of sources entirely. Cheers -- my opinion of your standards about BLPs is now negative infinity.  For god's sake - at least pretend to follow the Wikipedia policies about use of sources and BLPs. Collect (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This issue is complicated; I see you have worked yourself into a corner. Rather than trying to establish whether Smith is gay, we are establishing that Smith has been said to be gay by various media. The L.A. Times film critic confirms that the film says Smith is gay, and it continues by saying the targeting of Smith is unfair. I am not trying to abuse BLP, I am simply trying to interpret the policy as a whole, looking at all of it including WP:WELLKNOWN, which allows for complex information presented in prose form, cited to reliable third party sources. Binksternet (talk) 16:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet reinserted Smith's name in an article on the outing film saying it was "well-known" that Smith belongs in a list of living persons asserted to be gay. (edit summary:  Restore list of names. No part of BLP is being violated here, all the names are WP:WELLKNOWN.) I consider this beyong the pale - will an admin actually look at the "sources"? I found a huge number of "deadlinks" and "non-existent" links outing living people. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Above I am accused of "being hot" about BLP policy. Damn right I am! It is one of the most important policies on Wikipedia and anyone who thinks it is "optional" when they do not like a person - left, right or centre, can count on me to "get hot." Collect (talk) 16:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You consistently ignore WP:WELLKNOWN and instead consistently misinterpret WP:BLPCAT to apply to prose when it only applies to absolutes such as categorization, lists or infoboxes. Subtlety and nuance are allowed by prose, but you aim to disallow all such information. I respect BLP in its entirety, not a misapplication of it. Binksternet (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Smith doesn't belong in the category. Simple. A rumor by a biased outlet based on an anonymous source is far from a solid basis. Including him un the category gives an implication. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Categories are not being discussed here. WP:BLPCAT does not apply. Prose is what is being discussed, so WP:WELLKNOWN is the guideline. Binksternet (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wellknown doesn't apply here at all because the rest of BLP disagrees with your interpretation of it. BLPGOSSIP is more on point. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I respectfully point out that WP:BLPGOSSIP (and also WP:NOTGOSSIP) is intended to stop people from inserting unverifiable and irrelevant stories with no traceable origin. The guideline says "Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." I would have to say that Kevin Naff is reliable, being the senior editor at a small but long-lived metropolitan newspaper, and that he represents the story as being true in his column and in the film Outrage. That leaves us to determine whether the allegations are important to Smith. I should think they are, as they have been featured in a documentary film that was reviewed by the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Dallas Observer, Rolling Stone magazine, etc, etc. Binksternet (talk) 23:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The fact that a movie was reviewed by NYT etc means nothing, except towards the notability of the film. It has zero bearing on this rumor. And no, a single source like Naff isn't going to cut it. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Why are the stories speculating about his sexual orientation "noteworthy" and "relevant" (words used in WELLKNOWN)? Does it matter whether a well-known journalist is gay or straight or bi or asexual? I mean, there are always going to be news stories on this sort of issue, but just because the press is prurient doesn't mean we have to be.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have been operating under the assumption that the film Outrage was notable since it earned a nomination for an Emmy, and it was reviewed by dozens of major media outlets. I have been operating under the belief that the allegations became relevant to Smith's career as soon as they appeared in the film, because Smith's supposed homosexuality was said to be in contradiction to his on-air association with Fox News and its right-wing stance. This makes it relevant to Smith's career. Binksternet (talk) 00:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The films notability doesn't matter here. The claims are not backed up by a credible source. WP:WELLKNOWN has little to know bearing here. It seems to be referring to things that are known, but not publicly acknowledged. There is no proof of Smith's being gay, and thus, simple allegations from a film intended to disparage prominent opponents of gay marriage don't justify putting this in the article. Ducknish (talk) 00:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The link to Smith seems especially egregious as the reasoning is that since he does not fight strongly enough against the supposed anti-gay nature of FNC than he must be gay. Which if you assume the premise of the film is correct is stupid on its face as the assumption is that those that protest the most are the most likely to be gay.  Arzel (talk) 01:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The reasoning on the part of Kirby Dick is not under discussion, but Dick is clear that he thinks Smith is gay and hypocritical about it. (If you would like to read Dick's reasoning, read the Listi interview.) The point of this discussion is to determine how notable and how relevant are the allegations. Binksternet (talk) 01:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * But he doesn't have any evidence and the only reason he is listed seems vindictive. If Smith is gay, fine, but this is simply not enough evidence.  Arzel (talk) 01:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with Bbb23, Collect, and others. The material looks like speculative gossip, and the sources that Binksternet cites are either unreliable or borderline reliable but simply mention the gossip without further fact-checking.  As such, it seems that WP:BLPGOSSIP is more applicable than WP:WELLKNOWN, and the material should be left out.  alanyst 17:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)  Moreover, the material has a significant possibility of being untrue, and a strong likelihood of being harmful to a living individual if published on Wikipedia despite being untrue.  Whatever the letter of BLP policy says, the material is clearly in violation of the spirit of the policy. alanyst 17:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Neither of the example given in WP:WELLKNOWN seem to fit this situation. The first example is that of a direct allegation being made by a reliable news source. No direct allegation by a reliable news source seems to have been made in the case at hand. A Washington Blade  editorial is not a reliable factual source. The second example given in WP:WELLKNOWN involves allegations, presumably either direct or indirect, becoming so widely reported that a "public scandal" is created, but that doesn't seem to be applicable here either. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Just curious: is there anyone here who is in favor of keeping the additions besides Binksternet? Ducknish (talk) 00:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I was asked (WP:CANVASSed?) to consider the matter. All I can see, so far, is that the media reports that Outrage reports that Shepard Smith is gay.  I don't see why that is notable in the article Shepard Smith, but it might be notable in Outrage.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest that if a claim violates [WP:BLP]] in any article, that it violates WP:BLP in every article in which it is made. The use of a name is sufficient to link that person to the claim about himself. Collect (talk) 11:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If that were so, then we wouldn't be able to report what David Icke thinks about Queen Elizabeth II in the article Reptilians. (Surely an allegation that you're an inhuman baby eating monster is at least as defamatory as being gay?) No, we do have to split a few hairs somewhere, and it looks like mentioning it in Outrage is the place we split this one. --GRuban (talk) 14:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * In principle that sounds right; context does matter. BTW, can I suggest that everyone find another way to express the idea here, so that we don't speak in terms of "allegations of being gay"?  "Allegations" is used in connection with crimes, and I hope we can agree that being gay isn't a crime.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Allegation is the correct word. It's not limited to crimes. "an assertion made with little or no proof." Sounds like it fits exactly. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with everyone above, the allegation doesn't belong in related articles. When an appropriate RS is found the information could be added. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

My dictionary defines allegation as "a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically one made without proof." So allegation is the wrong word to use here. A better choice might be "claim". That said, our BLP policy is quite clear "Contentious material about living persons ... that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." That applies to any article. The Reptilians claims of Mr. Icke are permissible because they are so preposterous that the claims reflect on him, not his subjects (and so we need reliable sources that he made those claims). --agr (talk) 22:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Weird, I'm looking through our quite clear BLP policy, and not seeing the "so preposterous" exception. Where is it, please? --GRuban (talk) 14:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:BLP. At this policy talk page Collect initiated a discussion about whether we can have differing contexts about Smith's being outed by Outrage, differing, that is, between the biography and the film page, with one avoiding the bit and the other not. Consensus there is that context is indeed a factor in deciding where. Binksternet (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Kindly be accurate when misstating things. Consensus there was A BLP VIOKLATION ON ONE PAGE IS A BLP VIOLATION ON ANY PAGE  Your parsing of some hypothets given there is inapt and errant.  We do not allow any weakly sourced contentious claims (I note one editor has tried to claim that sexuality was not "contentious" LOL!)   Meanwhile you have repeatedly added the violation again and again to multiple pages.   Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * My beef is with your specific contention that homosexuality is contentious. Not heterosexuality, naturally -- only homosexuality.  Hmm.  I'm also grateful to agr for producing the right definition of "allegations".  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * AS I SAID NO SUCH THING AT ALL ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY where are you finding such a claim?  Absent you dinding me making the statement you wantonly ascribe to me, I request a retraction and apology.  All claims about sexuality, nationality, ethnicity, etc. about a living person can be "contentious" requiring strong sourcing.  I would ask you read all the threads about "who is a Jew" etc. in the past and you will find my position thereon has been consistent with WP:BLP.  Every single time.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Pardon -- I thought we were talking about an "allegation" that Smith was gay. Are we talking about an allegation that he is straight?  (And what the hell does "who is a Jew" have to do with anything?)  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There's an overt message of "this person is a hypocrite" that accompanies those claims, so in this case, I think it's fair to call them "allegations" (but perhaps less provocative to stick with "claims"). This does not extend to the general case that someone claims to reveal a person's private sexual (religious, ethnic, etc.) identity; without a specific negative context it's best to avoid calling it an "allegation".  But even without a negative context the claim is still contentious and susceptible to BLP, if the subject of it has not publicly acknowledged that identity.  Nomoskedasticity, if your chief concern is that "being gay" should not universally be labeled an "allegation", does this put you more at ease?  alanyst 17:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The Weeknd
Can someone with some time take a look at this article. The career section opens with a lot of discussion of his friendship etc. with producer Rose, and their fall out. A cursory examination suggests that this is a weird way of introducing the guys career - can some kind soul take a look and see if it needs refocusing? I don't have the time or experience in the subject :) --Errant (chat!) 10:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 2013041610014736 was opened today over this. I agree that it's borderline crappy at best, but we can't just remove the whole thing. I asked for a sourced replacement narrative that we can evaluate and use in place of that. I mean, unless someone is an expert on the man's life and happenings, because I'm not. I guess things are easier to fix when there's something libelous, problematic, harmful, etc. § FreeRangeFrog croak 23:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Bruce J. Sallan


Caught my eye at recent changes because this article was recently featured on this noticeboard, suffering from puffery and possible COI editing, the discussion is here. Is it permissible to use a link to the Amazon page that sells his book as a reference for the date it came out? Seems dubious to me, it's the very first ref, smack bang in the lead (for info there are two Amazon refs, one not working, his own website and Imdb).  Captain Screebo Parley! 21:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agreed it was dubious. Together with the excessive citations to IMDB (not just EL at the bottom), I decided to go citation hunting. I've taken out what looked like WP:BOMBARD because neither website is usable for more than "it exists" value. They certainly can't indicate significance of works, and it looks like that's what they were being used to do. JFHJr (㊟) 01:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * See AfD here. JFHJr (㊟) 01:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Good move, I had a quick check last night and only found mainly "promo profiles" posted around the net, in the previous discussion I did wonder about the qualification under GNG but it kind of slipped throught the net.  Captain Screebo Parley! 10:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Allison Smith


The entire article on Allison Smith has no sources, and much of the article is written by an editor named "Allisonsmithfan" whose only contributions are about Allison Smith. There is a link to Allisonsmith.org, which does not exist, and there is no telling if it has any connection to the person about which the article is written. I also notice writing such as "Her small town was overwhelmed by her voice" and "played the role to rave reviews." While i am tempted to delete the entire article under WP:BLP I will defer to others to investigate on their own.Closedthursday (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Stubbed, as completely unsourced BLP. I added a single reference to support the lede. Google seems to indicate that website does exist, although it's down right now. So I left it. Thanks for reporting this. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Omid Safi
Can some experienced BLPs have a look at this edit by a new editor ? It includes a claim by Robert Spencer from his Jihad Watch blog via American Thinker among other things.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 20:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well that was inappropriate but I think it's been pared down to acceptable size and weight. § FreeRangeFrog croak 23:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Alun Michael
Can someone take a look at this article. I have removed some uncited material, and some which appeared to be purely personal opinion, but am still concerned about the tone of the remainder. There are several points where the article appears to be trying to make a case about Michael, and much of the material appears somewhat tangential, and only included to make that case. Skinsmoke (talk) 05:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Jeff Moorad Article-Very Unpleased with Experience with Editors Bagumba and Muboshgu
I am a Padres fan and over the past months I've tried to add detail to the "Jeff Moorad" article. The article seems to have been stripped of a great amount of detail. Not sure I understand the rationale behind this? Removing the entire Community Work section seems especially strange: almost as if there were a personal campaign against Mr. Moorad by some editors... Honestly, I am done editing this article. Over the past months I've tried to add detail to the article, much of it coming from an MLB.com biography and some from more recent news articles, etc. I feel cheated as a Wikipedia user that my edits have been stripped in the name of mere technicalities. There seems to be no protection from the tyrrany of Wikipedia editors. Pretty interesting that when the community tries to get involved in editing an article, there is this harsh a response from Wikipedia editors. Of course, I understand fully: Editors Bagumba and Muboshgu have found niches here on the baseball sections of Wikipedia, and someone trying to help with the articles would take some of their power. The editors used seemingly every tactic to remove my edits, including accusations of slanting sources, etc. Yet, it seems that the editors are slanted in the very opposite direction to which they accuse me of being. Practically every edit I made would be removed and I would receive a message directing me to the "Welcome Page." I will not study the welcome page as I do not plan to spend hours on end editing Wikipedia articles, and I don't think that Jimmy Wales' intention was to have every user known every technical detail, but rather to come together and share our knowledge and create a great resource for the world. I've tried to do that and found that I haven't been able to do so.

