Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive179

Edward Snowden
The NSA whistleblower just outed himself, BLP1E possibly applies, most of the article is taken up with "personal life" at the current revision. More eyes appreciated. --j⚛e deckertalk 19:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This article is urgently in need of semiprotection, rapidfire vandalism and severe BLP violations from IP's. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Khizer Hayat
Dear Sir/Madam

In paragraph Khizer Hayat's Date of birth is "5 January 1939", while in right side pane it is "6 December 1989". Please correct it.

Regards, Umair — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.29.236.194 (talk) 06:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed.-- Auric    talk  10:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Charles J. Hynes
A lot of undue weight that creates strong POV in this BLP. Could use some more eyes and some neutral editing. Thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 18:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks like User:Anonnyc is a single purpose account whose only goal here is to search out any negative news coverage about Charles J. Hynes, and add it to the biography, resorting to copyright violations to advance this campaign. Given that Hynes is the Brooklyn district attorney, and has been in office for almost a quarter of a century, there is an abundance of coverage. By cherry-picking all the bad stuff, and leaving out the good and neutral stuff, Anonnyc does his or her best to make Hynes look like a really bad person. The article was debated here just four days ago. Clearly this behavior is unacceptable.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  00:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

C. Fred Bergsten
I work for Dr. Bergsten and I am just now learning the rules of editing one's site on Wikipedia with which I was not familiar. I am, therefore, creating this report to inform you of the changes I attempted to make on his biography and the reasons for them:

1. Accuracy:   a.  I tried to update Dr. Bergsten's title since he is no longer Director of the Peterson Institute and the information on your page was dated.


 * b. The picture you have on Dr. Bergsten's page is old and unclear as it depicts three people, with two foreign subjects in the forefront and him in the rear. We would like to replace it with a current picture, depicting the subject accurately.

2. Comprehensiveness: There were several important parts missing from Dr. Bergsten's page, e.g. his honors; I tried to add them.

3. Tidying up: I tried to edit some grammatically incorrect sentences and improve the flow.

Your consideration and respect for our position would be greatly appreciated as would result in a greater product of Wikipedia and would represent your company more professionally and accurately.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.213.194.194 (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you wish to submit an appropriate picture under a free license, you can register an account and upload it at Wikimedia Commons - http://commons.wikimedia.org - and then substitute it here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

User:BrandonHilton/Brandon_Hilton
I have blanked this page, but it is just begging to be deleted. It was previously deleted from an AfD, and moved into userspace of BrandonHilton who has not touched it for nearly two years. It seems to be the subject of WP:BIO vandalism. I would put it up for speedy, but am unsure under what criteria.Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 23:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I deleted it citing vandalism and BLP problems. It's close enough. Anyone disagrees, undelete and send to MfD.  DGG ( talk ) 00:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Shona Holmes on List of cancer victim hoaxes
Shona Holmes, a Canadian citizen, appears on our article 'List of cancer victim hoaxes' - a notable case, in that her illness became a political issue in the U.S. as a supposed example of the failure of Canadian 'socialized medicine'. Most of the circumstances are clear enough, in that she appears to have exaggerated the seriousness of her condition. One thing I can't see though in any of the sources cited at the 'List of cancer victim hoaxes' article that I can access is a statement that she ever actually claimed to have cancer. Furthermore, our biography of Holmes makes no mention of this either - the only time the word 'cancer' appears in the article is in one of the references, as a name of a clinic. I have repeatedly asked for a source for the cancer claim both at Talk:List of cancer victim hoaxes and at the AfD currently running for the list. None has been put forward however, and on that basis, I can see no alternative than to again remove Holmes from the list, per WP:BLP policy. If a reliable source for this can be found, it can of course be added to the list and biography, but meanwhile, I can see no justification for an apparently unsourced claim to remain. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It now appears that this may have been due to a misunderstanding - there are sources referring to Holmes having "a tumor", and it has been wrongly assumed that all tumors are necessarily cancerous. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Burnt Sugar the Arkestra Chamber
To Whom May View This,

I am the co-leader of Burnt Sugar the Arkestra Chamber and found the previous biography to be incomplete and lacking current group information. In an effort to update the listing to keep Wikipedia's text inline with the promotional text I send around the world to performing arts institutions and presenters, I've update the page.

I would appreciate it if whomever is deleting my updates and returning the page to it's old incomplete status would desist from that practice.

thank you,

Jared Micheal Nickerson Co-Organizer & Bassist Burnt Sugar Index LLC Burnt Sugar the Arkestra Chamber — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.205.142 (talk) 07:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have removed all unreferenced material from the article, the article may seem "incomplete" but if it is not supported by reliable sources then it's no good to anyone. Please also see WP:AUTOBIO and WP:COI for why you should not edit an article you have such strong personal links to. Regards, GiantSnowman 08:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Suicide note of Jiah Khan
Jiah Khan was an actress who commited suicide few days ago. When we put aside copyright issues, is it ethical for an encyclopedic project to republish a transcript of her suicide note?? She addresses a (presumably) living person in it, and I don't think it is particularly sensitive and considerate - both to her and to the person she addresses. Of course, the letter is publicly available, but my objection has nothing to do with any kind of censorship. It is a question of basic respect. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It is now clear who is the person addressed in the letter and my above thread is pointless . It should be clarified in the article. Sad story. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think quoting the whole note verbatim is WP:UNDUE.--ukexpat (talk) 18:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think quoting any of it is inappropriate, a/c WP:BLP and WP:NOT TABLOID and UNDUE and common decency. I have removed it. I have left a link to its newspaper publication, for I don't think it right to hinder access to published information, even for those with different sensibilities than my own. If any other admin wants to restore some or all of it, please get consensus here first.  On the other hand, i have not removed the name of the person arrested. Personally, I think it better to have the name than leave people guessing. But if anyone wants to remove it for now, I have no objection-- it might be well to wait  for developments.   DGG ( talk ) 22:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Good calls.--ukexpat (talk) 00:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Robert MacLean
There are numerous issues with Robert MacLean. First, the article contains numerous primary sources and possibly original research. Second, a major contributor to the article appears to be affiliated with a group advocating for MacLean and one that is legally representing him. Lastly it contains numerous unnecessary quotes that clutter the page and make the article too long. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 01:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow. Just wow. This is the poster child for BLPs that fall off the radar. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I was WP:BOLD and just stubbed the article. It's impossibly long and impossibly written for Wikipedia. Needs to be rewritten from scratch, basically. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You beat me to it, but I suspect that the most active editor of the article may object.--ukexpat (talk) 02:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure there'll be a consensus for my changes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I took the relevant sections and rewrote them much more encyclopedically. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Judan Ali
An editor claims a newspaper is unreliable and refuses to agree that he has said anything negative. I've reviewed our online article, and it gives no indication that the newspaper as a whole is unreliable; in fact, it is described as "the most popular online news site." If the claim that the newspaper is unreliable is verifiable, such needs references. Here are diffs of the concern:,. Unscintillating (talk) 06:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The basis for this WP:BLPSOURCES. This states "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources." The references removed were from a tabloid. Don't we want BLP's to be sourced from better sources than tabloids?--Egghead06 (talk) 06:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Note that I've been looking at Dailymail.co.uk, and there is another article at DailyMail.co.uk for the print edition. Unscintillating (talk) 06:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note - The Daily Mail is cited as a tabloid with tabloid journalism which is used within WP:BLPSOURCES.--Egghead06 (talk) 07:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The Daily mail is notoriously unreliable for sourcing BLP content. It may be one of the most popular websites world wide, but that does not make it a good one. One look at its home page should tell you why.Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 07:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I see what you are saying, but does front-page coverage make it ok to defame the Daily Mail on talk pages as unreliable? Unscintillating (talk) 07:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not "defaming" a source to point out that it doesn't meet our reliable sources standards. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * How is tabloid in this sense defined? There must be a line at some point. The Daily Mail page describes it as a middle-market newspaper (the middle-market page refers to the likes of USA Today and NY Daily News). I think it's obvious that a red-top would fail our reliable source criteria but this is a grey zone. Hack (talk) 08:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Is it a tabloid paper? No. Is it reliable? No. Saying a source is not reliable is not a BLP issue, accusations of "defamation" (see AFD) are over-the-yop. GiantSnowman 08:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between saying "Source x is unreliable" and "Source x doesn't satisfy WP:RS".[1] [original redacted] Ad hominem's directed at the OP do not make the BLP issue go away.  It should also be noted that you are involved.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Involved insomuch because I started the AFD discussion, I have had no input (other than here) re:the Daily Mail. You are repeating your claims of 'defamation' again, either clarify what you mean with evidence or withdraw your accusations. GiantSnowman 12:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I apologize for over-reacting to the ad hominem, and it was incorrect to state the BLP viewpoint from other than a policy/guideline basis. There was also unnecessary charged language.  I have rewritten that statement.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You are involved. You are the nominator of the AfD and when you weren't satisfied with the "no consensus" result, requested a re-opening of the discussion saying, "so I can detail why I believe the sources fail GNG."  I noticed the unusual re-opening and reviewed the merits of the sources.  I found that the life story of the topic was the basis for a movie and !voted keep.  Your first response after the re-opening was directed at my keep !vote.  Neither of your two statements explain why you believe that the sources fail GNG.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You have grossly mis-represented my views/actions, well done. Even if I hadn't been the nominator, something I have never tried to hide, I would have been dis-satisfied with the close. There was no clear consensus and the discussion had not ended, so it was sensible to re-list for further discusion. It allows us further time to determine whether or not an article is notable or not. What issue do you have with that? I did not have chance to make my case before you posted your view, a view which has persauded me more to accept notability, therefore I thought it unneccesary to explain why I thought it failed GNG when I was coming around to the idea that it actually might pass. GiantSnowman 16:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I apologize again for my role in this sequence. I hope you will consider the possibility that we are saying similar things, and that your words "grossly" and "mis-represented", even though I was partially responsible, show involvement.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The status here is that the sentence, "The Daily Mail is a tabloid and unless both verifiable and more noteworthy material is available it should be removed (along with all the other claims which rely on tabloids).", is both unreferenced and is not stated in terms of Wikipedia policies, i.e., it is (IMO) a BLP violation. It has been argued that, "The Daily Mail is cited as a tabloid with [tabloid journalism] which is used within [WP:BLPSOURCES].  But [tabloid journalism] says only that Daily Mail is not a "red top".  Unscintillating (talk) 01:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The opening line in Daily Mail states "The Daily Mail is a British daily middle-market tabloid newspaper owned by the Daily Mail and General Trust". Egghead06 (talk) 02:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Before I posted the reference, I looked at [dailymail.co.uk]. It says no such thing.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "dailymail.co.uk" is often used as a reliable reference on English Wikipedia. This Google search finds 605 pages with "daily co uk".  Unscintillating (talk) 02:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It is widely and generally considered an unreliable source for contentious material relating to living persons, because of its loose editorial policies and significant tendency toward sensationalism. Where it is used to support uncontroversial ideas or items unrelated to significant living persons issues, its use may or may not go unchallenged. That is, if someone uses the Daily Mail to source "In 2013, Cooper became the face of ice cream brand Haagen-Dazs." that may be considered uncontentious and reasonable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The opening line in dailymail.co.uk states "MailOnline (also known as dailymail.co.uk) is the website of the Daily Mail". --Egghead06 (talk) 02:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The Daily Mail has repeatedly been demonstrated to engage in tabloid sensationalism - see for example its endless 'X causes cancer stories', which are invariably based on an intentional misreading of sources. It has also been shown to engage in the propagation of complete fiction: . It is not a reliable source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating, please have a read of the archives of WP:RSN before trying to claim the Mail is a reliable source. Even if it was, how on earth is saying it isn't a BLP issue? GiantSnowman 08:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Your assertion that I am "trying to claim the Mail is a reliable source" was implied when I posted the reference at the AfD. But I've not discussed the point since and this is a discussion at WP:BLPN, not WP:RSN.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, I have never once mentioned the Mail, or you, at the AFD. You might want to check your facts before posting. GiantSnowman 13:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I was agreeing with you that I had indeed at one point diff implied that the dailymail.co.uk was a reliable source. I've not discussed the point since and this is a discussion at WP:BLPN, not WP:RSN.  I said nothing about you "mention[ing] the Mail, or [me]".  Unscintillating (talk) 14:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You did though, direct quote "Your assertion that I am "trying to claim the Mail is a reliable source" was implied" - what assertion of mine, where? GiantSnowman 14:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you want me to provide diffs for the paragraph to which I was replying, I can do so. Here is the diff in which you say that I am, "trying to claim to  [sic] Mail is a reliable source".  Here is a diff in which you redact the typo, changing the text to say that I am, "trying to claim the Mail is a reliable source".  It is true that I implied such when I posted the reference from dailymail.co.uk.  I've not literally made any such claim, and the point is off topic as the issue here is not whether or not dailymail.co.uk is a reliable source, the issue is the absence of references for contentious material.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * At issue here is the sentence, "The Daily Mail is a tabloid and unless both verifiable and more noteworthy material is available it should be removed..." (1) Do you agree that this is "contentious material"?  (2) Do you agree that the assertion is unreferenced such that ordinary readers such as myself are unable to verify the claim?  (3) Do you agree that the claim is not stated in terms of Wikipedia policies/guidelines?  (4) Based on the above discussion, would it ever be possible to reference this statement?  Unscintillating (talk) 13:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That is an issue for WP:RSN not WP:BLPN. However, since you continue to post here, I will responde here - any information about a living person which is not supported by a reliable source should be challenged and potentially removed, regardless of whether that information is "contentious" or not. GiantSnowman 13:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The only "issue" I stated was the sentence, "The Daily Mail is a tabloid and unless both verifiable and more noteworthy material is available it should be removed..." How is that sentence an issue for WP:RSN?  Unscintillating (talk) 13:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * How is that sentence an issue for this noticeboard? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Where would you suggest discussing unreferenced and unreferenceable contentious material on a talk page? Unscintillating (talk) 14:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Use the article talk page. If the material is unreferenceable then it should not be included, simple as. GiantSnowman 14:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not an article that is being discussed, so there is no "article talk page". Are you suggesting moving this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Judan Ali?  Unscintillating (talk) 22:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Is there something difficult about this? If contentious material in a BLP is unreferenced it should be removed. If it is referenced but the source is unreliable and there are no other sources, it should be removed. However the reliability of a source is not a BLP issue when it comes to a source like the Daily Mail. Like it or not, its not a red-top, it may engage in 'tabloid journalism' but it is one of the most popular papers in the UK. Its reliability is a question for the reliable sources noticeboard. If material is referenced by an unreliable source, this does not make it unreferenced. Many sources are unreliable for certain claims but can be for others, however the BLP standards are very high. And the Daily Mail has repeatedly shown itself to be unreliable when it comes to BLP's. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ug, just took a look at the AFD. Mess. Right while I would not personally use the Daily Mail to source any contentious material in a BLP about Judan Ali, it is reasonably acceptable to use mentions of him in the Daily Mail to satisfy/support inclusion under GNG. That the Daily Mail may not be reliable does not automatically exclude it from discussions of notability, which is what I think some people are leaning towards. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The life, works, and detractors of Colum McCann
While taking a break from shopping expeditions, I have been reviewing submissions at Articles for Creation. Earlier this afternoon I summarily declined one such submission as being apparently written with the deliberate intention of misrepresenting reviewers in order to give a negative impression of the work of the living author Colum McCann. The method used was to cherry-pick, and present out of context, negative fragments of otherwise positive reviews.

Investigating further, I discover there seem to be two different but closely linked IP addresses  who have engaged in this practice on articles about several of McCann's works (and have also contributed, though in a less biased fashion, to the article about McCann himself). I found this very concerning, especially after recent revelations about individuals allegedly using Wikipedia to blacken the reputation of their literary opponents.

I would be grateful for any advice or assistance both in any necessary cleanup of these IPs' edits, and in any steps that may be necessary to prevent further problems. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The quickest way to see the problem is to compare the extremely favorable review from Salon to the way the article presents it, or the quite favorable one by Macrell in the Guardian. I suggest the way to deal with the AfC is to delete it under BLP policy as a G10, attack on the living author. If another admin agrees, please do so. Probably the book is notable enough that an article should be written about it, but just now does not seem a good time.
 * This reminds me of some recent events here about another editor attacking an author...  DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It's an ill wind that blows nobody any good. Ignoring some of your advice but acting on other parts of it, I have created my own version at Dancer (novel). I have credited the source of some borrowed material in the edit summary when creating the page, therefore meeting requirements for attribution. I would be grateful for your feedback, as my reliance (thus far) on sources chosen by the other editor, might have biased the result a little. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 15:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I consider this still undue negative weight. When a review is 80% positive, with about 20% minor criticisms, we have to be proportional. This is hard to do,without giving the entire review undue weight. I suggest some version such as "Despite some minor criticisms, X said...." rather than reporting the minor criticism in detail. At 90%:10% "In a generally very favorable review, X praises the book...." when it reaches 95%:5%, then the 5% should be ignored. These are not meant as exact figures of course, but as a rhetorical device of mine to indicate the relative levels.  What we want in summarizing a review, is a one sentence summary of the reviewers general impression. The linked review has the details.  I have tagged the original AfC for G10, with a note to see this discussion. We remove abuse, not rewrite it to be slightly less abusive.    DGG ( talk ) 20:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Only "slightly less abusive"? What a strange thing to say.


 * The piece in The Stinging Fly, the most detailed of the four reviews, gives an overall negative verdict on the book, saving its positive words almost as "damning with faint praise". By your percentage based approach, we shouldn't mention the positive points from that review at all - but I included them as I felt it gave a more neutral view. The review in Salon is indeed positive overall, but the negative points are emphatically not included only as minor niggles; Hansen quotes from the book only twice, and one of the two quotes is to express the pointlessness of a digression that she says takes up "30-some pages" and is one of several such. This is not a minor criticism. The review in the Guardian is hard to characterise as truly positive; its concluding two paragraphs are all about the negative aspects of the book, and Mackrell makes clear that she thinks the general reader who does not have specific background knowledge will not enjoy the book. For a review aimed at a general interest audience, that's an important negative.


 * There are plenty of other reviews out there, and these may give a more positive picture overall. I believe there may also have been some awards. I will work on this over the next few days. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * TransAtlantic (novel) is in urgent need of neutralisation as well - heavily edited by the same IP. Note this book was (is) published in "June 2013". Arthur goes shopping (talk) 15:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC) I have now reverted the IP's edits there. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The intent of the article was very obviously to set the novel (and by proxy its author) in the most disparaging light possible by cherry picking comments from various reviews. I've deleted it as an attack page. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you Ponyo, I think that is the correct course of action in these circumstances. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Brad Scott (Australian footballer)
I am only a new editor, and I believe this article violates the Biographies_of_living_persons Neutral point of view (NPOV) Verifiability (V) No original research (NOR)

especially in the last paragraph of the coaching career section.

How can I mark the page to request the author revises based on the policy above ?

- jd — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jondriscoll (talk • contribs) 09:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed on all counts, and I've removed the section. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * NorthBySouthBaranof They have re-added. -- Tito ☸ Dutta 06:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Darla Crane
I'm a bit uncertain on this matter. Is it sufficent this image (NSFW) that the subject posted on her twitter account to write "She identifies as bisexual"? Cavarrone 05:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Twitter remains a grey area. That aside, the article doesn't make it clear whether the "she" pronoun is referencing the actress or the porn-industry persona. Public statements made by pornographic performers are almost always kayfabe; our articles should clearly acknowledge that when repeating them. CIreland (talk) 08:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Even assuming for a second that a twit was a reliable source, the account isn't even verified, so I removed the claim from the bio. § FreeRangeFrog croak 17:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And that image does not prove that is subject's statement. In my userpage there is a 4 lines Bengali poem, in Facebook I often see people using quotes/thoughts in this format. -- Tito ☸ Dutta 06:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Jessica Yee


A few more eyes would be appreciated here. Subject contacted OTRS regarding alleged real-life issues arising from personal details in the bio (which were mostly well-sourced). I explained that we only repeat what is available in secondary sources and trimmed the article a bit mindful of WP:UNDUE and WP:BLPPRIVACY but User:Juliabelle nominated it for deletion this morning before I could reply. I don't know if it will be kept or not, but if it does we'll need to make sure all that doesn't make it back into the article since it's irrelevant to the subject's notability. § FreeRangeFrog croak 17:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Juliabelle here: I didn't nominate this for deletion. I added my support but another user did the nominating. —Preceding undated comment added 17:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, I stand corrected. The original submitter was User:JadeKW. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I removed these categories from the page: Category:Canadian pro-choice activists, Category:LGBT rights activists from Canada, as I could see nothing that supported their inclusion. These are the only things I could find problematic with the article.-- Auric    talk  18:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I have voted in the AFD and I have also nominated for speedy deletion because holy shit people. The subject of the article has contacted us to have it removed because it is causing her problems in the real world. Her safety beats any possible consideration we could have. Come on. — The Potato Hose 18:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Removing the article does nothing about the sources we used to create the article, nor about the sites that mirror Wikipedia, so removing it will accomplish nothing. The article only indicated what side of the planet she lived on, and appears to be reliably sourced.  If someone is going after her, the Wikipedia article had little to nothing to do with it (unless they simply were unaware of her service to humanity) and removing will accomplish nothing.  If she is indeed being threatened, the police are who she should contact, not us, because they didn't acquire the means to threaten her here.  Ian.thomson (talk) 18:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ian, we don't have control over the outside sources. We do have control over what appears on Wikipedia, which incidentally happens to be the top Google hit for pretty much any subject we cover. Deleting the Wikipedia article is obviously not the definitive response to real-life harassment, but we've been asked by the subject, it's within our power to do so, and I have yet to see a really compelling explanation of how the encyclopedia suffers by deleting it. MastCell Talk 19:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * OTRS has removed information the subject considers erroneous and/or private. The article appears to be well sourced and an honest effort to create a good article.  Threats should be reported to the appropriate law enforcement agency.  Gamaliel (talk) 18:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the article was just deleted. § FreeRangeFrog croak 19:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As the deleting admin, let me be clear that I don't doubt the honesty, good faith, or hard work of the contributors to the article. MastCell Talk 19:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean to imply that if you took that as my meaning. I was just trying to point out that it doesn't appear that the article itself was created as part of the harassment. Gamaliel (talk) 19:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Good call and a very common sense deletion rationale.--ukexpat (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And what if the person who sent the email wasn't really the subject's article, but someone trying to cover up her service to humanity? If someone would threaten her because of her work, then they would definitely fake being her to get her article deleted. And then, if she did indeed send the email, there's the issue that the article didn't really enable anyone to threaten her. I don't even see deleting the article as treating the symptom instead of the disease, it's removing an unrelated healthy bystander's appendix to treat a disease someone else has. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ian, think about what you're suggesting. There are two possibilities:
 * a) A woman was harassed on the basis of personal information posted on the Internet; or
 * b) A group of people has orchestrated a detailed scam to get a low-profile Wikipedia biography deleted in order to "cover up the subject's service to humanity".
 * Of the two, the former seems somewhat more probable to me. Harassment seems to occur with depressing regularity, whereas the latter situation would be, to my knowledge, completely unprecedented. That said, I acknowledged in my closing rationale the possibility that my gullibility is being taken advantage of. My view is that if there is even a 10% chance that the harassment concern is real, then that justifies deleting this article. MastCell Talk 21:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Personally, I assume the harassment is real even if no verification has been done. I think this verification issue is incidental, personally. But I concur with Ian's other comments.  I question what effect Wikipedia has on this harassment, positive or negative.  We should, of course, do everything we can, and FreeRangeFrog already edited out every specific item that the subject of the article took issue with.  But when Google turns up tons of pictures and information on her, deleting the article probably does nothing to assist the subject of the article and may be a net negative because we also eliminate the positive aspects of the article, such as documenting the service of the subject of the article.  We should strive to do no harm, but we shouldn't assume we do no good either. Gamaliel (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Note that this is now at Deletion Review. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Guess we'll all be heading to deletion review now. Gamaliel (talk) 19:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What possible purpose is served by forcing the subject of the article to have an article up against her wishes, when she herself has said that it is causing real-world problems? How is this a good thing for the encyclopedia or for her? Come on. Have some compassion. We're not privy to the details of her harassment, and I'm more than willing to extend good faith that Wikipedia is causing problems for her. Go read WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE if you're unclear. — The Potato Hose 19:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As a victim of internet harassment I certainly have compassion for the subject of the article and I support removing all personal and incorrect information from the article and support law enforcement efforts to identify and prosecute those making the threats. But the Wikipedia article didn't create the threats, nor did Wikipedia create the news articles and interviews about the subject used to create the article.  I'm sorry I have a different opinion on the matter than you, but no possible purpose is served by attempting to make this a personal matter. Gamaliel (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh I see. Just because information exists elsewhere, we have no responsibility to remove it from here? Have you read WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE? It seems you think that no matter what we should just ignore requests from BLP subjects who want their articles deleted because of, again, real world harassment. Whether the information exists elsewhere does not matter one bit. As MastCell rightly pointed out, we may not have control of the rest of the internet, but we do have control here, and the very very very very very most basic level of human compassion would dictate that we do as a subject requests. — The Potato Hose 20:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * A google search turns up dozens of pictures of her and even more links, including a Toronto Star article. The notion that Wikipedia had a role in causing her to be threatened or will be able to prevent her from being threatened again does not seem particularly plausible to me, regardless of how much compassion or righteous indignation or offensiveness you bring to the table. Gamaliel (talk) 20:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay then. You know her, and you know for a fact that Wikipedia had nothing to do with the harassment? Oh wait no you don't. I hope you're familiar with the phrase 'err on the side of caution'? — The Potato Hose 20:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * When you're ready to discuss policy matters like an adult and abandon the hysteria, let me know. This nonsense doesn't further the discussion at all, nor does it help the subject of the article to have long sections of hyperbolic arguing about her.  Gamaliel (talk) 20:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