This is not what Wikipedia has been to me, and I'm sorry that it has had to be this way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.155.80.248 (talk) 01:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have taken a look at your addition, and I must agree with Bagumba and Muboshgu. Your addition is virtually a direct copy-paste from Jeff Moorad's official MLB.com biography - and that is a significant violation of copyright which is not permitted on Wikipedia. If you wish to add information, you may use that biography as a source, but you also must rewrite it from a neutral point of view and ensure that you are not directly copying words and sentences. polarscribe (talk) 01:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 98.155.80.248 has duplicated an already existing thread from Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents.—Bagumba (talk) 01:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Better to be handled at ANI. We're far more dangerous here. We have a chainsaw and a machete, and we're distracted by shiny things § FreeRangeFrog  croak 01:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't forget the shears and the poleaxe, for pruning in hard to reach places ;-)  Captain Screebo Parley! 15:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Waldemar Olszewski
I came by a new BLP of a medical researcher by a new editor after they added a link to it from one of the pages on my watchlist; it is in generally not too bad a shape, but when I tried to tone down the language and remove a large dump of citations, they reverted. As I generally do not edit biographies, I wanted to bring it to the attention of this noticeboard so that someone with more experience on BLPs may be able to work with this new editor to improve the article. Thanks. Yobol (talk) 13:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks a lot like a vanity bio cum CV to me, maybe the guy passes GNG (?), looks like there's a ref or two in there that's not directly related to the subject (i.e. institutions he's worked for), needs a good looking at. Languages required to check the refs, apart from English: Polish, Italian, German.  Captain Screebo Parley! 16:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Campaign for "santorum" neologism query
Does the statement that "Santorum made anti-gay comments" (in Wikipedia's voice) require strong sourcing as it is presented as fact? I had suggested variants on "... Senator Rick Santorum's comments which were considered anti-gay by Savage and some others." The language which was reverted to several times was simply "... U.S. Senator Rick Santorum's anti-gay comments."

The questions are: Is this direct statement of fact in Wikipedia's voice subject to WP:BLP? If so, is it a "contentious claim"? If it is a "contentious claim" is it an opinion or is it a statement of objective fact? If it is an opinion, should it be ascribed as such to those holding it? I trust this is a neutral statement of the issues at hand. Collect (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What sources are being used to support it? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The sources are: to be precise - which I think can be used to have Savage be attributed as holding the opinion. Collect (talk) 23:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * no, the Lee cannot be used to attribute to Savage. the Lee book does not attribute the "anti gay" label to Savage, it flat out calls the comments as "anti gay."-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom
 * (ec) The issue can be avoided by concisely describing what Santorum said rather than labeling it: "... Senator Rick Santorum's comments that grouped homosexual acts with bestiality and incest" or something akin to that. Dry and factual, requiring no subjective interpretation. alanyst 21:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I looked at the sourcing and I also did an independent search to see how reliable sources approach this topic. These are my initial thoughts:
 * Facebook Nation: Total Information Awareness appears to be a reliable source, generally speaking. But the book is not about Rick Santorum, Dan Savage or homosexuality.  It's a book about privacy in the Internet age.  The specific page does indeed label Santorum's comments as anti-gay, but that's not the focus of the book.  It's only being used as example as part of a different topic.  It's reliable, but this is only mentioned in passing.
 * Wake up, you're liberal!: how we can take America back from the right. I don't have access to this source so I don't have much to say about it.
 * As I said, I also did an independent search to see how reliable source approach this topic. Out of the first 5 sources I found (by random),, none of them labeled Santorum's comments as anti-gay.  Obviously, this is a small sample size, but as I said, these are my initial thoughts.
 * Since most sources don't label these comments as anti-gay, and given that this is a lede, where we are supposed to summerize an article without going into the nitty gritty details, I suggest the following wording: "comments about homosexuality". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "Comments about homosexuality" is entirely too vague. Did he say they're nice people? Did he say they should be eradicated from the planet? Something in between? It doesn't provide the required context for the reaction. I much prefer a brief, factual description of the comments, as per alanyst.
 * The specific quote in question:
 * "In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing."
 * It is indisputable that the words of that quote compare, group or equate homosexuality with pedophilia and bestiality. That is the very meaning of the sentence in the English language. Therefore, it is neutral and factual to briefly describe that sentence. polarscribe (talk) 00:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * how about "homophobic" or "appallingly homophobic" . anyone who categorizes the comments in any way has nothing good to say about them. we cover all the significant views of the subject and anti-gay / homophobic is clearly not a fringe assessment. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * or from your very sources his "freaking me out" comments -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC) (and while this has both the words Santorum and Savage, it does not at all address the "man on dog" comments or the website.)
 * I'm content with polarscribe's suggestion ("comments that equated homosexuality to pedophilia and bestiality"). I'm disappointed that editors like Collect have such a difficult time with the notion that such comments are anti-gay, but it's acceptable in this instance to convey their meaning via indication of the comparisons he used.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Um -- when in doubt go for an ad hom? The point is that one can also read it as saying homosexuality is not pedophilia or the like - that in fact it is not "picking pn" homosexuality to make a factual statement that, historically, "marriage" did not include same-sex marriage.   Since the other reading is equally obvious to a hypothetical observer, then we ought not use Wikipedia's voice to judge which reading is the WP:TRUTH at all -- what we can do is show the exact words as Santorum spoke them to the reader.  Collect (talk) 11:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * @The Red Pen of Doom: I checked the 5 sources chosen at random and none of them support "homophobic" or "appallingly homophobic" either. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I never made any claims that those five you say were chosen at random called him "homophobic" - i said that one of the ones "chosen at random" described the comments as "freaking me out" and another one of the 5 chosen at random did not actually address the man on dog comments or the frothy material campaign AT ALL. and that it is not difficult at all to find mainstream sources that DO describe the comments as anti-gay and/or homophobic. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Kitty Kelley
The biography of Kelley by George Carpozi Jr. was recognized at the time it was published as a hatchet job. San Francisco Chronicle 7/22/91: "In 'Poison Pen,' Carpozi doesn't pretend he's out to investigate the infinite variety of Kitty's psyche -- he's out to get her, and get her he does." Los Angeles Times 9/8/91: "Any doubt that this work is revenge disappeared on Page 9." Material from this source should be used carefully. Irrelevant information from this source has been removed various times by different editors but the material is always added agains. I propose to remove some material now, but I wish to report this activity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Researchfairy (talk • contribs) 15:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry for taking this long. Jokes about being hoisted by one's petard aside, we do strive for neutrality in all topics, and I would agree that there is a certain amount of weight being given to the work you mention. Assuming there is no conflict of interest on your part here, feel free to try and balance out the contents. § FreeRangeFrog croak 17:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Gran Omar


Entire 'Personal life' section is one long useless gossip fest irrelevant to the person's notability, not to mention WP:UNDUE. I can definitely see someone writing to OTRS and complaining about this. 16:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * How is this not relevant? The three sources are reliable (People en Español and Univision). And where would you say that the paragraph is not written from a neutral point of view? His personal life is relevant to him. Almost every BLP has one. This article is correctly formatted and cited with reliable sources. He was the main producer for the album which he almost sued her for unpaid work. The whole section is not a "gossip fest". How is this "Gran Omar was previously married to fellow reggaeton artist Martha Pesante, known by her stage name Ivy Queen. They were divorced in 2005 following a nine-year marriage." gossip? Two, how is this "A year after their separation, Navarro stated that Queen had tricked him, and that she owed him money from the sales and production of the album Cosa Nostra: Hip-Hop, which they presented together due to their obligations and contract with Univision." gossip? He went on National TV, isn't that relevant? —   Diva    Knockouts   18:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you explain how all that is relevant to the subject's notability? As an artist, I mean. Because you have one paragraph of professional achievements, and two of apparent scandals and personal issues. So surely there must be something in there that is relevant to his notability, and that could be incorporated into the rest of the article so that it does not present undue weight. If not, then I strongly object to having an entire section with "he said she said" prattle on a BLP. Let me quote from the material you added, just for context: Rumors, however, soon surfaced that Navarro had cheated on Queen and that she had found him with another woman. She denied ever having found him in the act of adultery, while claiming that if she had found Navarro with another woman, she'd be in La Vega Alta, a prison for women in Puerto Rico § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That can be removed. Stating that he use to be married to Queen and that there was a possible lawsuit for an album which he was the main producer is not "gossip" and should of stayed in the article. EDIT: Is this better: "Gran Omar was previously married to fellow reggaeton artist Martha Pesante, known by her stage name Ivy Queen. They were divorced in 2005 following a nine-year marriage.[15] A year after their separation, Navarro stated that Queen owed him money from the sales and production of the album Cosa Nostra: Hip-Hop, which they presented together due to their obligations and contract with Univision.[16] No legal action was taken, however.[16]"? —  Diva    Knockouts   21:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That looks better, assuming you can work it into the article instead of devoting an entire section called "Personal life" to it. § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Incorporated into the "Musical career" section. —  Diva    Knockouts   21:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Much better, thank you! § FreeRangeFrog croak 22:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

There still is an issue of his birthplace, nationality, and ethnicity in the lede. --Malerooster (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Zack Kopplin Again
After attempting to resolve problems with the National Influence section it has been vandalized again with sourced material deleted.128.42.159.243 (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like a dispute over content - not "vandalism" which generally is used in a different context on Wikipedia. Still will keep an eye out. Collect (talk) 10:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

William Earl Reid
William Earl Reid Please remove the last line of this page suggesting William Earl Reid was fined for selling a car. This is libellous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sstroppa (talk • contribs) 16:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Not libel - but likely of insufficient weight as the article was not really about him. Collect (talk) 16:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Ivy Queen
Can we get some help on nailing down her birthplace? It seems that her PR ethnicity, if she is American, is pretty significant, so it could go in the lede, but a rewrite of lede and infobox would be in order if she was in fact born in NYC. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

David Miscavige
I could use some advise on how to move forward on this, User:Colliric added the following to the David Miscavige page, I reverted it due to both weight, the fact that Miscavige and Cruise both deny it, and I honestly don't trust statements that start with "and potentially this caused..." within a BLP. Colliric has gone to my talk page and both defended the addition and accused me of edit warring. I'm not trying to prod a hornets nest but I think this addition violates wikipedia standards. Can I get someone else to take a look at this. I have also posted a discussion on the talk page.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And the sole source for the report is an anonymously-sourced British tabloid story. Unacceptable per WP:RS. Good catch, it has no place in the article. polarscribe (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Also a blatant example of ALLEGED.  Captain Screebo Parley! 16:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is a contemporus 2006 article I did not refer to, it also has several sources it links to. There are other references for this which can be easily found. http://www.crushable.com/2006/11/20/entertainment/tom-cruises-best-man-comes-on-honeymoon/ I'm just frankly a little lazy and didn't add more refs Like I should have.

Colliric (talk) 09:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have reverted this junk and replied at the talk page, as to your source it's an online vomit-bag of celebrity gossip trash. You might want to read (and try to understand) Reliable sources.  Captain Screebo Parley! 10:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't hold back, now, Screebo -- tell us what you really think. (I agree with you on the source; another story link there tells us, don't "cup-shame" Jennifer Aniston.)  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well sometimes one needs to let off steam and get it off one's chest, after being confronted with a hoard of preposterous BLP violations, the perpetrators often displaying symptoms of IDHT or CIR or whatever (so many to choose from). BTW your comment literally made me laugh out loud. Cheers!  Captain Screebo Parley! 09:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The greater issue is whether "entertainment news" (aka "gossip columns") are good sources for BLPs in general.  Even in regular (WP:RS) newspapers, they appear to hold quite different standards than those held for "real news" articles.  Collect (talk) 11:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Quite, where would be the correct place to discuss this? An RfC on the TP of reliable sources?  Captain Screebo Parley! 09:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I have relented to this change back, I am happy this has been mentioned in the talk page as it was an obvious omission given it was widely reported. Also given Tom Cruise and David Miscavige also deny publically the Xenu doctrine(and David Miscavige also denies he was involved in the Lisa Mcpherson affair), their common denial is not really to be given weight(and isn't by most). If Katie Holmes denied it, then maybe you might have had something with that particular defense. Lawrence Wright reported in his Book that Tom Cruise auditioned his wife with the help of Miscavige(and his wife Shelly), so perhaps that has more gravitas to be in the article given it was a published New York Times Bestseller? or is that also not good enough(serious question here)? Colliric (talk) 11:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think you are understanding the point. Your edit makes two claims, each of which are problematic.  The first claim is that he went to Tom and Kates honeymoon, which is insignificant gossip.  You can have that reported by a documentary video showing that it happened and signed affidavits by everyone involved that it happened and it still wouldn't warrant inclusion because wikipedia doesn't document insignificant vacations.  It is a bit odd, but odd isn't encyclopedic, we don't have in the article that he stores water glasses with plastic wrap in the fridge even though that has been reported by time magazine.  Now to make up for the fact that it is insignificant, your edit is making the further claim that this potentially caused friction between Tom and Kate.  The first claim is insignificant unless it proves noteworthy through some causal effect, and the second claim (the causal effect) is hidden behind "potentially."  He is also "potentially" a lizard alien sent to earth to control the human race as a new food source, according to some but we aren't going to report that.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