When you're ready to not be a DICK (and I'm ever so slightly astonished that an admin of eight years thinks it's perfectly okay to casually toss off personal attacks, oh wait, I'm not surprised at all), which I suspect isn't going to be anytime soon, so I'll continue anyway: Have you read WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE? Why should your guesses about plausibility carry more weight than the actual person the actual article is about? — The Potato Hose 20:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC) added And by all means, please do explain how having an article that the subject feels is causing real world harassment helps her? — The Potato Hose 20:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, I'm a dick because I object to you constantly insulting me and then you complain about "admin abuse" when I call you on it. I have a different opinion than you, that's all.  The fact that you are unable to deal with that in a mature and civil manner indicates that you probably shouldn't be editing Wikipedia right now.  I suggest you take a break from the keyboard and calm down, because you are obviously too worked up about this issue. Gamaliel (talk) 20:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The Potato Hose, you're asking people to have some compassion, but perhaps, in all your glorious compassion, you could see fit to compromise with others and have some reason and sense? The article does not enable anyone to harass the subject, and we don't know for sure if it was indeed the subject who contacted us: ergo deleting it does nothing to help her, and the reason given for requesting deletion was faulty. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I've decided to hat this 'discussion' as it's a giant distraction and does no service to the topic or the subject of the article. If PH wants to continue to argue with me he can do it on my talk page. Gamaliel (talk) 20:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Bill Green (athlete)
Article is a nearly unsourced series of essays which can be dramatically pared. I sense lots of WP:COI by numerous accounts. If I as an IP do the necessary cutting, an edit war is apt to ensue, or someone is apt to revert me for deleting content. Therefore, more eyes requested. 76.248.151.159 (talk) 19:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've removed the unsourced content, table, and essays . More eyes appreciated. 76.248.151.159 (talk) 20:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Phyllis Schlafly:
We have IP 76.31.208.198  making long edits to Talk:Phyllis Schlafly alleging, with no reliable secondary sources, that "Schlafly has been engaged in numerous incidents of [suppressed]". He says BLP rules do not apply to talk pages. The IP's attitude is well summarized by his recent comment a few minutes ago regarding my deletion of his material: "Thanks for lying stop being a proxy for [suppressed] who removed content previously." (Shlafly's son removed his previous edit.) The IP sites news reports that quote Schlafly but do NOT say "[suppressed]". Schlafly said the GOP should not try to get out the Hispanic vote. MSNBC quotes her :''“I think that’s a great myth because the Hispanics who come in like this are going to vote Democrat,” Schlafly said in the radio interview. “And there is not the slightest bit of evidence they are going to vote Republican. And the people the Republicans should reach out to are the white votes—the white voters who didn’t vote in the last election.”'' This IP 76.31.208.198 started on May 30 and all his edits deal with Schlafly. Rjensen (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I would suggest requesting RevDel for the "[suppressed]" stuff. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have been providing RELIABLE sources from:

- ABC NEWS - MSNBC - NBC NEWS - DIRECT VIDEO OF EVENTS. - SPLC REPORTS.

RJensen meanwhile appears to be acting as a proxy for Phyllis Schlafly's son who has been editing the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APhyllis_Schlafly&action=historysubmit&diff=558569883&oldid=558146339

I am working 100% towards improvement of the article and providing the links for discussion. As of yet none of Roger's proxies are bothering to discuss, they want to keep discussion of the events and reliable news coverage away even from the talk page. They are the ones violating BLP, abusively trying to block legitimate news coverage from sourcing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.208.198 (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * BLP applies to talk pages, and as much as I dislike Schlafly's politics, all edits to her page must be done in compliance with policies. Using the phrase "Schlafly has been engaged in numerous incidents of [suppressed]" is an unsourced opinion. However, describing her views in a neutral manner and including quotes that are relevant to those views would be appropriate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed the claim is an unacceptable breaches of BLP. I'm going to remove it from there using suppression. Unfortunately, I also have to remove it from here. Reinstating the claims here or on the talk page will lead to a block. --Dweller (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have just semi-protected the page for more BLP issues and edit warring. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

meredith monroe
You have recently changed Meredith Monroe birth date age to 1969, can you please support this as the two links you have add to the reference section are not reliable sources so can you please explain your logic and research method. All three books in your reference list contemporary theatre, film and television vol 43, they don't wanna wait, the stars of dawson creek and the dawson creek companion all clearly state her birth year as 1976.

Your NNDB reference, where the website claims she lied about her age is incorrect how I know is because after I email them asking why they had listed her age as 1969 they added that to the website. Yes she did lied about her age and in the film reference book you will she her age as 1977. Reducing it by 1 year than 7 is a big difference. Your second reference the ancestry site, please explain how you are using this source? There has alway been a question whether Meredith middle name is Leigh or Hoyt. No biography writing on the actress has ever mentioned her parents names. Can you please state how you have obtain this information to verify who Meredith Monroe parents are and confirm  there names to be sure this is the correct birth date for the actress on ancestry. Speaking to Gale we have learnt that it was only when someone wanted to change the actress age they change her middle name to Leigh to support their claim that she lied about her age, as there is enough ancestry sites to match Meredith Leigh Monroe to 1969 but nothing to match Meredith Hoyt Monroe to any birth date. Speaking to ancestry not every person is one their website and that does not mean a Meredith Hoyt Monroe does not exist and they cannot verify if Meredith Leigh Monroe is the actress in question, so how has wikipedia managed to?

As I stated wikipedia seem to only be implying that the actress lied but the authors Kathe Tibbs, Darren Crosdale and Thomas Riggs have lied in there books and it would be good if you can support your case as to why you believe they have produce books with factual errors. IMDb again is an unreliable resource as Amazon are currently selling these books on there website and it is unethical and unlawful for them to sell a product without information the public they contain factual errors. A question asked to them which they seem to be struggling to answer. So it not just a case like NNDB that you can simply state the actress lied about her age but you are calling all three authors liars as well. So can you please support you case?

If NNDB truly believe the actress lied then why cannot they account for 7 years of the actress life, something wikipedia needs to do to support why you believe the actress age is 1969 rather than 1976. Both Kathe Tibbs and Darren Crosdale have created a time line for the actress. She was born 1976, graduated Hinsdale Central High School 1994 left for New York and started modelling in 1994 until 1996 when land her first acting job. Your time frame seems to be born 1969, disappeared for 7 years only to start modelling in 1994 until landing her first acting job in 1996. Maybe wikipedia can explain the gap between 1987 and 1994. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.218.118 (talk) 09:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * On the DoB issue, I have removed all DoB data as neither of the cited sources are reliable. This is the standard way to deal with such issues until a reliable source can be found. No comnment on the other issues raised above.--ukexpat (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

This article has been repeatedly brought to this noticeboard for the same, or similar issues over and over again. I suggest editors watchlist this. I'll leave some talk page messages on the pages of overenthusiastic editors. Gamaliel (talk) 22:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I would be interested to know how Gamalie has verified the information on this page? Wikipedia claims they remove information that cannot be verified but Gamalie is insistent that he can verify the actress name as Meredith Leigh Monroe. Question how has he done this? The resource book in your reference section Contemporary Theatre Film and Television has the actress listed as Meredith Hoyt Monroe. The other two resource books Dawson Creek Companion and They Don't Wanna Wait just list the actress as Meredith Monroe. If Gamalie can verify her name why can't you state how he has done it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.218.118 (talk) 16:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The name comes from the database cited in the source. Are you saying the print book differs from the database version?  Can you substantiate this with a scan of the relevant entry? Gamaliel (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes I have looked at your source which is the contemporary theatre film and television book you have citied as a source and it clearly reads Meredith Hoyt Monroe not Leigh. I have a copy which I have downloaded from books online and can email you it across. It clearly states Meredith Hoyt Monroe, I would have thought Wikipedia would have had a copy of this book as you have not only used it for Meredith Monroe but Rachel Weise as well. Jay99a (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * If you contact me here with your email address I will reply. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hope you got the link okay and able to download it, some of meredith page states it needs citation in her biography. Kathe Tibbs book They Don't Wanna Wait goes into detail of all six actors on the show background, childhood and education. Please see link to book 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

From here you can find information on the actress childhood, some of Kathe Tibbs finding are confirmed by Darren Crossdale book Dawson Creek the Companion copies can be found on Amazon no kindle version only prints can be obtained.