You did not explain that correctly when you deleted the whole thing with little explination. Now that you have finally explained it, I now understand and I agree I was too agressive in the language. I was trying to reflect the source's tone(which I admit took the addition too far). I do believe that section still needs expansion, should be a few sentences, not just one that makes it seem as if he was 100% hands-off as that is also in violation of the need for lack of bias as Lawrence Wright's book elaborated on the marriage and Miscavige's role in it(including the accusations he and his wife played "matchmaker" and auditioned candidates), and some of the accusations should be included, in similar style to the reference to Jenna Miscavige's own book that appears directly above it. I will not do it myself though as I have not yet personally read exactly what the book says about Miscavige. Should be fairly easy given that it's already Ref number 45, and the write up just needs to be done. Colliric (talk) 14:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Boston Marathon Bombing Suspects
Some well meaning editors are citing BLP as a reason not to use the word "suspect(s)" or post FBI released photos of the suspects. Some are going to far as to suggest we need to wait for an conviction. The FBI said suspects and every media outlet is reporting it so how can WP do any damage? I welcome feedback. Legacypac (talk) 23:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If the FBI has named those two unknown people as suspects then that's what we call them, unknown people who are suspects. If they cease to be suspects then we stop calling them that. Those photos are all over the world now, we're not infringing on anyone's privacy by referencing them. No need to get creative with the BLP stuff until their identities are known. § FreeRangeFrog croak 23:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * They are not named people though. That means that anyone that resembles that could be considered a suspect. And they are only suspects, not charged or the like. BLP is pretty clear that this is a case we should stay far away from (erring on the side of caution for BLP). This is also backed by the fact we aren't a newspaper. We're not supposed to cover stories like this like a breaking news story; the photos add nothing of encyclopedic value at this point. --M ASEM  (t) 03:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I contend that "referring to them" and "putting their pictures on the article" are quite different. These people have a right to privacy and presumed innocence; just because the FBI wants to talk to them shouldn't change that.  Ignatz mice•talk 03:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've requested over there that anyone who believes the pictures are a violation of WP:BLP to quote the excerpt from that policy that supports their claim. So far, no excerpt there or here.
 * Masem, Ignatzmice, Would you care to give the excerpt from WP:BLP that supports your claim? --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." Pretty clear it applies here. --M ASEM (t) 03:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Masem, I addressed this previously on the article's Talk page. Here's what I wrote. Please comment. Thanks.
 * "WP:BLPCRIME does not prohibit including the pictures. It asks editors to seriously consider the issue. The FBI did not immediately release the pictures because it was seriously considering the issue too. According to the media, the FBI's decision to release was partly based on a video it has, but hasn't released,  of one of the individuals putting down his backpack where one of the explosions took place."
 * --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree with Masem, WP:BLPCRIME seems to apply. In addition, and I know I keep repeating this, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. We should wait until someone is charged, and then put in a pic of them, if it's necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ignatzmice   (talk • contribs)   03:57, 19 April 2013‎  (UTC)
 * Ignatzmice, From the link you gave, Wikipedia is not a newspaper,
 * "As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events."
 * Could you quote the part of Wikipedia is not a newspaper that supports your point? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * We look to permanence of information, not information as best known at the moment. Updating the investigation details a few times a day as it happens is good and falls in line with NOTNEWS. Doing a minute-by-minute edits as the story developes is not. At the time, fuzzy photos of two men of interest is just current information but not of permenance. That's changed with the MIT/Watertown/FBI naming stuff, but before then, we recognize that those photos were only there to help FBI get ppl to look for these suspects, and that does not have permenance on WP. --M ASEM (t) 14:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Re "We look to permanence of information, not information as best known at the moment. " — They aren't mutually exclusive. We can have both. For example, see the comment I made below regarding the historical nature of one of the pictures, which is displayed below. Also note that in Wikipedia, articles can regularly change for even old topics, as editors research reliable sources and add or delete or correct material. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Mind you, I removed "suspect" a couple of times, based on a very simple reason: the reference didn't use the word. It was Legacypac who reinstated it, though as any fool could have seen the word "suspect" wasn't in there. Legacypac has plenty of zeal but not a clue about BLP, or even properly sourcing in the first place. Drmies (talk) 03:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the word "suspect" is not in the ref'd link but is in a page linked from the ref'd link. That said, Legacypac's knowledge of policy does seem to be... patchy.  Ignatz mice•talk 03:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * But the word Suspect is in the ref FBI pagethe ref'd link. Scroll below the images and Suspect(s) is used 5 times on the FBI page before the "more" tag. And I'm the one accused of not being able to read. I will however give the benefit of the doubt that the other editor was looking at some source that did not include the word. Legacypac (talk) 04:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Procedural comment - Because there's already an RFC on this, can we redirect future commentary to that RFC (I realize it gets edit conflicty (maybe we need some subheadings)) so we can keep things in one place. Going to far off forums is going to be missed by most. Shadowjams (talk) 04:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. We can't use the pictures anyway. Fair use does not allow images of living persons. The images are copyright so we need to have the rights holders release them under a 'free license' The FBI didn't take the pictures so they are not public domain like other federal government works.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You're glaringly wrong with this statement: "Fair use does not allow images of living persons." (tell the NYT that) You're also not considering fair use, and most of all, this is not at all the venue to discuss the copyright status of the pictures. Shadowjams (talk) 04:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Doesn't seem like the pictures can be copyrighted. According to Public_domain
 * "In short: Bare facts are in the public domain. Works must show sufficient human creativity to be eligible to copyright at all."
 * --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Photos of people are copyrightable, easily. The lighting and shadows that fall on a person's face are the creative elements on the photographer. To Shadowjams, it is not fair use that restricts that, but our en.wiki non-free content policy, since the implication is that if a person is living, it is nearly always possible to get a free photo. Now in this case, (after MIT/Watertown events and updated FBI info), the one photo that the FBI has put out of the surviving brother, even if non-free, is likely going to be irreplacable with the man on the lam, so if that photo is non-free (I don't think it is) we could consider using it, after we get past the BLP issues. --M ASEM (t) 14:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The picture I had in mind was taken by a surveillance camera, so the point you made about a photographer's choice of light and shadows doesn't apply. Also, regarding the point you made about permanence, this may be an historic photo because it shows the suspects at the scene of the crime just before the bombing. Regarding the BLP issues, could you respond to my previous above comment of 04:06, 19 April 2013 that was a response to your message? Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Aidan Heavey
Hi there,

Aidan Heavey is the CEO of the company that I work for (Tullow Oil). He has recently expressed some concerns around his entry on Wikipedia. All of the content relating to Reference 6 (^ a b GNN Liberia (31 January 2013). "Tullow Oil’s projections cause budgetary worries in Africa". GNN Liberia.) is factually incorrect.

We approached the journalist that wrote the article and, after hearing our concerns, he agreed to either amend or remove the article. Unfortunately he never did so.

I would like to amend the entry with some updates, and also remove all of the content related to Reference 6. However as I work for the company that Aiden is the CEO of I am wary of being accused of corporate censorship.

Could you advise me please as to the best way to go about amending and updating this page so that it is done in an unbiased, factual and transparent maner? I do have a fisked version of the article if that is of any use?

I did also start a conversation on the talk page of this article. Apologies if this is the wrong approach but I am very new to wikipedia editing and still trying to figure it all out.

Any help / advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, LindsayAtTullowOil (talk) 10:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Make suggestions on the article talk page for sure! And avoid puffery and promotion, and try to find outside sources for as much info as you can - Wikipedia tends to downplay company bios.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The GNN source was being misused. Collect (talk) 12:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your help and also thank you for removing the paragraph relating to the GNN source. I don't do puffery and promotion and have agreed to help resolve this issue on the basis that I do so in a transparent, factual and non-blow-your-own-corporate-trumpet manner. So far my approach seems to have worked in my favour on Wikipedia. LindsayAtTullowOil (talk) 13:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Steven Hatfill
This article is essentially a smear campaign. It would seem the NYT and FBI had already handled that and Wikipedia could just report the case in its article. It has been tagged as problematic for tone since 2008. -166.137.210.23 (talk) 15:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's unclear what exactly is going on, but the article has multiple issues in tone and sourcing. a13ean (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Manuel Rivas
Manuel Rivas was born in A Coruña, Spain in 1957. His page currently says he was born in Westwood, España, and has no option to edit. Source: http://www.escritores.org/biografias/240-manuel-rivas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.202.74.88 (talk) 01:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Savannah Smith Boucher
A user, who signed their edits in such a way as to imply that they are an immediate family member of the article topic, recently blanked Savannah Smith Boucher, replacing it instead with an assertion that the article constituted "identity theft" of information not authorized for distribution by the Boucher family. I've reverted the article back to its prior form and editprotected it for the time being, but would like to ask if somebody from BLPN could review the article and its sources to see if there is anything in it that should actually be removed. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 01:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I"m not sure full protection is called for -- rather a block of that editor, perhaps (repeated vandalism). The main article where there was edit-warring is Sherry Boucher.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 01:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There are a whole series of articles about the extended Boucher family, all created by blocked sockpuppeteer and prolific copyright violator User:Billy Hathorn. It seems that these articles may be causing grief to members of that extended family. Articles about non-notable family members, such as the father of the actresses who was a real estate developer and mayor of a town of 5000, should be deleted. Articles about notable actresses should be pruned to only what reliable sources say. Sourcing of these articles is shoddy.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  02:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Then by all means, that should be done. Bearcat (talk) 02:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

KS MAKHAN
Information on the life is KS MAKHAN especially in his "Personal Life" section is both without reference or citation to any article of truth.

It is requested the information about his marital status, his alleged infidelity and the explanation provided for his change of career direction be immediately removed until such time that factual referenced information is provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.106.57 (talk) 06:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The problematic material seems to have been removed by an unregistered editor. I have watchlisted the page, and encourage others to do so as well. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Quinton Hoover
People have been claiming the death of Quinton Hoover all day, but no one has even tried to provide a source for this. Can anyone obtain some more information? 98.220.156.36 (talk) 23:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * All we've got so far is buzz on Twitter and Facebook, and an Examiner.com piece sourced to social media. None I saw were reliable sources. So I will remove the claim.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  01:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Todd Lieberman
I think Mr. Lieberman just showed up at help desk wanting to create his own article. Does someone wish to create a stub so he has a talk page to make COI requests?--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * A quick and dirty search indicates Mandeville Films is likely more notable than Todd Lieberman. I'm not convinced either one passes WP:42. Mandeville Films could probably use some reduction and/or tagging. JFHJr (㊟) 02:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Lieberman was producer for the one film that won two Oscars. The other films in the Mandeville 'list article' are all blue links. They could be trimmed maybe and just include the major award nominees and and minor winners in a table. Is Lieberman notable enough as producer of a two Oscar movie? I didn't check the notability of the other films.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't believe this. I think I may just walk away unless another editor wants to help fix the mess on the new page. I tried and had half my work removed.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A cry for help indeed, more eyes please, I have hacked, slashed, tagged, warned the user about COI and puffery, twas a huge mess, I'm off to sharpen shiny things while I sleep.  Captain Screebo Parley! 01:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I think that editor's talk page full of policy spam may clue them in. If not we may just get an admin to spank them as well. I too am about to call it a night, thanks again.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, just wikilinked the institutions and films in the "Career" section.  Captain Screebo Parley! 10:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm still having a hard time finding WP:GNG criteria. I'm still not seeing the coverage of Lieberman, and I think sourcing in both articles is awful. I'm not finding any better on my own... JFHJr (㊟) 18:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Some others are working on it now. Sources have improved.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Steve Yuhas
Folks, would someone with more time than I have at the moment please take a look at this one? There is a lot of unsourced and unencyclopedic material that needs sorting, and I am sure other issues as well. Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear God. This is one of the most atrocious BLP-violating contrivances I've ever seen. Lots of SPA-supplied phony sourcing. Have any of the "contributors" been spotted as Benjiboi socks? I've taken my machete to it, but there's more work to do. Possibly involving a wrecking ball. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the work so far, it's looking better already.--ukexpat (talk) 03:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The wrecking ball has been used. It's now a stub. Almost nothing in it was properly sourced or supported, and it was written like an opinion piece.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks folks, works for me.--ukexpat (talk) 02:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Kermit Gosnell
This is way, way above my pay grade, but I sense real trouble brewing here and more experienced heads than mine will be needed. For example, there's heavy reliance (a through ax -- no kidding) on a grand jury report issued just 9 days ago, which I suspect counts as primary. And that's just ref [1]! Good luck. This tape will self-destruct in five seconds. EEng (talk) 19:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Review of draft for Ping Fu
Hi everyone. As some of you here may be aware, there has been a lot of activity around Ping Fu's article in recent months, following press coverage of criticisms about her memoir. On behalf of Geomagic, the company founded by Ping Fu, I've been working on a new draft for the article based on reliable sources. A few editors who have been involved on the article have been reviewing the draft and one has suggested that I reach out to editors here who are knowledgeable about BLP issues.