As regards to her modelling career Warner Bros created publications for the show and some of the material talks about the six actors previous work before joining the cast. Unfortunately I cannot find any of the publication in English only Spanish and Italian and cannot locate web versions. As they all have Warner Bros copyright on them I assume they must of been created by the shows producers for the European market. The only internet site I can find is the following but again not in English but list all of the commercials the actress was part of http://www.mydawsonscreek.altervista.org/meredith.htm. There are no dates but again kathe Tibbs goes into more detail with dates of her childhood, education and work history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay99a (talk • contribs) 10:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I got the pdf you sent me, thank you. I suggest we bring this issue to Talk:Meredith Monroe because I don't think there's anything else to address on this noticeboard, beyond pointing out when you take personal information from sources like that book you linked to, you should cite those sources in the text instead of just making edits without sources or an edit summary.  Gamaliel (talk) 15:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I should also note that any editor who wants to help us figure out the middle name mystery is welcome to join us on that page. Gamaliel (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Eileen Donahoe
to whom it may concern, the page on this person reads as a pr piece & not accurate given what i know of the person — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.0.237.0 (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * what you may personally know of the person is irrelevant. But you are quite correct it is a PR piece, probably plagiarized from a press release. The source needs to be found so it can be quoted, but it's not likely to be copyvio because it'll almost certainly be US-PD (Public domain, as a work of the US government). If nobody gets to it, I'll do some of the more obvious rewriting.  DGG ( talk ) 22:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I fixed the source link, it was almost correct in-article. I'd agree there likley isn't a copyright issue. It is, however, non-neutrally worded, which the previous version (until this was copypasted) was closer to achieving.)  --j⚛e deckertalk 22:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've stubbed it. We really shouldn't have these sorts of entries even if it is determined later that the text is public domain.  The text remains in the history and linked in the article for use as a source for rewriting. Gamaliel (talk) 18:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've reverted to the version before the plagiarism. It's in general a good idea to see if there is a usable version in the article history before stubbing, or real editors' work gets lost to the copy and paster. --GRuban (talk) 09:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely right, and I usually do this. In this case I assumed that it had been a copyvio from the time of its creation, as is often the case with more obscure individuals, and I should not have made that assumption. Gamaliel (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

ISANYBODYDOWN.COM


I find myself in the unusual position of disagreeing with someone else's redaction of information based on BLP grounds. Numerous reliable sources have identified an individual as being involved with a now-defunct controversial website. That individual disputes their involvement. They created an account and removed their name from the article, but that account was blocked for block evasion (a previous account had been blocked for making legal threats). The person then appears to have gone to IRC, where they were able to convince editors to remove sourced content. Having looked over the sources (including statements by the site's co-founder), I have no doubt that the person was involved, but I wouldn't mind if someone else were to take a look at Talk:IsAnybodyDown? to see if there is any merit to a claim of BLP violation. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * He seems to be mentioned only in passing in a few of the sources, and is absent in most of the sources used in the article. I'm not sure this is substantial enough to justify not removing him from the article, especially if there is a dispute about his involvement, a dispute that is largely undocumented by third party reliable sources.  Gamaliel (talk) 22:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The sourcing for Trahan seems a little bit chancy - it's a transcript from an interview with people involved in the whole kerfuffle. If that's the only source then I'd lean towards removing it. Another option would be basic courtesy. At first glance the other guy is the one that pretty much went public with his involvement, so it seems OK for his name to be attached to the article since it's so easily sourced. The site does not exist anymore and including a name there that can be sourced only thinly seems like pouring salt on the wound. On the other hand, well, hoisted by their own petards and all that. § FreeRangeFrog croak 22:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not the only source. See the talk page discussion which lists (and links) multiple sources. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, I didn't check the talk page. Obviously there are more sources that verify his involvement. § FreeRangeFrog croak 16:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * In the interest of accuracy, the user representing himself as Chance Trahan did not remove his name from the article. The only editing of the page he did was this. He encouraged removal of his name on the talk page, his user talk page, and apparently via IRC, but did not remove it himself, neither via the block-evading ID nor the ID that was blocked for legal threats. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I've read several of the sources and in my opinion there seems to be a strong indication that Mr Trahan is involved in some way, but the actual extent of that is unclear.. it could be anything from doing a bit of design work all the way up to being a full business partner. It's quite likely that the actual extent of his involvement will be examined by the courts or some other external investigation, and at this point his involvement (assuming there is some) should become more clear. Remember, a Wikipedia entry is a pretty fluid thing and not set in stone, so it can be updated and extended at a later date. I would urge caution under BLP guidelines and seek further citations (some of which may not exist yet). Shritwod (talk) 08:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with DC on this one. There are plenty of reliable sources that indicate his involvement, so I do not see any glaring BLP issue. BLP1E maybe. I also want to add I dont particularly like this 'removed after discussion on IRC' stuff. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Abhishek Banerjee
This article has not been edited as per Wikipedia Terms and Conditions. The following lines seems like a personal attack:

"By virtue of being the nephew of Mamata Banerjee, present chief minister of West Bengal he is also the National President of 'All India Trinamool Yuva'"

"The opulent wedding of Abhishek to Jasmeet Ahuja in February 2012 made it an embarrassment for Mamata as she is known for her austerity"

This type of edits should not be encouraged. Also another line in this article says:

"Leaps and Bounds is a company that claims to be in Bottled Water, Consultancy, Real Estate, Micro Finance and Insurance"

This line is also improperly written. You cannot write "CLAIMS TO BE" for a company. Leaps and Bounds is a company headed by Abhishek Banerjee and they deal with all the services mentioned above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asanirban (talk • contribs) 07:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Tweaked first sentence, second one (i.e. marriage) is sourced. -- Tito ☸ Dutta 07:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Check the following link  about the company, it has no financial results, no projects or details given anywhere, just a website with the claims, if someone can source articles to back the website claims, then remove the word claims, else it remains claims, you can write "CLAIMS TO BE" ( but definitely not in capitals) for a company that does not give any details in the public domain about the areas it claims to be in. The wedding opulence was covered in the mainstream media, there is no "improper writing" here, just replicating what the articles on the wedding are saying. Further the fact that the gentleman in question is Mamta Banerjee's nephew and that is his only qualification to get a post in a political party should not be hidden, that is very selective editing. Injun Gone Loco (talk) 12:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Phyllis Schlafly
We just blocked (SEE #3 ABOVE) an IP user from Houston Texas for BLP violations on the talk page of Phyllis Schlafly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/76.31.208.198  Now an IP user also from Houston is making very similar nasty allegations against Schlaffly on her main page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phyllis_Schlafly&action=history I have reverted three times already today and given two warnings. Rjensen (talk) 13:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * sign--another revert. This time his editorial comment is a BLP violation against me and her son Roger Schlafly; it resembles the rhetroric of that blocked user. He says: rjensen is a conservative edit warrior and sockpuppet of Roger Schlafly with big wp:OWN problems. thought you should know. he will violate 3rr now and file frivolus complaints while lying about policy and refusing to discuss on talk page as he always does Rjensen (talk) 13:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

You're complaining about me for trying to improve the section created by NorthBySouthBaranof here, and that is not exactly fair. I invite you to follow wikipedia policy and engage with him, and myself, in discussion. Extending an WP:AGF olive branch here if you will please be a collegial instead of tendentious editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.235.104 (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Additionally, you have attempted to blame me for the edits by someone else who isn't me. That's not really fair and you're violating WP:AGF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.235.104 (talk) 14:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * User http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/98.196.235.104 get the blame -- if someone else is using the computer, the same allegations and the same rhetoric, you better get a free account or you will get blocked for mischief. Rjensen (talk) 14:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You've correctly identified me. There are two other people, clearly not me, for whose actions you are attempting to blame me. You've left me little choice but to report you for violation of policy after your dismissing and deleting my friendly invitation to self-revert with a tag of "hate mail." Please, take a break, calm down, and learn to be a collegial editor instead of a tendentious one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.235.104 (talk) 14:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

98.196.235.104, please be sure to sign your comments on all talk and other discussion pages. It is a standard that all editors are expected to follow. A notice was placed on your talk page prior to your last comment here, so perhaps you didn't see it. Thanks! --76.189.109.155 (talk) 20:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Rafael Nadal
Can someone please read the Personal life section of the Nadal article. The two sentences that concern me most are: (1) "In June 2009, Spanish newspaper La Vanguardia, and then The New York Times, reported that his parents, Ana Maria and Sebastian, had separated." and (2) "Since 2005, Nadal has been dating Maria Francisca Perello, an insurance company employee from Palma, Mallorca with a degree in Business Administration.[267]" I actually object more to the girlfriend sentence, but still am concerned about both sentences. I would perhaps understand mentioning who Nadal's girlfriend is if (a) she were notable, and (b) it was a long-term relationship. But this is a clearly non-notable person. And mentioning what she does for a living and what type of degree she has is clearly, to me, not encylopedic at all and doesn't belong in Nadal's biography. As far as the content about the parents, does that type of info belong in someone's personal life section? I can understand if they separted when he was a child and it was included in the Early life section. But mentioning a mere separation (not even a divorce) that happened while he was an adult seems quite inappropriate; almost like gossip. So, I would appreciate it if you could review that entire section and remove any content that is deemed non-encylopedic or inappropriate. Thank you very much. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Ray Nagin
I feel that this added material about Nagin is unlikely to be appropriate, given its wide-reaching scope (especially the first part) and the nature of the sources it's based on (opinion piece, etc.) Input requested. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I concur with Demiurge's analysis and revert. However, the editor who was reverted immediately added back the content, and then made additional edits with a non-neutral slant. Based on this pattern of edits, I am concerned that the editor perhaps has an improper agenda. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 20:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Pascal Rigo
"Rigo was born in Bordeaux, France, and after running a daily errand to buy two baguettes for his family,[3] apprenticed at his village's bakery at age 7.[4] He earned a business degree from the University of Bordeaux, was certified as a professional baker, He first moved to California in order to begin importing local wine to France, but stayed to open a bakery in Los Angeles then later, to San Francisco."

I am not sure when Pascal Rigo was born, but I am french and a school teacher and I can tell you that apprenticeship at age 7 would have been and still is completely illegal. the university aspect is also somehow confusing. University in france would not grant any certification/degree in baking. the formulation is somewhat confusing.

A French entrepreneur, who sees the opportunity to create industrial baking chain in the US, is talented & successful enough, without to trying to portray himself as a small artisan in wikipedia... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.47.182 (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

David Luchins
I am related to David Luchins and do not think he is a public figure who warrants a wiki page. An editor seems to be putting a tremendous amount of time into research on google to find quotes that are dramatic etc...I think the article should be deleted or at least it should be clarified if the editor knows the subject and/or has a bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.163.160.231 (talk) 14:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * He certainly appears to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements, see WP:BIO. If the article runs afoul of WP:BLP that can be fixed. There is relevant discussion at Talk:David Luchins.--ukexpat (talk) 15:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you to those that helped, but teh problem seems to be that whatever changes are made by editors are reversed by the page creator. Requesting non biased help on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.163.160.231 (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * FWIW User:EMESPATROL, and 216.163.160.231 and 72.231.17.126 appear to be single purpose accounts editing from a specific point of view, while User:Sarahj2107 appears to have done some fairly in-depth verification the sources used by User:Ajnem. Obviously, the policies about biographies of living people and assumption of good faith control here.  But assumptions can, at some point, be rebutted, and WP:BLP prohibits only unsourced derogatory information.  Some derogatory information, even if sourced, might call for an editorial judgment about whether too much of it constitutes undue weight, turning a biography into an attack piece. But I don't think that's the case here. David in DC (talk) 22:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The single purpose accounts, or at least the one claiming to be related to David Luchins, wants to have the article deleted. That's rather unusual. Not knowing Mr. Luchins or anybody related to him, I don't have any idea what his or her reason is, but it certainly can't be for anything negative let alone derogatory about Luchins in the article - for the simple reason that reliable sources have nothing negative to say about him. Cheers, Ajnem (talk) 11:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, the controversies section on this page seems to be rampant with original research, and the subject of some serious edit warring. I don't know what the agendas of those involved are, but it is leading to some seriously messed up stuff. As such, I think it violates the biographies of living persons, by being poorly sourced and potentially libelous. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Luchins — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.68.243.9 (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you be more specific as to what you think the problems are? The subject matter on that page is indeed controversial -- but it's hard to know what is actually problematic, and it would help if you can provide some more detail.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed most of the sources. Every section I've edited is backed by reliable tertiary sources. Please review the talk page. You'll see that User:Sarahj2107 did the same thing and found similarly. 149.68.243.9 is asserting original research in edit summaries and blanking sourced paragraphs. You'll also see that I directed 216.163.160.231 to WP:BLP and suggested he use that policy to frame his explanation for the edits he'd like uninvolved editors to make. Because right now his edits seem to be single purpose account WP:POV-pushing by an editor with a declared conflict of interest. Now 149.68.243.9 has picked up where 216.163.160.231 left off. If one or another of these editors would tell us what in the article violates BLP or is "potentially libelous", we can try to reason together. But that's clearly not the course 149.68.243.9 has chosen. There's time to turn back, but, in my view, administrative action will soon be warranted. David in DC (talk) 00:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The first sentence of the Pollard paragraph is original research, since it combines sources "while apparently supporting...still he..." It does not belong. The rest of the Pollard story has no relevance to the page, since it is merely a story that Dr. Luchins told, and he is not even a character in the story. It does not belong on his page, except as some sort of attempt to cast him in a certain way based on implications, which smells of agenda and is original research--if research at all. The paragraph regarding the defending the letter written by Soloveitchik is an obscure factoid, that does not seem to show anything at all, and is about as relevant as reporting how many sugars he likes in his morning coffee. It again seems driven by bizarre agendas and perhaps intended to draw implications, if anything. This entire page smells like a bizarre agenda of a disgruntled student who got a C in his class or something. Agendas violate the policies on living people. Re: Potentially libelous. I don't know why, but if he received death threats as a result of this information as reported on the page, it clearly is potentially libelous. Perhaps the same people making the death threats are now edit warring the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.231.17.126 (talk) 08:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * This is nonsense. The accusation about my being associated with people who made death threats is odious. And untrue.


 * The defense of Soleveitchik is notable and sourced.


 * No, it is sourced, but it does not belong on this page. It says little or nothing about the subject of the page. Consider that there are 5 sentences of introduction before half a sentence of barely relevant material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.68.243.9 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The fact that he supports freeing Pollard is in the source. So is the fact that he's criticized some of Pollard's supporters. None of this is original reasearch. I spent considerable time revamping the article yesterday, matching all of the facts with the sources, exhaustively, and trying to make the prose more encyclopedic. Please review this and the newest reversions thereafter. Please also read my explanation on the talk page. Help! I'm staying away from the article for at least 24 hours, to de-escalate the wheel war. Administrave assistance and intervention is desperately needed. David in DC (talk) 11:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It is original research because you are the one making the relevant contrast, not the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.68.243.9 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that it is obvious that users who seem to be familiar with editing WP but prefer to remain anonymous when e.g. deleting whole sections of articles have a personal agenda. Why not just have the article semiprotected so that only registered users can edit it? The rest is IMO a matter of discussion on the talk page of the article, as there is no BLP-issue involved, just some IPs and one single purpose user calling himself User:EMESPATROL – for those who do not know Hebrew or Yiddish – "Emes" means "truth" – who disagree with the opinions voiced by the subject of the article, namely David Luchins. When I created the article, I had no idea that it would attract attention. Now I know better. As it seems, the description the Jewish Daily Forward, not exactly an Orthodox Jewish paper, gave of Luchins is quite accurate: "a liberal – or a 'leftist,' as he prefers – in an Orthodox community that is ever-more conservative [whose] tart tongue has often landed him in the center of controversy." Well, everybody is not as open minded as Luchins is portrayed to be in the article and its sources, but as long as they act as IPs and the like, I don't think they have to be taken very seriously. It would be different if the Orthodox Union was protesting and deleting whole sections of the article – that would be something to be taken seriously ... Cheers, Ajnem (talk) 12:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me much more obvious that David in DC who claims no interest but spends most of his day digging up obscure and irrelevant facts about someone, and then edit warring over them, has some agenda. Why else is he doing this? Ask yourself that question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.68.243.9 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I think David in DC did a great job and commend his efforts and would not have posted this on the notice board if the article that had been written was his. I still feel Ajnem, and perhaps this is just his/her style, used a lot of POV terms (e.g., controversy) and unfairly deleted what others wrote (e.g., US Embassy move, pllard letter, headings), but with David in DC keeping things honest I am leaving the conversation. I also will point out that, despite what is suggested above, have no WIki experience and I followed the instructions and posted it here and even was open about my relationship - impressed that others came to help.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.163.160.231 (talk) 14:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The David Luchins page should be protected from IP(-Vandalism), no matter how impressed 216.163.160.231 is. First it was I who was the vilain, now it is User:David in DC. Who is next? Ajnem (talk) 17:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree, it should be protected from vandalism by obviously interested parties, who seem to mistake an encyclopedia project as a forum for personal vendettas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.68.243.9 (talk) 17:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Please sign your posts. Perhaps if you explained what it was about this particular article out of the 4.2+ million articles that caught your eye, people would know where you are coming from. You seem to be concerned about the Jonathan Pollard section in particular. Are you an interested party when it comes to Pollard for example ?  Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In order to keep this conversation from going on in two places at once, please review the personal attacks on me at the Luchins talk page and my response. I'm frustrated at being treated this way for trying to edit by the rules. David in DC (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No need to be frustrated, David. If we assume good faith, we can explain the statements by this/these anonymous user/s with his/her/their not being familiar with Wikipedia, its editors and their motives, in other words, he/she/they just do not understand how Wikipedians tick. Spending time working on an article about a living person one doesn't know and is not personally interested in or connected with is beyond his/her/their understandig. He/she/they wouldn't do it, therefore, he/she/they assume bad faith, i.e. a personal reason for editing the article. That's IMO all there is to it, besides the fact that he/she/they don't seem to like to see Mr. Luchins views and activities presented in Wikipedia. Ajnem (talk) 10:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Admins: we need some assistance with this. The creator of the page now concedes that he did it to advance a certain aspect of the subject, and the result is an absurd article which is completely agenda driven and reduces a man with a rich career and huge accomplishments to 3 or 4 out of context snippets on the least relevant things he has done. It is akin to a page about Obama that only mentioned the birth certificate "controversy". It should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.61.24 (talk) 13:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Please focus on the edits, not the editors. What's in someone's mind is irrelevant. It's what they do here that counts. Ajnem and I have never met and seem to be coming from different angles, but both of us are trying to fill the article with notable, non-derogatory, reliably sourced facts about Mr. Luchins. I do not share the editorial judgment that this article "is akin to a page about Obama that only mentioned the birth certificate 'controversy.'" In my view, there's a lot more to be added, but what's there is appropriate to a BLP. I'm hard-pressed to find ANYTHING in it that's derogatorty.


 * I AM willing to engage in a discussion about derogatory information that should be deleted because it's unsourced or poorly sourced. I can find none. Literally none. What am I missing.


 * Please omit references to editors' agendae, or their puroported conflicts of interests. You cannot know an editor's motivations beyond their self-declarations (here I'm thinking of the editor who has claimed to be Luchins' relative) and WP:DUCK. I do not see any WP:DUCK cases here and I think the repeated accusations of hidden agendae and conflict of interest shed far more heat than light. In my own case, they also offend me because they ae untrue and hurtful.


 * Please, I beseech thee (thee is meant plurally here,) pray tell what information in this article is derogatory? What material is unsourced or insufficiently sourced? Such things do merit deletion but, as I've said (and as other editors have opined here and on the article's talk page) none of the deleters are coming to this page or that and specificly listing problematic info. They're just blanket-reverting with inapropos edit summaries and using this talk page and the BLP/N page to impugn other editors' judgment and reputations.
 * By all means, please add more sourced info to make this a richer biography. No one seems to be focusing on that important work, other than Ajnem. I've restricted myself, thus far, to issues of improving prose, MOS style editing, reference-checking and insisting that wheel-warring and editorial behavior that border on bullying not go unchecked. I've had my hands full with that. But, I assure you, I'm also reserching and looking for new biographical facts to add. So should others be. David in DC (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This is getting absurd. I certainly never "concede[d] that [I] did it [create the page] to advance a certain aspect of the subject", as IP Nr. 65.96.61.24 claims. I stick to RS, not more, not less. The language of those IPs – it's hard to tell if they are one person or several persons – is interesting, though. First Mr. Luchins was not even "a public figure who warrants a wiki page" (see first post), then he became "a relatively obscure individual" (see David Luchins talk page) and now he is "a man with a rich career and huge accomplishments" (see above) but whatever he is, insignificant, obscure or huge, the IPs all come to the same conclusion: the article has to be deleted, which reminds us of old Cato who used to conclude every speech with the same sentence: Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam. As I have suggested to one of the IP on the David Luchins talk page, he/she should take it to WP:AFD. If he/she does so, we can discuss it there, everything else is IMO a waste of time. Cheers, Ajnem (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Amy Kuney
Hi there, I'm working to clean up some information on the internet about Amy. We'd like to pear down the information on this page to be much more general.

We would like to remove some of the information and make it more "general." She is no longer doing solo work and is focusing on a collaborative effort.

How do we go about amending the page?

We'd like to remove: Career & Youtube sections.

and add information on her new musical collaboration: Mypet.

-akpress — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amykuneypress (talk • contribs) 06:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You have a conflict of interest so please discuss the changes you are requesting by posting on the article's talk page at Talk:Amy Kuney.--ukexpat (talk) 14:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced critical material added to Nataša Kandić
Nataša Kandić (the woman who got video of the Srebrenica massacres) could use a second pair of eyes. A new (and so far single-purpose) account has been working to insert negative information about her into the lead for the past two weeks or so. The accusation that she "outlandishly focused on Serbs" is obviously non-neutral phrasing, and the fact that George Soros is a contributor to her organization doesn't belong in the very first sentence. I don't want to just edit war there, so a second opinion would be welcome. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:08, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * If unsourced negative material is added to an article on a living person, it should be removed immediately, per WP:BLP policy - and note that such removals are exempt from WP:3RR rules regarding edit warring. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Will continue to do so. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Bill Connors
This article consists almost entirely of praise and praising interview quotes, is generally brash and pompous as if the subject of the page had written it himself, and is not at all like a neutral or objective encyclopaedic article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.49.213 (talk) 17:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Jane Censoria Cajes


Article about a young Filipino politician. Just removed some really bad gossip/negative crap from the 'Controversies' section, as usual. Probably needs more trimming due to lack of citations. A few more eyes appreciated. § FreeRangeFrog croak 23:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Jane e-mailed OTRS last night, and I'm working with her to get this cleaned up, because there is a lot of crap there. The "Controversies" section will probably be refactored once this is all said and done, because there is information on this stuff happening, but it doesn't seem like she did anything wrong based on what is out there. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks. § FreeRangeFrog croak 17:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Migdia Chinea Varela

 * Subject says she's tired of trying to keep the article in the form she wants, and asks that we delete it entirely. She's been given all sorts of warnings over the years: COI, AUTOBIO, blanking, etc. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  15:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Please help. Erroneous and hurful information has been placed in the Migdia Chinea page and now this Orange Mike editor threatens to block me and continues. He has bullied me before with protocolafter protocol. Is it any wonder there are few women editing Wikipedia -- it's because of bullies like this guy. Please, delete the Migdia Chinea page and be done with it because he's is using this as some sort of personal vendetta against me. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Migdiachinea (talk • contribs)