Here's the link to the draft: User:16912_Rhiannon/Ping_Fu, which editors are discussing on the draft's Talk page. There is also a small discussion at WikiProject Biography that you may want to take a look at. I've described there the issues with the current article and how I've tried to address these in the draft.

As I wrote at WikiProject Biography, in addition to fixing specific issues with the current article, I've looked at how to deal with details that have been disputed and have conflicting references. My feeling is that it may be best to reduce the detail regarding Ping's early life and education as the sources conflict and some facts have recently been called into question. I've kept these details to a minimum in the draft for this reason.

I should note that after feedback on the Memoir section, I've rewritten this slightly and offered the updated version on the draft's talk page for review before I drop it into the draft. It would be fantastic if editors here could review the draft and the updated Memoir section on the Talk page and offer their thoughts. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 23:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That is some awesome work, especially the memoir section. I know that was the main contentious issue and I think you've established a perfectly appropriate balance. High Kudos. § FreeRangeFrog croak 23:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much, FreeRangeFrog. Can I just check, were you referring to the updated version of the Memoir section on the draft's Talk page? (I'll be dropping this into the draft once the editor who provided feedback originally has been able to review it again.)
 * Because I have a COI here, I'd love to get further feedback if any editors are interested. Also, if editors feel it's ready, they can move across the text from my draft to the live article, as I won't make edits to the article myself. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 14:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to ping this thread again to see if anyone else would like to take a look at the draft. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 20:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, yes. But where does your COI issue come from? § FreeRangeFrog croak 20:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, FreeRangeFrog, I missed your reply until just now: as I mentioned above, I wrote the draft on behalf of Geomagic, the company founded by Ping Fu and received input from Fu and her team. So, that's why I have a COI with the subject. As an update, after review by editors, one editor has moved two of the sections into the live Ping Fu article: Early life and education and Memoir. I wonder if you'd mind looking at the remaining sections, as well as the introduction and the infobox to see whether those could also be moved into the article? Unlike the information about the memoir and Fu's early life, I think the remaining sections are relatively uncontroversial and I've addressed editors' requests to make small changes for clarity, so I think they're ready unless you can see any issues? Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 23:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh right, I should have read your entire message. Going over what you have I see no real problems, honestly. I'd say put them in and then the concerned parties can work off of what you've created. I see there are at least two other editors who have provided feedback to you, so I think we're good from a COI perspective. § FreeRangeFrog croak 17:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Actually, I follow the "bright-line" rule suggested by Jimbo Wales, so I'd rather not move the sections into the article myself. If you think they look good, would you mind making the move? If you're able to do that, I can leave an update on the Ping Fu Talk page to explain and invite editors to continue work on the sections once live. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 18:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If you can find someone else to assist with that, go ahead. I can do it but I'm a bit busy IRL at the moment, so it would be in a couple of days. § FreeRangeFrog croak 20:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, FreeRangeFrog. I'll see if anyone is willing to move the draft sections, otherwise, I'm happy to wait for you to do so. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 21:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Possible BLP issue on Talk:Shirley Ardell Mason
Hello. At Talk:Shirley_Ardell_Mason, two individuals are engaging in what I can only describe as 'bickering' over the page subject, making several claims against each other in the process. I have hidden the text via divhide and left a note that their conduct is not appreciated, but I'm less sure about whether it might be specifically of BLP concern. Any comments or suggestions? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Mason is not a living person, so how is this a BLP issue? Doczilla  @SUPERHEROLOGIST 02:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * BLP will only apply in this case if the subject is recently deceased (no more than 3 months I believe), or if the edit itself will directly affect a living person. My read is that in this case BLP does not apply, unless you have a specific concern which falls into the criteria I have stated above.  I agree with Doczilla's comments both above and on the page.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I certainly wasn't clear about my concern - the arguments and criticisms of Suraci and Nathan against each other is what I am concerned about. Naturally Mason isn't living and their speculations aren't useful for changing the main page but their claims of incompetence and bias against each other may be BLP issues, I'm not sure.
 * Apologies, I should have been clearer. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 21:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Bernard C. Parks
has more than one son, Bernard C. Parks, Jr. He also has daughters. Felicia Parks-Mena, Lori Parks (deceased), Michelle Parks, and Trudy Parks (deceased). I know this to be true because I am his grand-daughter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drneal1990 (talk • contribs)
 * Anything added to the encyclopedia should be based on Wikpedia's version of a reliable source, which please see. Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev
The article Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev includes the names of parents, sisters and an uncle of the suspects in the Boston Marathon bombings. These people are not notable and had no involvement in the attack. Their names should not be published in accordance with WP:BLPNAME. The understanding of readers is not enhanced by knowledge of family members' names. These uninvolved people are entitled to privacy and freedom from intrusion as they get on with their lives. WWGB (talk) 06:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you complaining, in part, about family members such as a father, mother, and uncle who are giving interviews to the print and tv media?--Epeefleche (talk) 06:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * In addition the wife was clearly identified in a press release by her family, the Russels and is under investigation about the whereabouts of her husband and how did he behave, when was he home, when he was absent, did they see any signs of his intentions? Just what they knew about him. Hardly an irrelevant matter. See for example the New York Daily News article clearly identifying Mrs. Katherine Russell. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/wife-family-alleged-boston-bomber-express-shock-death-article-1.1322882 Or legitimate questions about her involvement. "Tamerlan Tsarnaev's Wife: Who Is She?" type of concerns in http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2311809/Tamerlan-Tsarnaev-Boston-bomber-married-Katherine-Russell-converted-Islam-marry-him.html Her presence for 4 years with him, her testimony about his whereabouts, when did he travel to Russia, what were the contact with his family etc) will give clear leads to the investigation and our understanding of the case. Hardly an outsider that had nothing to do with all this. As for parents being identified, why did the father apply for US asylum. It's not that the culprits came to America themselves. What happened that he returned to Russia leaving the kids alone in the States? These are very relevant to the case for parents to be identified The concerns are so valid and crucial cited WP:BLPNAME "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed...", does not apply at all in this case. werldwayd (talk) 06:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 07:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's a problem with using the names of family members, given that they are reported in a number of reliable sources.
 * However, I certainly have a problem with anything that implies that anyone other than the two brothers were involved in the attack. Mere speculation is not enough to connect anyone to the attacks. We might say that investigators want to talk with Tsarnaev's wife to find out about his activities, but we certainly cannot suggest that she was involved in any way, shape or form with the attacks.
 * The Daily Mail is a tabloid well-known for sensationalistic speculation and is not a good source for contentious claims about people. polarscribe (talk) 07:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Our objection was the derogatory manner in which his wife was being mentioned. Our Wikipedia entry sadly read: "He married a woman from North Kingstown, Rhode Island, who reportedly converted to Islam after meeting him and was 24 years old at the time of the bombing". I was incensed by the wording considering this as derogatory. He didn't marry some "woman". He married an individual. There was a year when they got married. Her age at the time of bombing is a senseless reference. It has nothing to do with her being 24 or 26 when he bombed the event. I considered our way of presenting his family life as an attempt to dehumanize and demonize him and objectifying his wife and his family as some secondary worthless matter. I also found objectionable the way our references were made about his very public parents. Our Wikipedia article said: Their father is a Muslim Chechen and their mother is a Muslim Dagestani. Further down it says: "Born in Kyrgyzstan (to whom?), Dzhokhar "Jahar" Tsarnaev was given the same first name, "Dzhokhar," as the first president of Chechnya, Dzhokhar Dudayev (by whom?). Conclusion: He was just given a name by a Chechen man and a Dagestani woman apparently? This is flimsy awkward reporting not an encyclopedic article. My alternative wording was: "Tamerlan was born in Dagestan, North Caucasus, Russia, in 1986, and Dzhokhar was born in Kyrgyzstan in 1993. Their father Anzor Tsarnaev is a Muslim Chechen and their mother Zubeidat is a Muslim Dagestani. The Tsarnaevs also have two daughters Amina and Bella. Their father was a traditional Muslim who reportedly shunned religious extremism. As children, Tamerlan and Dzokhar lived in Tokmok in Kyrgyzstan. In 2001, the family moved to Makhachkala, Dagestan in Russia. The entire Tsarnaev family immigrated in 2002 to the United States" adding many references. Thus we were factual and respectful to his family. werldwayd (talk) 07:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The above comments risk going off topic. Let's get back to the issue first raised above, and see WWGB's thoughts and those of others. (Anyway, for the record, a) she is a woman, which I don't read as derogatory and which more accurately describes her than saying she is "an individual" ... and, of course, these days ...; and b) the media at least in the early days was only identifying her age at the date of the bombing or date of the writing and were not identifying their year of marriage with particularity -- but these are normal editing issues that are not the focus of the question up above).--Epeefleche (talk) 07:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Here are very public media outlets naming his wife Katherine Russell by name: New York Daily News, The Globe and Mail, ABC News werldwayd (talk) 21:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Feiz Mohammad
I have removed material from Feiz Mohammad's page that attempts to link him to the Boston Marathon bombings in the flimsiest possible way. In a section labeled "Controversy," which contains a number of reports of Mohammad's actions and speeches that have been offensive, hostile and generally make him not a very nice person, a sub-section was added that reported that... one of his YouTube videos was linked in the channel of the suspected bomber.

This is right out and an incredibly thin attempt at guilt by association. It is not suggested that Mohammad had any contact with the bombers. It is not suggested that Mohammad encouraged the bombers to attack Boston. It is not suggested that Mohammad had anything to do with the attacks whatsoever - and he had absolutely no control over who might have linked his videos on YouTube. This is like suggesting that because Timothy McVeigh distributed gun-rights literature, that we should have a paragraph in every article for the gun-rights organizations he supported mentioning that they were part of McVeigh's terrorist attack.

Whatever other vile things Mohammad may have done in his life, there is absolutely no evidence that he had anything to do with the attacks and linking him to the attacks smacks of "find someone to smear." polarscribe (talk) 07:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This should be addressed with all due sensitivity to BLP issues, relating to a public person. For sure.  But there is already widespread coverage in RSs, including ones such as the New York Times, of this person and the bombing.  Of course it is not an issue of him having anything to do with the bombings, and his comments in this regard to the public are worthy of noting (I think he either condemned it and/or said he had nothing to do with it), as well as any other RS-covered material that is proper to reflect for a public BLP.  It should be done carefully, accurately, and reflect his statement.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * So you're suggesting it would be proper to have a section in the National Rifle Association mentioning that Timothy McVeigh was a member? That's documented in a number of reliable sources. But it's not known to have anything to do with the attacks and linking the two would be guilt by association. So we don't do it. If one of the suspects comes out and says "Yeah, I watched Feiz Mohammad's video and that's why I blew up the marathon" or if the law enforcement investigation concludes that there are specific links between his videos and the bombings, then it would be proper to discuss them in this context. But the mere fact that the suspects *watched* some of this guy's videos is of absolutely no probative value. They probably watched Gangnam Style, too. polarscribe (talk) 07:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What? The Attorney General of Australia has commented on their posting of Gangam Style?--Epeefleche (talk) 07:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It was entirely proper to remove it, especially with that section heading. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Section headings, etc., can be addressed with normal editing. As can other issues with that para, in accord with our BLP rules for public persons.  But here, looking at it, we have deletion of Feiz Mohammad having denounced the bombings.  We have deletion of him having volunteered to NSW police that he had no connection with the suspects. And we have the Attorney General of Australia Mark Dreyfus supporting him.  The para was not written properly, of course, but failing to cover this seems like the wrong approach. Simply edit the title, fix the text, and cover it properly.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * We could certainly mention that he denounced the bombings. There's no reason to mention that the suspects watched his videos, unless there is specific evidence that the videos influenced the attacks. Which doesn't exist right now. Maybe it will, and if that comes out, then we should revisit the issue.
 * Almost all of these problems arise from trying to do too much too fast. Wikipedia does not have a deadline and does not have to be first. The investigation into these attacks is in its very earliest days and much of what is being speculated in the media may well be wrong - as it was first when everyone jumped on the Saudi guy, then when everyone jumped on that missing student that Reddit internet-detectived. We can, should and must wait for conclusions to be drawn before we connect people with a terrible, despicable and inhuman act. polarscribe (talk) 07:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * We're halfway there now. And it certainly should not say the videos influenced the attackers.  I'm sure if we follow the RSs, and what the Attorney General says, and what he himself says publicly, we'll be in the right place.  Of course, the entire reason its even an issue is because, as Joe Lieberman and others have suggested, he has been noted for seeking to inspire people to take certain actions -- which is what made him notable in the first place, in part.  But yes, we certainly have no evidence that there was such inspiration here.  But hiding what he says, what the Attorney General says, and what the RSs say is not the way to go, IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * We can afford to wait. If the investigation concludes that the videos were a key part of the motivation of the attackers, then it should certainly be included. If not, then it is nothing more than an unencyclopedic footnote. polarscribe (talk) 08:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No need to wait, though. It's pretty simple. In response to x, he said y, the country's attorney general said z.  I would guess that most of the people who have ever read the article are reading it in these few days.  They may as well see what is encyclopedic and is his response and the AG's comment.  It's pretty easy to do that within our guidelines for BLPs of public figures.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Review request
Please, take a look at the Vanilla DeVille article. It appears to be a BLP nightmare, almost enterely made of unreliable sources and of claims made by herself. Cavarrone (talk) 09:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Including really non-notable "nominations" etc. I depuffed that part - but it really needs major plastic surgery. Collect (talk) 19:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Abouzar Noghani


Dear Sir/Madam,

Please remove article "Abouzar Noghani". I've been abused, as the article has been changed by someone who added some wrong information and tried to character assassination.