 * We don't have a reliable source for the birth date or exact birth place. We shouldn't be restoring them to the article after they have been challenged. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure how to do this. An editor named Orange Mike has been after me for quite some time and I give up. He threatens me with being blocked and uses unfamiliar intimidating protocol after protocol to get his way. I must ask you to, please, get this guy off my back. I have an appointment that I have not kept to take care of this. I have offered to just let him delete my page and not deal with this -- but his goal is humiliation or intimidation by all means possible. Is this the way WIKIPEDIA should be conducting its business? I now realize why women are not editors. Please, I ask you to remove this guy from my back. He's not following procedure -- he's carrying a personal vendetta against me for reason that perhaps only he can understand. I have nothing at all against him, but he's got to be stopped as far as I'm concerned. I'm unememployed and looking for work to pay my mortgage -- I will lose my home if I don 't get a job. I will have no reason to go on. Don't you understand that the bully's objective is to push you to the wall? This is not an objective witch hunting -- if there was ever one. This is a guy who enjoys this sort of abuse and bullying. Please help me and just delete my page. Thank you -- Mig (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I suggest two things:
 * Orangemike should step back from the article temporarily and let the noticeboard handle it. This should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the accusations against him, which I suspect stem from an unfamiliarity with Wikipedia procedure and culture more than anything else.  It is just a means for letting things cool down so we can separate out the issues from the personalities.
 * Ms. Chinea, can you please, either here or through an email, let us know what erroneous information remains so we can remove it immediately from the article? Thank you.
 * Gamaliel (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Just a quick glance - OrangeMike's escalation of the situation on Migdiachinea's talk page was unneccessary. GiantSnowman 15:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Please read my previous message. I HAVE NO TIME FOR THIS. You don't have my birth date and that is a subject of speculation because my birthdate was estimated by the school I was sent to from Cuba because I had no passport. I was a Cuban refugee child who parents sent out of the country alone (unaccompanied minor) ffor political reasons and lived but was not born on Coral Gables. Why do you insist on putting information here that is false and deleterious? And if you do, then you ought to put all information, not what this guy Orange Mike wishes to have in it. I do not know Orange Mike personally, but this editor has been causing me grief for quite some time. When my first short film went to Cannes, he didn't think that it was worthy of having a page, despite an article on the Bruins and other corroborating evidence -- it went to 36 festivals and it is the first short film produced, directed and written by a Hispanic woman to do so. It's ok, It was deleted. There used to be a section in Wikipedia to protect the rights of Hispanic wikipedians or information about Hispanic Americans -- Frankly, given what is going on and the way that I'm being bullied by this Orange Mike with a vendetta, I do not wish to remain here and a page with incorrect information should be deleted. This man Orange Mike should be kept away from women like me. Thank you -- Mig (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Ms. Chinea, we have already removed the birth date and birth place from the article and they will not be restored. I've asked Orange Mike to have no further contact with you.  Gamaliel (talk) 15:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok -- I had to stop to read other stuff. Now you know the situation. I have had a life that has been complicated by world politics. I think keeping Orange Mike out of this is a good idea. He has issues with me and seems to enjoy bullying me. I have no personal issues here of any sort. I have stayed away from editing Wikipedia because I don't enjoy this sort of harangue. I'm also on survival mode trying to pay and keep my home. I'm applying for jobs. Any jobs. I can't be kept away for the pleasure of some. Perhaps Orange Mike is a great editor elsewhere, but he uses this venue as his own personal fiefdom and I'm not for him to push around with protocol and bureaucratic calls to arms. There ought to be a rule. Thank you. Mig (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Peace
Thank youMig (talk) 16:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Headline
I've done some clean-up work on the article. Nothing substantive. But I'm stumped about what to do with a ref. It's a newspaper story whose title misspells the subject's name. I've boldly corrected the spelling in the citation. But now my boldness is failing me. Did I do the right thing? I suppose I could have put [sic] in the middle of the headline, instead. But that would look odd. And leaving the typo in wikipedia, just because the Bruin made the mistake seems wrong too. But maybe we're not supposed to correct typos? What say ye? David in DC (talk) 17:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I would apply MOS:QUOTE to newspaper headlines as well: "trivial spelling and typographic errors should simply be corrected without comment" -- John of Reading (talk) 18:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I knew it for quotations. It makes sense to be applied across the board. David in DC (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

List of cancer victim hoaxes - person with mental illness included on list
I have just removed the details concerning a person diagnosed as suffering from mental illness from the List of cancer victim hoaxes article, as a WP:BLP violation. I would be grateful if others would look into this, and let me know if my actions were appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't think this excision is appropriate at all. BLP asks us to consider protecting the privacy of ordinary people who, through no choice of their own, nevertheless by accident, become publicly known.  I suggest WP:WELLKNOWN applies to people, like Ashley Kirilow, the individual whose privacy AndyTheGrump seems to be suggesting BLP authorized protecting.  Kirilow did everything she could to make herself a public figure, so as to make her fraudulent fundraising efforts more successful.  Geo Swan (talk) 11:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That doesn't alter the fact that she was suffering from a mental illness - which makes your assertion that she did it by 'choice' problematic. Do you think she chose to become ill? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You still haven't quoted the passage from BLP, or any other policy, that would authorize your deletion.
 * In courts of law, the ruling as to whether an individual had mental health issues serious enough to release them from responsibility for their acts. I have four points to make:
 * The wikipedia is not a court of law.
 * Judges' rulings can generally be counter-intuitive, as for instance Feith v. Rural. Judges' rulings on the responsibility of individuals with mental health issues are often surprising and counter-intuitive.
 * Judges' ruling on this issue are sometimes highly controversial, with respected legal experts suggesting or accusing those judges of lapsing from the judges' equivalent of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
 * You are assuming that silence and obfuscation of issues related to mental health, is in the best interests of individuals with mental health issues. I think this meme underlies all your attempts to remove all coverage of WP:WELLKNOWN individual you think have mental health issues, based on claims that coverage of those issues is damaging to them.  I don't see you providing any policy basis to support this action.


 * I drafted an essay You can't say that here! to address this meme. Geo Swan (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Since nobody has suggested that Wikipedia is a court of law, the above is irrelevant. And WP:BLP policy isn't a 'meme'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Please don't merely continue to claim wikipedia policy imposes a moratorium on any discussion of individual's mental health issues, without quoting the relevant passages from policy. Ashley Kirilow is covered by WP:WELLKNOWN, the coverage of her was relevant, neutrally written, and well documented.  I think you have a responsibility to quote those passages from policy that you think authorize your excision.


 * I cited the example of Betty Ford in my new essay, who was the first public figure to openly acknowledge and describe the difficulty of a long struggle with alcoholism. Her open discussion of her mental health issues had a very positive effect on public health and of all the people who followed her example.  If the wikipedia had been functioning then, and you had argued we had to impose a moratorium on coverage of her alcoholism, you would have had a very negative effect on her mental health, that of her family, friends and associates, and the millions of people affected by other alcoholics who followed her example.


 * You have offered no arguments that your moratorium is actually in the best interests of individuals who may have mental health issues, and you have offered no quotes from policy to show policy suggests of requires a moratorium. Geo Swan (talk) 18:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't give a toss what you say in your essay - it isn't policy, and it never will be. The WMF has made it perfectly clear that we have to take considerations of personal privacy into account: "The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees urges the global Wikimedia community to uphold and strengthen our commitment to high-quality, accurate information, by... Taking human dignity and respect for personal privacy into account when adding or removing information, especially in articles of ephemeral or marginal interest." You have provided no evidence whatsoever to back up your repeated claims that such cases are of more than passing interest. The only sources cited regarding the individual concerned date either from when the case first came to light, or from the court proceedings and sentencing. This type of material is exactly what the WMF statement is intended to cover. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * So, the passage you think justifies this excision is:
 * {| class="wikitable"


 * "The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees urges the global Wikimedia community to uphold and strengthen our commitment to high-quality, accurate information, by... Taking human dignity and respect for personal privacy into account when adding or removing information, especially in articles of ephemeral or marginal interest."
 * "The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees urges the global Wikimedia community to uphold and strengthen our commitment to high-quality, accurate information, by... Taking human dignity and respect for personal privacy into account when adding or removing information, especially in articles of ephemeral or marginal interest."


 * }
 * This says nothing about imposing a moratorium on information that is (1) written from a neutral point of view; (2) well documented; (3) relevant. In fact, the sentence you chose to replace with ellipses was " Ensuring that projects in all languages that describe living people have policies in place calling for special attention to the principles of neutrality and verifiability in those articles; "


 * Was the information about Kirilow not written from a neutral point of view? I believe it was neutrally written, and you have made precisely zero effort to show it was not.


 * I don't believe there is any question the information about Kirilow was well documented and verifiable, and you have made precisely zero effort to show it was not.


 * Was the information about Kirilow relevant? I don't believe there is any question that it was highly relevant.  In hoax after hoax comparisons were made between the recent hoax and Kirilow's hoax.


 * As for your claim that I have provided no evidence that "such cases are of more than passing interest." Can we stick here to the BLP claim you made -- that BLP authorized excision of all coverage of Ashley Kirilow.  Yesterday I provided 22 external references, that demonstrated that (1) Kirilow attracted worldwide scrutiny, and that coverage of her case was not of a passing nature.


 * You write: "This type of material is exactly what the WMF statement is intended to cover." Well, you still haven't provided a link to a policy that confirms your assertion that there is a moratorium on covering individuals who may have mental health issues, or on covering the mental health issues of individuals we do cover.  What the policy you cited requires is that all coverage of individuals should be neutrally written and verifiable.


 * Kirilow was caught about three years ago. The 2012-11-06 article from Discovery magazine below devoted five paragraphs about Kirilow to a discussion of the legality of faking cancer.  Regard this as a further refutation of your claim that coverage of Kirilow was (1) from when her case was first reported, or (2) from her sentencing.  Geo Swan (talk) 19:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Geo Swan on this. If something is well known and widely and repeatedly sourced, privacy concerns etc. are moot. WMF says we have to take into account these kind of issues, not that we have to remove everything that vaguely sounds bad about a person. In this case, taking into account this, we can conclude that the amount of coverage of the case is such that we can't talk about privacy anymore. -- Cycl o pia talk  19:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that I've deleted the article in question. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Good call, and I am glad that the relist by a non-administrator was ignored. I would've reverted that if I'd seen it at the time, honestly. Tarc (talk) 19:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Princess Alia bint Al Hussein
Princess Alia bint Al Hussein

the picture in the article is for Queen Aliaa not Princess Alia ,, thank u

i hope u change it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.47.52.128 (talk) 22:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It does look more like Queen Aliaa than Princess Alia. I should email the Ford library to either verify or correct their image description. I added 'citation needed'. I don't know if the monarchy can be contacted but I will see if I can do that as well. The US embassy should have an email though. --Canoe1967 (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Kaisa Sere
I don't see how this person's bio is any useful to wiki readers. It is a mere personal bio. This person is not an outstanding scientist that warrants significant public attention. It should be best kept at her university web page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.95.52.208 (talk) 05:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Prima facie she meets the requirements of WP:PROF.--ukexpat (talk) 13:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Andrei Nekrasov
In the Wikipedia article, it says, "In 1990 he married the actress Olga Konskaya (1964–2009).[3]" This is definitely incorrect! Olga Konskaya lived across the street from me durin g the early 1990's, together with her first husband, Igor. She could only have married Mr. Nekrasov at a much later date. Regrettably, I last spoke with Olga around 1996 and then lost track of her, so I don't know myself when she married Mr. Nekrasov, but it was definitely not 1990!

Paul Carlson Frankfurt, Germany — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.153.193.77 (talk) 12:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We usually don't accept private anecdotes to inform content, but I checked the source and, even if I don't speak Russian, it seems to me that there is no mention of the marriage and especially of the 1990 date. I removed the sentence. -- Cycl o pia talk  12:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Melih Abdulhayoğlu
This article is identical to the bio page on the comodo website and is obviously written by an non-objective party. Mark for deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techrefresh (talk • contribs) 13:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you can point us exactly to the page that it is a copy of, violating copyright, this would help us assess copyright violations (I checked on the COMODO website, and the bio I found looks different to me). As for the rest, neutrality problems are not a reason to delete an article, sorry -if you feel it is biased, fix it. The subject looks notable, with interviews etc. -- Cycl o pia talk  14:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Murder of Barry Pring
I’ve removed material identifying someone considered a possible perpetrator from this article per WP:BLPCRIME, which another editor is keen to include. This has been the subject of a book which has been removed from sale following a legal action, and some media articles (mostly in the tabloid Daily Mail from what I can tell), but AFAIK the suspect has not been arrested or charged. Is there any way this could/should be referenced or should it stay out altogether? January ( talk ) 11:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. I think it's worth including information about Anna Ziuzina as it is an important part of the information relating to the case. I personally don't care about including the book or not, but it could be said to be relevant information as per - . Thanks, Jay UK Crime Guy (talk) 11:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Is this even a notable death? Falls under WP:NOTNEWS I would say... GiantSnowman 11:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I'm questioning whether the suspect's identity should be included, not the book. January  ( talk ) 20:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Any more thoughts on this? January  ( talk ) 19:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * For previous articles on the topic, see Articles for deletion/Barry Pring and Articles for deletion/Death of Barry Pring. – Fayenatic  L ondon 18:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

cross-wiki issue (Tā moko and NSFW images)
Tā moko is a tradational tattoo practice among the Maori people of New Zealand which focuses on the face. At the top of the Tā moko article is an invitation to translate the content from the Russian language wikipedia. The Russian article contains a number of images missing from the English article. An image of a seated woman dated 1935 and claimed to be in the public domain, which I believe to be fraudulent (a) the quality of the photography makes me very suspicious of the early date (b) 1935 was during the nadir of the tā moko, a period when school children were beaten for expressing Maori culture in schools; genuine evidence of the practice during this period would be huge cultural news (c) the location and style of the work don't even match the Google translation of the text of the Russian article (which has some issues) and certainly not the English language article nor the sources listed in either. Far more likely that this is an image of a modern person passed as a historical person, and a edited to add the tā moko for titillation. Almost certainly that's an image of a living person, edited and being passed off. The original source may be here. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It is incredibly risky to assert that in 1935 we did not have high-quality photography - as, in fact, we had excellent photography back in those dark ages. I agree the person was living when the photo was taken, but we really can't say much more unless we have substantially better evidence than "photo quality" here. Collect (talk) 13:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know what the policies of the Russian wikipedia are but it seems to be the evidence is woefully inadequate to assert the photo is from 1935. The source is given as the above link yet there's not way to know the photo is from 1935 from the photo, it doesn't have any text and the numbers in the name could arise from a whole lot of others things. Also why does the file have an English name? This suggests it may have come from somewhere else but where? I didn't find anything from TinEye or a Google Reverse image search. BTW, in the same vein, even in the image is from 1935, are we sure it is PD? The PD template there appears to be something similar to PD-Russia or PD-old-70. Given the little details we know, I don't see how we can know that the author either died more than 70 years ago or the photo was published anonymously and I don't believe the anonymously part would even definitely apply since it is unlikely the author of the photo is Russian or it was first published in Russia. Nil Einne (talk) 07:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Dan Haggerty
The Dan Haggerty article was largely rewritten in this edit by, avowedly, his publicity agency. I was tempted to undo it wholesale, but the original article had its own issues, including a discussion of Haggerty's drug arrest that had no source cited. Suggestions?

DCB4W (talk) 01:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Cut it back to a stub maybe.--ukexpat (talk) 02:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Not that far -- but depuffed a tad. Collect (talk) 11:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Barbara Byrum

 * I happen to agree with her on almost all issues; but this article as written is more like a candidate biography from a campaign website than a proper neutral BLP. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  18:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Depuffed a campaign piece. Collect (talk) 11:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Maer Roshan


Puff pastry piece. Is this eligible for speedy deletion as spam? It appears to have been hatched as a fully promotional piece, and has continued in that way for three years. 76.248.151.159 (talk) 13:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * No, not eligible for speedy deletion, though it certainly needs de-puffing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I figured that was probably too much to hope for. Thanks, 76.248.151.159 (talk) 13:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Of Monsters and Men
This page contains opinion not related to biography. Located within first paragraph: "Of Monsters and Men are mainly known for heavily ripping off their entire musical style, riffs and style from Edward Sharpe and the Magnetic Zeroes, who in turn ripped off their style from Arcade Fire. This was demonstrated most notably in the similarities between OMAM song 'Little Talks' and Edward Sharpe and the Magnetic Zeroes song 'Home.'" Please have removed. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.147.28.61 (talk) 14:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Done. If it's a high profile article with a history of such commentary it would be helpful to have this watchlisted by established accounts. 76.248.151.159 (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Grace Dunham
This bio should be removed. This person is not significantly accomplished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.12.183 (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This noticeboard is intended to report issues with biographies. If you feel this person is not notable, you may ask at WP:N/N, or nominate the article for deletion yourself. § FreeRangeFrog croak 23:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Ziad K. Abdelnour
Hi, This is regarding the editing of Page Talk:Ziad K. Abdelnour from Unregistered IP's. The SEC content with not reliable source is continuously updated to the page from unregistered IP's. Which is already settled in 3rd opinion not to use SEC links and dealbreaker links as only source. Even I requested to Semi Protection, but it has been declined. This is happen since last 4 days. Please helps us in protecting this page from Edits from Un registered IP's.Rajmavrick (talk) 06:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Aaron Hernandez
Aaron Hernandez (an American football player) has been questioned in a murder investigation, and it might be worth keeping an eye on the page.  Calidum Sistere   03:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I've requested semi-protection. I've also removed the section on the murder entirely, since it grossly misrepresented the only source cited. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It's back again.--ukexpat (talk) 18:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Robert Pattinson
Editor Dumbledore1 is adding information at Robert Pattinson article in his personal life section without providing reliable sources. The sources he or she is providing as references are tabloids, media and fan speculations like these http://www.fashionmodeldirectory.com/models/nina_schubert/, http://social.popsugar.com/Robert-Pattinson-make-great-dad-12425385, http://voices.yahoo.com/nikki-reed-reported-twilight-affair-robert-2992109.html.--Jockzain (talk) 14:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Even with reliable sources, we shouldn't be including every minor detail of Pattinson's personal life. This is an encyclopaedia, not a gossip magazine. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Roberto Alomar
There are allegations of HIV transmission at Roberto Alomar, which while sourced could use additional eyes, given the nature of the allegations. Alomar is not confirmed to have HIV, and I would think we ought to tread carefully here. Among the concerns is this diff, where an editor seems to be trying to add weight to an accuser's reliability with original research, implying that because a tennis player has certain career earnings, she can't simply be "out for money", as a lawyer in the source claims. In my mind, it's not up to wikipedia to comment on the validity of the claims, but if the claims are in the media they should be covered as neutrally and as carefully as possible. I reverted the diff mentioned, left a note for the editor on their talk page, but hope that other editors can weigh in on how this subject is being covered in this BLP. Echoedmyron (talk) 15:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * A good example why allegations make for bad BLPs. Even when presented "neutrally" they may well harm the subject.  We have no deadlines here, so if further solid facts appear, we can always add them.  Collect (talk) 15:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Jon Anderson
JON ANDERSON is the living former lead singer of the band YES. This article is filled with rude words and false statements pertaining to made up names for actual living people who are or were members of YES. Here, JON is shown in photos and is called "Jizzle". Please delete this entire article ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.56.197.153 (talk) 04:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I can´t comment on "false statements", please discuss that on the talkpage you linked to. To my eyes, the article is not filled with rude words, the fotos seems fine and nowhere does it say "Jizzle". It is very unlikely that this article will be deleted from Wikipedia, but of course it can be changed/improved. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Highly likly this person has found the article on Gizoogle's page Jizzle Anderson.-- Auric    talk  21:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Could someone email WMF about the copyright violation of the WMF logo on that site?--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Technically when you run a page through that service you're the one committing a copyright violation :) § FreeRangeFrog croak 22:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how the site is set up. Having the WMF logo beside a hoax article seems rather illegal to me. I won't email WMF but someone else may wish to.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Our article explains it pretty clearly. It's not a site as much as it is a filter. It doesn't host any static pages, it just "translates" any pages you ask for into "jive". --GRuban (talk) 03:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Cilia Flores is not Maduro's wife.
PLEASE, MAKE THE PROPER CHANGE OF WIKIPEDIA IN GOOGLE, STATING THAT CILIA FLORES IS MARRIED TO MADURO. PLEASE CHANGE THAT BECAUSE SHE IS NOT THE FIRST LADY. SHE IS A CONCUBINE, AND MANY PEOPLE LIKE ME USED TO LOOK FOR WIKIPEDIA AS A SERIOUS SOURCE BUT NOT ANYMORE WITH THIS. THANKS FOR YOUR PROMPT ATTENTION TO MAKE THIS CORRECTION.
 * Debatable. Most sources say they are married, but mostly just by labeling her "wife", without going into marriage details: BBC, Biography.com; Guardian; New York Times. Reuters explicitly doubts it. Telegraph says no. Foreign Policy isn't sure. El Mundo specifies "life partner", which implies strongly not married. Is it a violation of BLP to say that the media debates whether someone is married? --GRuban (talk) 07:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Far better to call her a 'spouse' or 'partner' Stuartyeates (talk) 09:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Stuartyeates. This is probably an English issue but note that a term like concubine should almost never be used to refer to someone living in modern times, and it makes even less sense if the person is the only current or the primary partner. Nil Einne (talk) 16:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The term 'concubine' is a common derogatory term in countries like Venezuela and Colombia. We can do 'partner' or 'life partner' or heck, girlfriend. But never, ever 'concubine'. Also note that this person is likely not referring to our article, but to the Google search results on the subject's name (the infobox), over which we have no control anyway. § FreeRangeFrog croak 16:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

They are not married: "Flores and Maduro are not married nor have children in common, but they share their life since about 20 years (...)"ABC

I agree that "concubine" is totally inadequate, and has a totally different meaning. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that the term is wholly inappropriate here. And that it should be used rarely.


 * However, In case you really think concubinage exists today only as a vulgar term in Latin America, please allow me to disabuse you of that notion, now that I've done a bit of googling.


 * Please see China Concubines Return Thanks To Increasing Capitalism from HuffPo, China's concubine culture is back from Asian Times, China: The Plight Of Sex Workers – Analysis from Eurasia Review, Concubine culture brings trouble for China's bosses from The Guardian, Tanzania: Children Now Seen in Criminal Underworld from the Tanzania Daily News, The Concubine Revival from The Times of Israel, Kosher concubines from Israel HaYom, Pakistan TV Debate on Concubines and Slavery in Islam from EuropeNews and Concubines and Prostitutes from Christianity Magazine.


 * I'm horrified, but not exactly surprised. I apologize for the digression, but I thought it important note. David in DC (talk) 19:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Somewhat OT, but the usage by the OP and that described by FreeRangeFrog seems to be somewhat distinct from that used in the sources above, most of which seem to be using it in a manner similar to the older usage described in our article namely referring to a 'lesser' wife or somethng akin to that donated by the word 'mistress', and commonly where the man already has a wife; whereas the case here appears to be where the person is basically the spouse, and the only one even if they may not have a piece of paper. While there are probably some people in those countries who similarly refer to an unmarried partner as a concubine in a derogratory fashion, I wonder how common it is. Nil Einne (talk) 06:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

See several refs that casually refer to Flores as "spouse", but it is uncertain what they mean; we would have to be sure that they meant the specific meaning of being formally married. One could use the shorthand of being "common law" spouses, but only if the members of the couple self-identify as such, and while it is true they resemble common law spouses, there is no evidence they are in fact. I see several of the refs claiming "spouse" that seem to be fudging on "long-term-partner", which seems to be the consensus on what they are.