Kind Regards,

Abouzar Noghani. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.208.13 (talk) 11:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * PRODed. It will be deleted in about seven days, as the subject does not seem to meet the notability guidelines for inclusion. § FreeRangeFrog croak 16:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Mariano Rajoy and Hitler comparisons
Can I ask for more eyes on this page? A user(s) keeps adding this poorly sourced material consisting mostly of original research, comparing the Spanish Prime Minister to Hitler. Valenciano (talk) 14:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Watched. polarscribe (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Travis Walker
Travis Walker Crude content, libelous. Incorrect information, non-existent boxing weight classifications. Inappropriate and non-factual nickname. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.17.157 (talk) 17:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've reverted some vandalism, and added some PC1 protection. Perhaps you could check it again in case there's anything I missed. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Chris Bascombe
Please delete this page. It falls into the category of 'Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose.'

The history of this page is littered with edits aimed to disparage. Although attempts have been made to offer a fairer biography, the vandalism continues. It is a selective biography set up by someone with a motive not to be informative, but intimidating. The subject is also not notable enough to warrant wikipedia entry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.216.144.186 (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Being discussed here: Articles for deletion/Chris Bascombe (2nd nomination).--ukexpat (talk) 01:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Frank Stitt
Attributing a chefs work to the growth of the "local food movement" is offensive. A chef is the one profiteering off this food not the farmer. The farmer sells the food for dirt cheap because if they didn't that chef wouldn't buy it. Then the chef turns that produce into 300% profit. Maybe if we made food more expensive, cut out the restaurants, and everyone made their own food that would be a locally grown food movement. But this is just good public relations for an already wealthy man. Also referring to grape harvesting as a "menial job" is double offensive to the people growing the food in this country. I would say editing Wikipedia is a menial job in comparison. Arflat (talk) 20:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not permitted to decide the things you are saying. If you can find a source claiming that he's profiteering (and such a view is common enough that adding it isn't undue weight), feel free to add it.
 * Furthermore, no definition of "locally grown food" defines it by how much profit is made, and there's no reason that someone who makes a lot of profit can't contribute to the movement as well.
 * But I suspect he's not actually making the profit you claim he is. The restaurant pays for more than just the cost of the food; they need to pay for rent, cashiers, advertising, business paperwork costs, etc.  Just because they take in 300% of the cost of the food doesn't mean they make 300% profit.
 * And grape harvesting is a menial job because it is a low skill operation that involves physical work. Ken Arromdee (talk) 03:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I notice that Arflat's only contribution to Wikipedia is this harsh criticism of Frank Stitt.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  04:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Benjamin Crump
This article reads like a puff piece written by a public relations consultant. It is completely non-objective and adulatory to an extreme. It should be withdrawn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.30.157 (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have started by rewriting the lede a little and removing some of the more obvious, unduly self-serving braggadocio that was in the first section, also wholesale deletion of the totally unreffed membership's section. When it comes to the cases and the article itself, just how notable is the guy, in and of himself? Because from what I can see, the initial cases are very well-known and he just happens to be the lawyer on the case, so a lot of the sources deal with the cases and only mention him in passing. Definitely needs more condensing, I'd say.  Captain Screebo Parley! 17:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think your concerns about coverage of Crump is being lacking are valid . Speaking to the media is part of his job, and the real coverage is his client. To boot, victims' families are not normally represented in criminal matters. Just in the civil suit that follows. WP:INHERIT looks like a very slippery slope in this case. JFHJr (㊟) 21:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC) ( Small text corrects the confusing slop. Screebo had reason to be confused! JFHJr (㊟) 00:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC))
 * Sorry, JF, I don't follow. What are you saying? That he has notability or not? I don't get the bit about INHERIT either, could you explain what you mean more fully? Cheers!  Captain Screebo Parley! 13:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry! Sloppy typing. I think the article's got problems with the "substantial" coverage part of WP:42. I'm on the fence as to whether he's encyclopedically notable. Who's written about him and not just his cases? JFHJr (㊟) 00:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah that's better, much clearer, will give his general notability a look in if I get time (or you don't beat me to it ;-)  Captain Screebo Parley! 09:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Reduced his ad to only 4 cases -- removed his "legal brief" on the Martin case as being violative of WP:BLP (including a minor problem that parts are contradicted by the Wikipedia article thereon and by most current sources). Bluelinked to the Wikipedia article which is policy compliant AFAICT. Collect (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Good move Collect, now is the man himself independently notable from the cases he has represented? (I now get the WP:INHERIT reffered to by JFHJr above).  Captain Screebo Parley! 22:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That would be better discussed at an AfD. Collect (talk) 23:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

For sure, that wasn't directly adressed at you :)  Captain Screebo Parley! 00:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Word of advice, mass IP revert of Collect's good work with edit summary Revert NPOV violator (which I have obviously reverted).  Captain Screebo Parley! 09:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 2nd mass revert, have requested PP for a few days so we can sort this out.  Captain Screebo Parley! 18:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Now on 10-day pending changes protection.  Captain Screebo Parley! 11:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Melissa Farley
An IP editor is removing text from various articles about Melissa Farley, ostensibly because she is no longer accredited in her field (psychology). The editor put up this notice at the Fringe noticeboard: "Melissa Farley is quoted in many articles as a accredited psychologist but is no longer is no longer accredited member of APA following Ethics violations over fraudulent fabricated research and there are many editors guarding article about her pet theories that quote her. This needs sorting out before these subject become laughing stock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.208.204.151 (talk • contribs)"

I have restored some cited or otherwise valid text removed by the IP, and reverted some uncited changes. The matter could use some more eyes, certainly. Binksternet (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * As you apparently have observed, the IP's contribution history shows that he/she has been removing material sourced to Farley in a few other articles, too. Per the talk page, Farley is licensed in California. Location (talk) 20:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The IP has no source saying that Farley was ejected from the APA; the only source is one listing the APA members, with no listing of Farley. Even so, Farley's research is not weakened thereby; the APA is not saying that her research is invalid. To me, this looks like a personal/scholarly vendetta. Binksternet (talk) 21:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Charlayne Hunter-Gault
The article oCharlayne Hunter-Gault is a mess, with lots of conflicting information (parents' and children's names are different in different places, chronology is confused, etc.), and someone has inserted comments about this into the text of the article instead of fixing the data. I don't have the information to fix it, but I thought someone should know about it. (There's no "This article needs to be cleaned up" notice at the top of the page.)Lisapaloma (talk) 05:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A tag has now been placed over there, and the above message has been copied to the talk page. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Tucker Reed


Material is being repeatedly inserted about a sexual assault accusation. The sources are all social media websites such as personal blogs or magazine opinion blogs. Wikipedia is being used to promote external websites which detail this unfounded allegation of sexual assault. MisTemPest (talk) 22:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I removed the link to the subject's article, and the reference to the magazine. The first one because it's a primary source. The second one, because extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, and a rape accusation is indeed an extraordinary claim. Unless there are multiple, reliable sources that have covered this, we can include the coverage, but not the direct accusation by the subject. WP:BLP applies to all people mentioned directly or indirectly on Wikipedia articles, and that includes the person Mrs. Reed is accusing of having assaulted her. § FreeRangeFrog croak 23:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources are cited. Other contributor attempting to preclude information regarding current contentious factual situation. Biased trolls IP address needs to be noted and blocked by Admin from further revisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.155.173.245 (talk) 05:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

MisTemPest is a biased user and is relentlessly trying to erase links to reliable websites that contain information regarding an important fact about Ms. Reed's life. To delete it would be to withhold information from wikipedia's encyclopedic community -- Ms. Magazine is credited as a source in many wikipedia pages. This information adhere's to wikipedias core content policies; it is neutral in tone, verifiably coming from a sound source, and is not an original research allegation. _______________________

FreeRangeFrog, the material you wish to delete from Reed's article (the "Challenged Material") is an extended reference to Miss Reed's body of work -- her writings. Since it merely identifies Reed's work, it certainly does not need any citation support beyond the fact of the writings themselves. It states as follows:

A self-identified sexual assault survivor, Reed authors the blog "Covered In Band-Aids," a collection of essays exploring "the assaulted woman’s life before, during and after her assault." Initially anonymous, Reed identified herself and her alleged attacker in a post on February 23, 2013.[4] This decision—and Reed's subsequent efforts to raise awareness for sexual assault victims at the University of Southern California—was profiled in a Ms. magazine article on April 10, 2013.[5]

All of this merely identifies the corpus of Reed's work. It is no less factual than identifying Reed's trilogy for young adults. You should further note that the Challenged Material makes no reference to a specific person -- does not identify a rapist -- and is not offered for this purpose. Indeed, the references to Reed's work accurately uses the phrase "alleged rapist", which fairly indicates that the man was not (yet) convicted of a crime. Instead, the Challenged Material has been offered to show how Reed is using her voice and writing skills. It is as if you are trying to delete the title of a book she wrote because the content of the book contains material objectionable to, say, a religious extremist. Your censoring of Reed's bio at the behest of this man furthers his efforts to silence Reed, and it is ill-founded and not in accordance with the standards promulgated by Wiki.

Please tell me exactly what in the Challenged Material requires citation support, when the mere fact of its existence is all that is being referenced. I believe your support of MisTemPest is ill-founded and misguided, and based on an emotional response to the content of Reed's blog, not the content of her biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.155.173.245 (talk) 08:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Social media websites such as personal blogs or magazine opinion blogs (such as, Ms. magazine blog) are NOT reliable sources. "Ms. Magazine blog" is not subject to the same standards as "Ms. Magazine", and the blog even has the disclaimer that all blog content is the opinion of the writer not the editors. The writer of the Ms. Magazine blog article is a student at the same university as the subject of the article. MisTemPest (talk) 15:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME applies to accusations as well as to outright statements that someone has committed a crime. "For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." Just because the source uses the phrase "alleged rapist" rather than "rapist" to describe a person doesn't make it permissible. Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

You are missing the point. These statements in Reed's biography identify no one and accuse no one -- they merely make clear that Reed's body of work focuses on the fact of her believing herself raped and reacting to that belief.

You are exhibiting a knee-jerk reaction that SILENCES this woman and IGNORES the writings/work that she most identifies with, by censoring out all references to her work EVEN THOUGH THESE REFERENCES DO NOT IDENTIFY OR LIBEL ANYONE.

The individual in question has the right to sue Reed for libel and in fact has (though he will have an uphill battle persuading a jury to ignore his four taped confessions to the crime). All of that is beside the point. Reed self-identifies as a feminist writer particularly focused on the topic of rape. You should not erase this central and critical facet of her work. You have no justification for doing so, and the cited language certainly does not provide such justification, since no one -- neither Reed nor anyone else -- is identified as "accused of a crime." Would you likewise edit Oprah Winfrey's biography to hide her report that she was incestuously raped as a child?

Reed's rapist is trying to rape her again, by silencing her. And you are colluding. 140.211.172.23 (talk) 21:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if the individual can or cannot sue Reed, Wikipedia cannot be the conduit for allegations about anything. The subject's blog specifically named the alleged attacker, and it even included photographs. Beyond that, if the subject is not notable, then it becomes an issue of the article being merely promotional, and that's why it is now at WP:AFD. § FreeRangeFrog croak 22:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your multiple submissions, but your walls of text are excessive. Here is some general advice that applies to this situation:
 * 1. Text should be supported by citations to secondary sources, avoiding excessive reliance on primary sources. See also specific rules regarding self-publications and claims made by the subject regarding the subject.
 * 2. Linking to Amazon is discouraged because it is a sales site and contains user-generated content. Very little is actually reliable, notability-wise.
 * 3. If you think there are reliable third-party publications giving significant coverage to this subject, then add them to the article. So far, I haven't found any.
 * 4. If you think this person is notable in Wikipedia terms according to those sources, please have a read at basic notability criteria for living persons, as well as special criteria at WP:AUTHOR. Then, comment at the deletion discussion.
 * 5. If you think the book is notable, then vote for a  or   at the deletion discussion.
 * Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 01:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Boston Marathon bombings (again)
Could I ask those familiar with policy, particularly WP:BLPCRIME to keep an eye on the Boston Marathon bombings article, as we have at least one contributor arguing that policy (specifically "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law") does not apply if we have a reliable source that says that third parties (in this case, unnamed "U.S. officials") have witnessed a confession by the accused - see Talk:Boston Marathon bombings. As uncomfortable as it may seem to some, we clearly have an obligation to refer to the alleged perpetrator as just that - or as a suspect - until a court determines otherwise. Wikipedia is not a court of law. We do not determine innocence or guilt. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * When looking at this, it is important to be clear about an important distinction. On the one hand, we have someone admitted to committing an act (a bombing).  The act, in and of itself, is not a crime, and therefore that admission is not an admission to a crime, and blpcrime does not apply.

On the other hand, we have a specific criminal charge. That does fall under blpcrime. And an admission to comitting the act is not tantamount to a guilty plea. That is all discussed in greater detail at the above link that Andy provided.Epeefleche (talk) 07:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Complete and utter bollocks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:50, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You may kill me. That would be an act.  But it would not be a crime per se.


 * Why? Because you would have various defenses, including self-defense and insanity.


 * If you admit to killing me, you have not admitted to a crime. You are still innocent of a crime until proven guilty.  But you have killed me.


 * Under our policy, you could properly (as you admitted) be reflected as having killed me. But it would not be proper to say you have murdered me.  You would be an alleged murderer, still.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Nope. You don't get to Wikilawyer round policy just because you don't like it. We cannot state that the alleged bomber carried out criminal acts. Only that he is alleged to, or suspected of carrying out such acts. That is policy. It isn't open to negotiation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You do not understand. The person has not committed a crime if they have committed the act, but have a viable defense.  This is an elementary aspect of criminal law.


 * If you say you killed someone, that act is not criminal. In and of itself.  You may be innocent of any crime, due to any of a number of defenses.  As I already pointed out to you.  Twice.


 * It is not wikilawyering to actually read the policy. And follow it.  BLP:crime says:  "'A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law.... .... BLPCRIME applies to low-profile individuals and not to well-known individuals, in whose cases WP:WELLKNOWN is the appropriate policy to follow.'"


 * And WP:WELLKNOWN says: "'In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative.... Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that he actually did.'"Epeefleche (talk) 08:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you trying to be intentionally obtuse? Of course we can say that the alleged bomber is an 'alleged bomber'. What is being argued is that we can drop the 'alleged' bit, and say that he did it. That is a clear violation of policy. And no, it doesn't just apply to 'low-profile individuals', no matter how much you try to misrepresent it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note. If there is any suggestion that we should assume that WP:BLPCRIME policy is not sufficient to ensure that Wikipedia articles adhere to the presumption of innocence standards implied by the first sentence (i.e. "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law"), I shall have no hesitation in contacting the WMF, given the possible legal ramifications. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know how many times I have to say this before you get it. But I will try again.  Perhaps I've been unclear.


 * Crimes have elements, quite often. See Element (criminal law).  The act itself is only one of the elements.  Such is the case here.  If you commit the act (killing, hitting, bombing) you have not necessarily committed a crime.  If you admit to committing the act, you have not admitted committing the crime. You are still innocent of the crime.  If you admit the act and we reflect it, we have not stated that you committed a crime.


 * In contrast, murder and rape and battery, for example, are crimes. Not just acts.  Crimes.  To report that you are a murderer, or rapist, or committed battery, we need (in those cases where blpcrime applies) for you to have been convicted of such (if you are alive).


 * Is that clearer? Really, this is crim law 101.  Just look at the page murder and read the section on mitigating circumstances if I am still not clarifying for you the difference between the act (killing) and being guilty of the crime.


 * Also, please confirm for me your understanding of what I quoted to you above, from blpcrime, to the effect that the appropriate policy here is wp:wellknown, in any event.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not the slightest bit interested in your fatuous Wikilawyering WP:OR irrelevances. If you violate WP:BLP policy by stating that the individuals concerned committed criminal acts, I will revert you. If you persist, I will report you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I've quoted the policy to you. I've sought to explain.  I've shared links to help you understand what I am saying.  You seem to be conflating an element of crime with the crime itself.  You seem not to be reading the policy, and not to be reading the footnote I quoted to you.  I'm following wp policy to the letter.  You, in response, are spewing works like "bollacks," and not engaging in any thoughtful analytical response to the policy quoted or examples and explanation given.  I don't seem to have been able to communicate in a manner that you understand. And for that, I apologize.  Nobody is saying that alleged murderers should be called murderers without having been convicted of murder.  But you seem not to understand what I've sought to communicate.  If you wish to involve the WMF, as you suggested, perhaps they can better communicate with you.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Your 'examples' are irrelevant, and seem designed to confuse the issue. The specific question was whether we should continue to refer to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev as 'a suspect' or 'the accused', based on claimed confessions. This seems simple enough, without inventing fancy hypothetical scenarios involving other circumstances entirely. As for WMF involvement, if we are going to ignore the presumption of innocence as required in WP:BLPCRIME on the basis that "someone is notable so it doesn't apply", as you seem to be suggesting, I'm sure they will have to step in soon enough. Hopefully though, we can get a little input from people less keen on filling this page with irrelevances, and sticking to the point. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * In spite of the fact that there has been some spirited discussions regarding this article, Most of the editors are extremely well behaved with regard to their editing of the article. I doubt if there is an editor at all who has not seen at least one of there own edits reverted or removed. Yet there hasn't been anything remotely close to an edit war; just some spirited discussion, at times. I have high confidence that the article's integrity will be upheld to a high standard and remain in accordance with all relevant policy, pillar, and guideline. My76Strat (talk) 09:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I also draw a distinction between admission of taking an criminal act and pleading guilty to a specific charge. The "suspect" has now told the carjack vic and law enforcement that they did the bombings and killed the MIT officer. His wounding and capture in the manhunt is 110% proof he was in the police shootout. He even has stated reasons for the bombing (reasons much like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faisal_Shahzad). If someone claims responsibility for an act and that comes from RS we no longer need to dance around words like Suspect or Alleged or Accused as they apply to the acts. We only might need these words in relation to the actual criminal charge.

There is overwhelming evidence these guys did the bombing and the live brother admits it and says why he did it. We do not need to wait for a conviction before accepting him at his word that he is the bomber and just saying that he is the bomber.

There is also the suggestion we can't rely on what the Washington Post and Boston Globe say that law enforcement told them. If we toss out every RS just because we don't like the report, and yet we can't do OR like going to the hospital and asking him ourselves, how are we supposed to write anything?

Now for the dead brother - we can and should say he is the bomber based on his admissions to the carjack guy and the other evidence. There is no way he is protected by "presumed innocent until convicted" because he is dead and will never be charged or convicted. Here are a couple high profile examples of people who did not confess, but died in the act like the older brother, and what Wikipedia says right now:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Atta "was an Egyptian hijacker and one of the ringleaders of the September 11 attacks who served as the hijacker-pilot" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waleed_al-Shehri was one of five hijackers...

Legacypac (talk) 09:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a court of law. It isn't for us to decide what is 'overwhelming evidence'. I can see that this is going to need admin attention. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You can't really use the 911 hijackers or even Lee Harvey Oswald because of the Warren Commission and the 9/11 Commission. See if you can find an example that didn't result in a congressional commission to determine their guilt. Perhaps there will be one for this event. Otherwise it is simply best to just state the facts. My76Strat (talk) 10:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: I have raised this matter at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I hate all this "the media reports this, the media reports that" nonsense. This is not a news site; we should simply report what is, and is not, the case. At this point he hasn't stood trial or been convicted of anything. He hasn't even pleaded guilty in a court. Until those things happen he's still a suspect, and that's what we should say. It's not unheard of for people to confess to a crime out of court and ultimately be found not guilty (he could be insane and have imagined the whole thing for example). I'm not saying that this is likely, but as an encyclopaedia we should be documenting hard facts, and "media says this, tabloid says that" is not hard facts. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 10:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Saying that someone committed a bombing is, by any common sense standards, saying that they committed a crime. It is true that technically, that is not saying they committed a crime, because it is possible to commit a bombing and be not guilty of an actual crime for various reasons, but if you're going to interpret the policy that way, it would be meaningless. We wouldn't have to worry about saying that any person killed any other person, because after all, there are circumstances where killing someone isn't a crime so we're not accusing them of a crime. Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Reporting that someone committed a bombing is certainly not saying that they committed a crime. They are not guilty of a crime for having done so.  They may have defenses -- for example, duress or entrapment (which is a common defense for bombings).  Anyone who says "because he admitted committing the bombing, he committed a crime" would be flatly incorrect.  So, just because someone admits committing an act, while we can report it, we have to be very careful not to report that they committed a crime.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I personally think the argument that people sometimes confess to things they didn't do is overwhelming. If Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who has explicitly not been read his Miranda rights and is lying in a hospital bed, confesses to anything at all... this means nothing other than that he confessed under duress. There are many, many cases of people under duress confessing to things they didn't do. Heck, there are many, many cases of people confessing to things they didn't do, not under duress, just because they wanted some attention. Just because he was there at the same time as his brother is not a conviction. Unless and until he is convicted, Dzokhar remains a suspect. --Merlinme (talk) 23:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This is a straightforward issue: Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has not been found guilty in a court of law, and is therefore a suspect. Wikipedia does not lose anything or distort the truth in stating as much, and does not convict people in place of courts. One could argue many points in addition: that for obvious reasons he is the principle suspect; that reliable sources have heard from Federal officials that he confessed; that he was for a time semi-conscious and cannot speak; that he wasn't initially read his miranda rights or offered counsel. But as far as "suspect" is concerned, our course is clear here. -Darouet (talk) 02:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Naomi (pornographic actress)
Please review this diff and, if appropriate "unhide" the material I've hidden. I do not know when we can rely on a twitter feed that is verified to belong to the subject. I know there IS a rule, but I don't know what it is. David in DC (talk) 11:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Verified by Twitter have a blue checkmark like: https://twitter.com/TheRealDaphne --Canoe1967 (talk) 11:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * We have to be very careful about using selfpublished sources for content in articles - usually it's a no, but there are exceptions - but in this case it's not being used as a source, per se; more like an external link. I don't know of any formalised enwiki process on deciding whether a twitter feed is "official". If an account's been verified at Twitter's end, that's good enough for me, but this one doesn't seem to be. Her twitter feed looks plausible to me, but I'm not an expert on identifying pornstars. If anybody else can bring some other convincing reason to believe that it's real, we should be open to that... bobrayner (talk) 11:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not her. She has long exited the business. That account is probably run by the same person that operates naomirussellxxx.com, which is not her "official" site. One good way to ascertain whether a twitter is legitimate for porn stars is to look for posts of current photos of their day to day lives. That account has none. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, everybody. The specific issue is resolved, and I've got food for thought about the more generic issue, both as to porn actors specifically and for twitter in general.  Here's another thing I don't know how to do: seal this box up as resolved.  If someone else will do that, I'll take the BLP/N notice off the talk page thereafter.  Thanks. David in DC (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Lloyd Irvin (again)
This article has been the subject of two previous referrals:

Lloyd Irvin is a reasonably well-known martial arts instructor who has a Wikipedia article. Now, clearly this is a sensitive matter which is needs to be handled extremely carefully. However the allegations are clearly having a massive effect on Lloyd Irvin's life; students are leaving his school, people are breaking off ties, and he is being forced to defend himself in the press with regard to his earlier acquittal. My personal thought is that the way to approach it is to report the accusations against two of his students (number 1 above), which is a matter of record, and his response (number 3 above), only touching on the earlier accusations as much as is necessary to understand his response. Similarly it seems reasonable to briefly mention his recent statement ending his "affiliate" program (number 5 above), as reported in the martial arts press. I'm not confident on the sourcing for number 4 above.
 * 1) In 2013 two of his students were accused of rape on a third student. This is reported on wjla.com:  There have been various developments as a result of these charges.
 * 2) The martial arts press uncovered what appeared to be court and newspaper records of an earlier (1989) incident involving Lloyd Irvin, in which he was accused of a sexual crime but was found not guilty.
 * 3) Lloyd Irvin released an open letter:  on January 22nd which confirmed his involvement in the court case from 1989, and reasserted his successful defense from the court case that he did not have sex with anyone in the 1989 incident. He also noted that the students who had been accused of a crime on New Year's Eve had only been training with him for a few months.
 * 4) The martial arts press reported on March 5th: "Irvin crippled by mass exodus of top students after yet another scandal", where at least ten of his top students quit en-masse following further allegations.
 * 5) On March 10th the MMA press reported that "With more and more affiliate schools cutting ties with Team Lloyd Irvin, Irvin has announced that the entire program has been terminated."

Following a short discussion on the Talk page, given the previous history I was advised to bring it here. I'd appreciate people's thoughts. --Merlinme (talk) 17:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The last time this landed here we noted that the sources were crappy at best (no way to determine reliability), that it wasn't clear that the "event" had had any lasting effect on the man's life or career, and that the addition of the material in relation to the rest of the bio was an issue of undue weight. Has any of that changed? § FreeRangeFrog croak 17:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I personally thought one of the most interesting policy invocations from last time was WP:NPF, so I'd be curious to see how that would be handled, or if it even needed to be. I think this is a classic case of inclusion vs exclusion; where is the line between encyclopedic and tabloid? Buddy23Lee (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm having a hard time seeing reason for including any discussion of this material, per WP:NPF. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * In response to FreeRangeFrogs points: 1) sources currently include the website of WJLA-TV, i.e. channel 7, the ABC affiliated television station, and Irvin's own public written statements on the matter, as reported in secondary sources, in addition to a couple of martial arts websites. 2) it's clearly having a major effect on his life; "at least ten" of the best members of his team, i.e. his medal hopes, have just quit; three of his largest "affiliate" gyms publicly disassociated themselves this year, leading to Lloyd apparently deciding to end the affiliate program on his own terms and terminating the whole program. His own very long public statement, as issued to one of the oldest mixed martial arts magazines, suggests he is taking this extremely seriously. 3) Regarding undue weight, this may well be the thing that Lloyd Irvin will be best known for in coming years. I had not heard of him, despite his association with various top level martial artists, until the events recently reported in the martial arts press. I agree that it should not be allowed to dominate the entire article, but it seems appropriate to at least mention what will probably be regarded as the collapse of his entire business model. In the specific context of Team Lloyd Irvin, which is currently a paragraph in his article, it seems to be extremely relevant.
 * In response to WP:NPF, it's an interesting argument, but again, I strongly suspect this will be the incident he becomes best known for. The wording is: "include only material relevant to the person's notability". I would suggest that it's the main reason why he would be considered notable in martial arts at this point in time. In other words, this ongoing incident is bringing him to a level of notability higher than he had before, when he was only known as a respected competitor and trainer of a few significant athletes. --Merlinme (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I tip my hat to your points Merlinme and while I'd like to clarify that I'm neutral toward inclusion or otherwise, I'd also like to voice my concern in two areas in response. First, in regards to your best sources, those are predominately, if not exclusively, focused upon the alleged rape committed by his students and, other than being the figurehead for their former organization, I'm concerned that they don't have much bearing on Irvin himself in a direct personal manner. From what I could/can ever find online, I believe FreeRangeFrog is correct in that most of the sources regarding Irvin directly are MMA/BJJ blogs, and not more reputable sources. Secondly, while you might be right and your strong suspicion may be correct in that he could become more notable for this event than anything else in his entire career, I think that's probably a case for WP:CRYSTALBALL. Is it not just as probable the man could move past this event and rebuild his organization? Buddy23Lee (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Personally I think the sources which tip this into Verifiable are his own public statements on the matter; if anything they will presumably be biased towards him, not against him, yet they clearly confirm the basic facts, i.e. that some of his students were involved in an extremely nasty incident, that people in the martial arts world have raised with him recently an incident which he confirms he was put on trial (and acquitted) for in 1989, and that he has has had to recently end his affiliate program: "...there is clearly a lynch mob made up of a handful of people who will settle for NOTHING other than my head-on-a-stick or me hanging from a tree...This is to serve notice to the lynch mob members that they can stop targeting, bullying and attempting to harm my affiliates businesses because they are no longer affiliates", as reported in the mma press:
 * If you read the public statement from former affiliate Beta-academy, in addition to the statements of his former students who've quit en-masse , I find it very hard to see how he will rebuild his business. I don't think either of those can currently go in to the article, because of problems with sourcing and possible bias in the allegations, but it's still fair to say that his reputation is currently taking a bit of a battering.
 * It is indeed difficult to be sure without a crystal ball what the exact outcome of all this will be, but on the other hand I find it seems to be stretching "undue weight" to breaking point to mention Team Lloyd Irvin and not mention at least the (verifiable) basics of why it seems to be collapsing. --Merlinme (talk) 21:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, ok. I guess if we can agree and accept that most of the sources will necessarily be various blog posts, that inclusion doesn’t violate WP:NPF, WP:UNDUE, or is too much a case of WP:CRYSTALBALL, and that it of course satisfies wiki's rigorous BLP policy, particularly with regards to slander, I’m for inclusion. I just mention these again to highlight why I’ve been so cautious to this point. Buddy23Lee (talk) 21:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Which out of the following sources: wjla report of initial incident: official irvin statement in press  reporting of separate irvin statement in press:  do you consider problematic? --Merlinme (talk) 21:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Honestly? I've long been skeptical of the bloodyelbow blog posts regarding the issue as they stand the most to gain by sensationalizing to gain readership. Obviously the WJLA report is much more mainsteam, but as we've discussed on the talk page, I'm concerned how it and the other mainsteam sources don't even mention Irvin (the individual) once, nor really indicate what actual link he has to the incident. However, and again, as long as we have some rough consensus that the many nagging issues raised here (and before) are not considered applicable (or overly applicable) in regards to this content then I'll support it as well. You're obviously very passionate about this inclusion and that would suggest to me that for every Merlinme there must be a large number of unvoiced ip editors out there who feel the same way. 22:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It appears that a single editor is strongly motivated to get this information into the article. I continue to think it violates WP:NPF, and WP:TOPIC as well.  Can I please ask other BLPN regulars to look closely at this one.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look. polarscribe (talk) 04:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The WJLA report says, in paragraph 3, "According to court documents, the young woman, Maldonado and Schultz all know each other from the Lloyd Irvin Martial Arts School in Camps Springs where they trained." This would appear to make it directly relevant to Team Lloyd Irvin, and to the extent that he's felt the need to publicly defend his reputation and his business (which uses his name), directly relevant to Lloyd Irvin as well. I would ask that people read the sources I've suggested before making any decision based on previous consensus. And yes, based on edits, there do seem to be a significant number of IPs who think the information should be included in some form, although that wouldn't be relevant if the information weren't both relevant to his life and verifiable. --Merlinme (talk) 06:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:COATRACK. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That's your carefully considered opinion after reading the sources which I've provided, yes?
 * I'd prefer it if we kept this civil and didn't use one word policy references. --Merlinme (talk) 07:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Now just hold on there for a moment Merlinme. I don’t think the policy reference is necessarily uncivil or even entirely unwarranted. While certainly everyone, including myself, wishes to assume good faith in the purposed changes, I’d still imagine that anytime an individual editor appears and vehemently wishes to include content to a BLP article which clearly appears deleterious to the subject (and said editor remains just as stalwart in the face of all purposed policy concerns) it gives some reason to wonder what the motivations might be. I’m sure the good folks at the BLP noticeboard see more than their fair share of such. At any rate, if anyone has cause to hope things remain civil regarding this article it’s undoubtedly Irvin himself. Buddy23Lee (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to assume good faith if others are prepared to assume the same of me. I stand by my request that people read the sources I've provided and use arguments longer than one word. --Merlinme (talk) 06:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Concision. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for another considered attempt at debate.

If the question is regarding my motives, they're very simple; I saw Lloyd Irvin in the news; as is often the case when I wish to find out more information about something, I went to Wikipedia to find out more about him; in this case I discovered that Wikipedia did not even mention what is apparently the most important event in his life right now, where his comptetition team and business are being hit by defections and he has had made a long statement to try to defend himself in the most public forum imaginable for a Brazilian jiu jitsu trainer, where the incident has been on-going for several months and has been reported in multiple sources (some of them, admittedly, better than others). When I went to the talk page to discuss if this information should be added in some form, I found it full of an ongoing debate about including the information, and I was told to come here if I felt the information should be included. And here we are. --Merlinme (talk) 06:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Has anyone (Polarscribe?) had a chance to look at this?
 * I'm happy to discuss the exact wording if it would be helpful. I suspect a lot of the opposition to changing the article has been based on the belief that I am proposing to add reams of coat-rack text which overwhelms the article. That's not my intention. What I want to do is make the article reflect the major news items which have been affecting Lloyd Irvin's life recently. But this can be done fairly succinctly. The article currently reads:

Team Lloyd Irvin

 * Lloyd Irvin is the head coach of the eponymous Team Lloyd Irvin, a Brazilian Jiu Jitsu and mixed martial arts organization operating in the Mid-Atlantic States of the U.S.[4][5][6]
 * A number a prominent grapplers and MMA fighters have attended his school at one time, such as Mike Fowler, JT Torres, and Ryan Hall.[7]
 * I would like to add something like:

Rape allegations against Lloyd Irvin students
Two of Lloyd Irvin's students were charged in January 2013 with the rape of a woman they knew from Lloyd Irvin Martial Arts School in Camp Springs. Lloyd Irvin issued an official statement to Graciemag, the Brazilian jiu-jitsu magazine, on January 22nd 2013, in which he made it clear that he deplored what had happened, and distanced his team from the incident, noting that the accused had only trained with his organization a few months. He also responded to online discussions regarding a 1989 incident involving himself where he was found not guilty. On March 10th 2013 it was reported that Lloyd Irvin had announced on Facebook that he was terminating the Team Lloyd Irvin Affiliate Program, because of what he described as lynch mob attacks on Team Lloyd Irvin affiliate businesses. 
 * I'm happy to discuss the exact wording. I recognise this is tricky. I still think an article with some mention of what is clearly the major item in his life in 2013 is better than an article without. --Merlinme (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to confirm before this gets archived, is anyone going to object if I add this text? If so, could you say why (and what you think it would be appropriate to add, if anything). Thanks, --Merlinme (talk) 08:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I continue to object, per WP:TOPIC, WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK, and I don't think it's appropriate to add anything at all on the topic. The main story here is not about what Irvin did.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Can I confirm that you've read the sources I provided? I disagree that it's not relevant to the topic, as Lloyd Irvin has issued at least two public statements defending his team and business, which have clearly been affected. In particular the recent issues are directly relevant to the "Team Lloyd Irvin" section of the article. I agree the text should not overwhelm the article, but I think having something there does not in itself break undue weight. If consensus is against me that the information is not relevant to the article then I won't take it any further; if the question is more of undue weight then I'm happy to discuss what would be appropriate text.
 * Does anyone else have a view? Buddy23Lee? Polarscribe? --Merlinme (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I dunno Merlinme. As I’ve mentioned, I can definitely empathize with your inclusive passions, but I’m willing to concede that policy considerations, whether as a whole or only in part, are evidently superseding here. I’m not certain that it’s worth disregarding each of these policy dilemmas (or even only potential policy dilemmas) for even a major article, let alone this undisputedly very minor BLP. When this issue first arose, I myself was the one to bring the matter here (twice), knowing that it needed some type of consensus from editors experienced in exactly these types of BLP issues. Ultimately, consensus then was what it appears to be now, that it was not worthy for inclusion. At this point I think we should respect this and I would encourage you to let this matter rest. We both know there are a thousand other areas on the wiki that would benefit immensely from even a fraction of the effort you’ve put into this endeavor. :) Buddy23Lee (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree, on the grounds previously discussed that I like encyclopedias to be accurate. I like to correct articles as I'm going along, and I've spent plenty of time finding sources for other minor articles. At the moment I think the article gives a misleading impression about Team Lloyd Irvin in particular. However unless something significant changes, like Irvin himself being charged with something, I'm clearly not going to win this battle, so let's leave it there. --Merlinme (talk) 08:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, one last try. There's clearly no consensus for Lloyd Irvin references. There's some support for Team Lloyd Irvin references. How about:
 * As the incident has significantly impacted on him, his career/job & Team Lloyd Irvin, it should be at least mentioned. Details should be minimal on the actual arrest/charging of the students, with more detail on the impact it has had on his business. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * As I read the sources, there aren't any sources for the "impact on his business". There is one truly secondary source here; the other two contain his "open letter" and the contents of his facebook post.  This really has not achieved the kind of coverage in reliable secondary sources that justifies any mention here.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well if he considers it important enough to release a personal statement to interested parties, and they consider it important enough to publish/print it, thats good enough for me. But like I said, I would have the focus on the effect its had on his business. You could condense the mention of the rape charges to half a sentence quite easily. Undue, topic and coatrack are not applicable as it certainly is relevant - given his notability is intricately linked with his career. At best, you can raise an argument its not got enough secondary sources discussing it, but last I checked, there wasnt a hard limit on how many sources something needs to be included. Also given the insular and specialised nature of the MMA community, its not likely to make 'mainstream' press anyway. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Even if Irvin were WP:WELLKNOWN, we would need "multiple" reliable secondary sources for this sort of material -- and what we have here is one such source. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If person A says X, and publication B reports that person A said X, why is that not a secondary source? Anyway, a couple more sources: Graciemag reported Keenan Cornelius leaving Team Lloyd Irvin in February 2013; Cornelius said: "I can no longer be absolutely sure that this is the right environment for me under the current and enlightening circumstances." . An article in more "mainstream" media, concentrating on Irvin's SEO techniques (although most of it is based on reports in the MMA press): . --Merlinme (talk) 10:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yay for this continuing...honestly, it seems to me the incident with the students and the alleged rape are the only aspects of this with good sourcing and not really a BLP issue, as they belonged in the team article. Now that the team article has been merged with the BLP I would assume that all the relevant policies mentioned thus far would extend to the entire article. I guess my main point here is that I am, and always have been, more comfortable with the factual aspects of this (e.g. two former students charged with rape) than the more speculative, opinionative, and often moralistic sources (i.e. blog sites that allege things like "internet marketing trickery"). Buddy23Lee (talk) 18:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Defections from Team Lloyd Irvin
In February and March 2013 it was reported that some of Irvin's best students had left his team. Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu gold medal winner Keenan Cornelius said in a statement that he could no longer be sure that it was the right environment for him.

Does anyone object to that? --Merlinme (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The more we see reliable sources accrue, the more appropriate it becomes to give some space to this issue. The question here, though, is: does bloodyelbow.com meet WP:RS?  I recommend raising it at RSN (having first looked for previous discussions in the archive). The answer isn't clear to me, so some feedback at RSN would surely be useful.  You'll need to formulate a proposed text, so that they can consider the RS question in proper context.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, I've done that: WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. I am beginning to come round to Buddy23Lee's point of view that there might be better things to do with my time; I wasn't really expecting it to take this long. However I am genuinely quite interested on the reliability ruling on public statements, so might as well see this through. --Merlinme (talk) 17:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * In this amount of time we could have independently written Irvin's biography. :) One thing I'd be curious about is whether any "defections" or any comings or goings of individual students would even be notable enough to warrant mentioning. Having composed the Keenan article I would probably assert his notablity would extend to the team article in this regard. I would also imagine that if bloodyelbow is deemed a sufficent source that mentioning the alleged "mass exodus" would necessarily become includable content as well, just hopefully in a less bombastic manner, as exemplified above. Buddy23Lee (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Is this not relevant, or credible, or reliable? Why has no one considered this article? Last time I looked, TheVerge.com was a major news outlet. Also, I find it ironic, to say the least, that the home invasion incident is supported by a Bloody Elbow article, but Bloody Elbow's credibility is being questioned in relationship to the rape incident.

http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/9/4204908/martial-arts-champ-responds-to-rape-allegations-with-internet-marketing-trickery


 * Yes anonymous, that article was mentioned in the section above. To address the point you raise about the home invasion cite, in that instance the content being substantiated by the citation is generally uncontentous. The content being discussed here is contentous (potentially libelous), and thus the potential for it to be "poorly sourced" causes it to be an issue under WP:BLP. Under BLP policy, the quality of sources is held to a higher standard, particularly when proports something defamatory. Buddy23Lee (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Johanna Dejager et al
Since joining wikipedia last year, has created quite a few articles about, female bodybuilders. For example Johanna Dejager. Almost all of these articles have inadequate sourcing. While none of the ones I've reviewed have any defamatory content the notability seems thin in addition to the paucity of RS. I'd appreciate it if someone can examine this article (I already nominated Shelia Bleck for deletion, but am now having 2nd thoughts. Thanks.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 04:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I would support site ban for Female bodybuilder enthusiast, if someone wants to propose it.-- В и к и  T  08:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Steady on, that's a little extreme. Has anyone tried to discuss with them?--ukexpat (talk) 13:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear. Sure, Johanna Dejager seems to be written entirely from http://fibofoto.de/profiles/international/dejager/index.html which isn't the best source, but that doesn't make User:Female bodybuilder enthusiast a vandal, it merely makes them overenthusiastic. We can describe our article sourcing requirements, and have a good chance of having a fine, productive contributor. Meanwhile for the article itself - yes, I'm afraid I would support it being deleted for insufficient sourcing (essentially Notability). --GRuban (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Someone who creates Death by horse cock is probably not the type of editor we need around here. I'm starting to think that the body builder articles might be a False flag.  If these shenanigans continue, I've an ANI post ready to submit.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 14:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I tried to draw attention to these bodybuilder BLPs some time ago, but with no success and I had too many other things going on to deal with it later. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I think creations by both this user and another likely related user,, are rather alarming. None appear to be well-written or well-sourced. Nearly everything should go for lack of sourcing in the article and lack of coverage otherwise AFAICT. JFHJr (㊟) 14:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Sanjeev Nanda‎
Need some additional eyes on this. A guy who almost got away with using money and power to influence the legal system, but someone(s) still think that that wasnt enough and that the wikipedia article needs to carry on the crusade for the victims. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  10:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This needs to be moved to something else, since it's not a bio. And then reworded, and sourced properly. Do we even know if this meets WP:GNG? § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Is the Barak Missle section even relevant? Most of the text doesn't even mention him. The sources only give passing mention. WP:COAT much? JFHJr (㊟) 13:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Chris Cutrone


this person is not notable in any way — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.15.14.59 (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * We're only interested in if he's notable in the Wikipedia way. If you believe he's not, you'll probably need to start at WP:BEFORE. In the meantime, I've added two templates to the article indicating the current issues with it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Now at AfD. JFHJr (㊟) 13:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Paul Kevin Curtis
I do believe there is an element of BLP in violation regarding Paul Kevin Curtis. The redirect should be deleted, and serious consideration should be given to removing his name entirely from in the 2013 ricin letters article. It is just as encyclopedic to say "a man was arrested, but the charges were dropped" as it is to name the person who is otherwise not known and entitled to privacy, in my opinion. My76Strat (talk) 08:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've made some appropriate corrections, hopefully they will not be reverted. I'll be looking to replace references where I can maintain the articles verifiability without using the ones that gratuitously plaster this man's name across their headlines or throughout their context. Help is welcome. My76Strat (talk) 08:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Per consensus reached at Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 April 23, the redirect page has been deleted and SALTed.--ukexpat (talk) 19:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I concur with the good faith handling of this. I'd add that at least one diff was revdeleted to remove the persons name. I am not against that, nor would I be if it was done here. My76Strat (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Brinda Somaya
This article is an advertisement with a single reference to a commercial website belonging to the person. Article must be deleted to meet Wikipedia standards of non-commercial and neutral articles written with verifiable sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brinda_Somaya — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.51.195 (talk) 04:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You are free to request deletion at articles for deletion, following the outlined procedure. Lectonar (talk) 12:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Raymond Ibrahim
The "hate-mongering" section, which keeps creeping in, totally violates Wikipedia's policy for biographies of living persons: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous."

In fact, the whole section itself is hate-mongering against Mr. Ibrahim, a living person,and very libelous. I never see such biased texts on Wikipedia's other biographies.

Moreover, many of these hate-filled assertions are in fact "unsourced or poorly sourced":

ONE: Ibrahim's August, 2012 report for The American Thinker that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt had publicly crucified opponents of President Morsi in front of the presidential palace prompted the Thinker's blog editor, Rick Moran, to qualify the report as "at best, an exaggeration, and at worst, a hoax." [9]

This does not take into account Ibrahim's own response, which can be read here http://www.meforum.org/3330/egypt-crucifixions and which documents that Sky News itself admits to publishing a story about the Brotherhood crucifying people, but then took it down after he translated to English and disseminated it. Moreover, lots of other sources, especially Arabic ones, still have the story on the Net.

TWO: In July, 2012, a report by Ibrahim that a Muslim cleric proscribed sodomy as permissible if done to expand the anus, allowing the insertion of a suicide bomb, was demonstrated to be a hoax. [10][11]

Again, nothing was demonstrated as being a hoax. Ibrahim fully rebutted the hoax charges here : http://frontpagemag.com/2012/raymond-ibrahim/islamic-sodomy-or-%E2%80%98islamophobic-hoax%E2%80%99/ A video of an Arabic reporter saying exactly what Ibrahim translated about Islamic sodomy exists on the Internet, and was picked up by other reputable news organizations, including MEMRI, here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ik5GZap_-_A

THREE: In May of 2012, Ibrahim propagated a video of a beheading in Syria deceptively mislabeled “Graphic Video: Muslims Behead Christian Convert in ‘Moderate’ Tunisia.” [12]

Wrong. Ibrahim linked to an Arabic news commentary video where the host who aired the clip clearly states it was in Tunisia here: http://schnellmann.org/beheading-tunesianconvert-to-quran.html Conversely, the sources saying it was in Syria do not have the same level of documentation.

FOUR: In his November, 2011 essay "Why Does the Crucifix ‘Provoke’ Muslims?",[13] Ibrahim propagated a report that falsely claimed Muslim students were party to a suit filed by a George Washington University Law Professor, John Banzhaf, aimed to provide relief to alleged religious discrimination by The Catholic University of America. No students, Muslim or otherwise, were actually party to the suit.

Fox News is the one to report that Muslims were involved -- and that report, and those charges are still up! According to Fox: "Banzhaf said some Muslim students were particularly offended because they had to meditate in the school’s chapels “and at the cathedral that looms over the entire campus – the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception.” http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/muslims-want-catholic-school-to-provide-room-without-crosses.html

FIVE: To a 2007 essay accusing Ibrahim of capitalizing on "Islamophobia", he is reported to have responded: ...after this Islamist op-ed was published, I received much heat from my supervisors at the Library of Congress, partially culminating in my recent resignation from that American bibliotech — another institution that goes out of its way to appease, especially where Saudi money and princes are concerned.[14]

This goes to the hate smearing sit Loon Watch, and their link to Ibrahim's supposed comment doesn't even open!

SIX: In a March 29, 2013 essay on David Horowitz's webzine frontpagemag.com, Ibrahim's article "The Threat of Islamic Betrayal" argued that all politically outspoken Muslim Americans should be feared and suspected of planning to act on hidden bellicose agendas, writing: Indeed, the true “lesson” is best captured by the following question: If some Muslims, including women, are willing to go to such lengths to eliminate the already ostracized and downtrodden non-Muslim minorities in their midst—attending churches and becoming like “family members” to those infidels they intend to kill—how much deceit and betrayal must some of the smiling Muslim activists of America, especially those in positions of power and influence, be engaging in to subvert and eliminate the most dangerous of all infidels, the original Great Satan?[8]

Very sloppy accusation, and proof that mavigogon is on a smear campaign and violating Wikipedia's terms. Note he says that Ibrahim says "all" Muslims, when Ibrahim's quote clearly states "some." Moreover, the quote is the very last paragraph of Ibrahim's article, which has about a thousand words above it setting up the context of why he made that conclusion.

I hope Wikipedia administrators watch the Ibrahim page carefully, as it is clear there are some who are trying to distort it -- not to mention violate Wikipedia's policies for biographies of living persons, which prohibits libelous and slanderous text

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Objectivity99 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have locked the article for 5 days because of the current edit war and the previous one. There are also BLP issues involved with the material that must be worked out before any further editing may be done in this area once the lock has expired. In this earlier report at ANEW I made some comments about the BLP issues, although without much specificity.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Ulf Ekberg
According to this article, there's a lot of possibly false information floating around the internet about this musician and his alleged but possibly non-existent neo-Nazi activities. Our article does nothing to clarify this issue and repeats some allegations as fact. Better sources and BLP-aware editors are needed. Gamaliel (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Bob Khanna
a new editor User:Drosslifter have added unsourced and defamatory content on Bob Khanna. I try to undo his edit, but he is continuing to revert my edit. So now I have given up. Kindly look into the matter. --Vigyani (talk) 07:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * is an spa, only editing the BK article
 * Looking into the history of the article
 * I came across this rather interesting user
 * who only writes (creates) articles about (living) people and companies, paid editing anyone, and most of them have been tagged as being written like an advertisement. Maybe if a few of you have some time to look through the latter user's contributions? Cheers!  Captain Screebo Parley! 16:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed also as User:Drosslifter told on his talk page. Which again points about Drosslifter being SPA as he somehow knew or must have noticed this before creating an account. However I could not locate his sockpupeteer by checking User:Gruntfuttock115's edit history. --Vigyani (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No Vigyani, Drosslifter wants the BK article deleted as x/he asserts here in no uncertain terms, there is no sockpuppet, but my observation was that all of Gruntfuttock's contribs are to create promotional-style articles about people or companies. And on Dross's talk page x/he asserts that Gruntfuttock is/works for Palamedes PR (although offers no proof), which sort of backs up my theory that there is a whole heap of paid editing going on.  Captain Screebo Parley! 17:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * yes, he wants BK to be deleted ( he has written a line on talk:BK also). i do not deny ur theory. I am merely saying that Drosslifter mentioned about Grunt/paid editing on his talk page. Why I think Drosslifter is sock as you also mentioned in your previous post, since he knew about possibility of Grunt editing BK article in a way which appears promotional. Also I just went bit more carefully through Grunt's edit. He is creating promotional pages. I checked the versions of the articles he created and found those promotional. And he seems to have particular interest in SWNS. created 3 articles for companies related to them. --Vigyani (talk) 17:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * One of which is the PR company we're talking about, and Gruntfuttock115 apparently works for. 21:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * One of which is the PR company we're talking about, and Gruntfuttock115 apparently works for. 21:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

So, some or all, may have the required notability, but as far as I can see this is wiki-spamming with OTT, gushing articles about the company's clients. Battleaxes ready?  Captain Screebo Parley! 17:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok here we go, all created by :
 * Gurpareet Bains, and guest blogger on their site no less
 * Wynndel Property Management, check text in left column: Palamedes PR gave us more coverage in a week than our previous ‘top-end’ agency did in a year. Apparently the text in the aforementioned left column updates to give different client tributes, this is the quote that I copied from the website, FYI.21:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OnePoll
 * Angus Kennedy (chocolate taster)
 * Cathy Glass (author)
 * and of course the company page Palamedes PR
 * and 72 Point, a sister company of Palamdes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vigyani (talk • contribs) 23:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Good detective work, Captain. I'm guessing maybe there's enough here to warrant a case over at WP:AN/I? § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah thanks, I put a call in to Orange Mike who is an admin and regularly deals with this kind of thing, but I would say that it's maybe ANI-worthy.  Captain Screebo Parley! 21:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No response from OM, so maybe this should go to AN/I, what say ye? Anyone care to do the honours (I have jam to pot!).  Captain Screebo Parley! 18:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No admins passing through?  Captain Screebo Parley! 20:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)