First Lady, on the other hand, might be OK depending on whether it is a formal or informal title. Presently, it isn't OK, since the particular ref being used does not say she IS First Lady. In some countries, First Lady has a specific meaning, and in some it comes with formal title and staff (though usually not with legislative or executive power). In other countries, it has none and is an informal title, and you would just have to demonstrate that people refer to her as First Lady, even if the First Couple is not married. Hope this helps. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Alice Walker
An editor recently added a review of one of Alice Walker's books, as voiced by the Jewish Anti-Defamation League. They condemn the work as anti-Semitic. The WP article contains no other external reviews of her work. It seems that this slating by the ADL may be too fringe to include. As an unrelated aside, Walker has recently publicly condemned Wikipedia for perceived inaccuracies in the Alice Walker article and openly accused it of slander. Thoughts on the ADL addition are welcome. Span (talk) 23:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that the ADL statement is a solid source to work from. I do not think it would qualify as "FRINGE" at all. She has also fairly recently refused a Hebrew translation of her work The Color Purple to be printed. I find that fairly extreme. That deserves a mention. Keep the above mentioned critique. Again, from my cursory reading of the JP article, she allegedly uses some unpleasant language and facile historical comparisons re Israel/Palestine in the new work. The attempt to delegitimise an entire language, and by extention an entire ethnic group who speak that language, (completely disregarding the individual Hebrew speakers' political views) to me borders on racism, and a rather disturbing undertone of a "collective guilt" which arguably most Jews, whatever their political opinions may be, would find creepy and distasteful to put it mildly. Imagine the uproar if say, Amos Oz refused to endorse any Arabic translations of his works! Her whole stance on I/P may deserve its own section. Obviously balancing cites should be hunted up by interested eds. Irondome (talk) 23:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * What you find 'fairly extreme' is beside the point - we base articles on published sources, not on the opinions of contributors. A section on Walker's 'stance on I/P' could only possibly be justified by demonstrating that published sources gave it significant weight. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah I find it fairly extreme. But that would not affect my contributions to a NPOV new section. There is considerable material out there that would support a new section, and it would be balanced. And yes, my opinion counts as an autonomous individual. I just dont migrate it to mainspace, unless there is strong citational support and consensus. Ok? Irondome (talk) 01:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd say that's valid criticism from a notable source, not a personal attack but directed at her work. It's phrased perfectly well in the article. As to her misgivings in her blog, looks like most of that personal stuff with the daughter is gone now. § FreeRangeFrog croak 00:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

If you want WP:RS that discuss the ADL criticism, [], [], and [] would do. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 00:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Edward Snowden birth place


Shouldn't the subject's birth place be sourced, especially if it's been a matter of dispute on the talk page? I'm actually not comfortable giving a birth place at all since it hasn't been widely reported in the press. But when I took the birth place out, I was instantly reverted. I brought this up on the talk page but haven't had any response yet. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You are right in reverting unsourced content from BLPs. However, if I'm not mistaken, there are sources for the birthplace here (The Guardian), then also reported here by NBC news apparently. Therefore I suspect it could stay (sourcing it). -- Cycl o pia talk  13:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to think I'm living in an alternate universe or something. Can you point to the exact quote from either of those sources that says he was born in Wilmington? I can't find it. As far as I can tell, the first one says "raised" and the second says "grew up". Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Correct, both sources clearly say he was raised in Wilmington. If that's the information we have then that's what the article should reflect. § FreeRangeFrog croak 15:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

brian schactman
i don't think you should be referring to brian schactman as a hack journalist, that is surely a matter of opinion rather than fact.
 * That was just vandalism. You don't need to bring something like that here, just go ahead and revert it. If it keeps happening, warn the user on his talk page with one of these: Template:Uw-vandalism1. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Bishop Bell School
A teacher at Bishop Bell School, Jeremy Forester, has been convicted of abducting an underage girl. Details of the pair were published in 2012 when UK police were hunting for them but there is now a ban on UK editors publishing the girl's name and UK editors risk prosecution. I've reverted one edit. Is there an appropriate measure/warning that can be taken? JRPG (talk) 14:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not censored. The U.K. courts have no power over us, and non-U.K. editors are under no obligation to let our content be dictated by them. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  14:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * However, there is no encyclopedic value to leaving the young lady's name in the article, and I've removed it.-- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  14:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * An edit notice for the page would be a sensible measure. That would be for the information of editors who might fall under UK jurisdiction; not for the restriction of what edits they or anyone else are "allowed" to make. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes - a UK court does have power over UK editors. GiantSnowman 14:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks to everyone. This legal problem occurs every few months and I'll copy the edit notice for future reference. JRPG (talk) 14:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have also removed the name from the history, to prevent anyone trying to find it/spread it. Would not be good for anyone involved. GiantSnowman 14:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:VICTIM applies here quite nicely, not to mention the basic common sense and courtesy principle of not forcing crime victims to have this article show up when they Google their own names. § FreeRangeFrog croak 16:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Nick Harper (politician)
A representative of the subject has been in contact with OTRS. I have advised them to post on the talk page, which they have done (I subsequently added an Edit request template). Would someone please take a look? Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 15:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The BLP had contentious claims from a single article making assertions which appear to be criminal in nature at first glance. Thus - removed.  Collect (talk) 15:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, much obliged.--ukexpat (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

FileOne, Inc
User:MJThomas23707 is repeatedly adding allegations about a person to this page:, , close to the point of edit warring. That article is up for speedy deletion anyway, but a similar pattern of allegations was also applied to other pages, , edits which should probably be hidden. See also this edit. AllyD (talk) 19:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Article speedied, revs revdel'ed and accounts indeffed. That was fast :) § FreeRangeFrog croak 20:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Julia Lescova
Julia Lescova was born in july 4th, 1987. There is a huge mistake in the article, saying her birth year is 1980. This is very important and information is inaccurate. Please fix her birth year to 1987. As soon as possible. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.190.234 (talk) 00:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * DoB uncited and removed per BLP.--ukexpat (talk) 02:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Tim Donnelly (politician)


NPOV and undue weight issues in most recent edits; seems to draw interest paralleling that of Mike Gatto (see above). 76.248.151.159 (talk) 00:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Quite a bit of overload and argumentation indeed. Collect (talk) 21:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I just stumbled on this thread and looked at the article. I think the entire mention of the incident with the schoolkids should be removed until a clear well-sourced account can be written.  As it stands, it suggests but does not state a problem, which is not appropriate for an article about a living person.  SPECIFICO  talk  21:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Randy Revelle
Randy Revelle is my father. In the Personal Details section his birthday is listed as April 18, 1941. It is in fact April 26, 1941. Please change when you have a chance.

Thank you,

Robin Revelle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.49.222.20 (talk) 23:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source (website, book, etc) that provides the correct birthdate? If not then the normal course of action is to remove the date altogether. Neither of the two references in the article provide the date either. § FreeRangeFrog croak 00:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * A web search finds http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&File_Id=7897 which gives the April 26 date. We have a small article on HistoryLink, it seems to have won awards. However on WP:RSN it has gotten one reliable and one not, in each case without much participation. I'd think it suffices, but would prefer a second opinion. What do you think Frog - good enough for a birthdate for a BLP? --GRuban (talk) 01:53, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * How about this? That source is used by many Wikipedia pages. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that works just fine. Updated the article with the Apr 26 date. Thanks. § FreeRangeFrog croak 20:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Ken Levine (musician)
Ken Levine (musician) is a poorly sourced article written by seemingly the son of this unnoteworthy man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.78.191.227 (talk) 08:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Puffy a tad, but if you find him not notable, put it up for AfD. Collect (talk) 12:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There are only three sources, the first is WP:OR (a record chart list) and 404, and the other two are the subject's web site. I'm not going to do it myself but it does seem a candidate for AfD. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:N/N is probably a better venue for this, but regardless of the article's low quality, I'd be cautious about taking this to AFD without doing some homework. Passing WP:MUSICBIO for work in the 60s in South Africa is still good enough for inclusion, but it might be hard to source successfully. There might also be sources in Afrikaans (online and off) that as (primarily) Anglophones we might overlook. § FreeRangeFrog croak 20:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Having now looked at the "Press" pages on his web site he does seem to be notable. So I retract my AfD suggestion. Someone might even be able to turn the press images on his web site into proper refs. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Anwar Hossain Manju
The following biography of Anwar Hossain Manju includes a defamatory comment about his daughter, Anushay Hossain in the last sentence of the page:

Anwar Hossain Manju

The statement is not linked or sourced. Please remove immediately.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.231.178.41 (talk) 16:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Removed. January  ( talk ) 16:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Lakshmi Manchu ‎


An IP figured it'd be funny to add some negative adjectives to this, which then got very helpfully picked up by Google so that the vandalized intro now shows up in their search results... Fixed for now, but we'll see if it needs protection. § FreeRangeFrog croak 20:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

DJ JT


Pure puff. I'd like to nominate this for speedy as spam, but suspect it won't fly. If anyone else wants to give it a shot, be my guest. 76.248.151.159 (talk) 00:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Could use some help; a WP:SPA is removing the maintenance templates referring to the promotional content, lack of reliable sources and copyright violations. 76.248.151.159 (talk) 05:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Jesus Huerta de Soto WP:OR/Synth
This is being brought here since this is a biography of a living person and not an economics article and this material obviously is WP:OR/WP:Synth. Opinions at Talk:Jesús_Huerta_de_Soto welcome.


 * At this diff I removed as argumentative for a bio a sentence written by User: SPECIFICO saying that Milton Friedman predicted one of the two things Soto claimed only Austrian economists had predicted; the source does not mention Huerta de Soto.
 * Lawrencekhoo reverted it, writing: If a claim is made about economics, it's entirely appropriate to present the mainsteam view.
 * Srich reverted it writing: as presented, particularly with "however", it is WP:OPED. Article is a BLP, not economics subject..
 * SPECIFICO puts back another version writing: Provide context for Soto stagflation remark, with mainstream view from AEA Pres. Friedman. SPECIFICO writes: “Chicago School economist Milton Friedman, whose positivist methodology was antithetical to the Austrian approach, foretold the 1970s stagflation in his 1967 Presidential Address to the American Economic Association.[18][19][20]”  Again, no source mentions Huerta de Soto.

It also would be helpful to point out to User:SPECIFICO that ridiculing the subject of the article is against BLP and certainly doesn’t make for collaborative editing.
 * At this diff User:SPECIFICO writes: There's no SYNTH there. Poor Soto -- he's being protected from fresh air like a sickly old asthmatic. Soto is strong! He stands tall! He is and able to live and breathe in a sentence next to the immortal Milton Friedman. Here's to both of them.
 * At this diff User:SPECIFICO writes: Look at here: Flat Earth Society. "The myth that the earth was flat..." Now, should we say "Soto gave voice to the myth that the Austrians were the only ones to predict the staglation..." Decisions, decisions! 

Thanks for any help. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 18:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I hope interested editors will make their comments on the article talk page as the full context of the discussion is there. – S. Rich (talk) 05:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps above is more a WP:ORNissue than a WP:BLPN issue, given lack of interest? Sometimes it's hard to tell which noticeboard to go to if WP:BLPN is involved. Hearing no dissent tomorrow will move above there with note I did so... ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 02:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:FORUMSHOP  SPECIFICO  talk  03:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Finally, User:Specifico speaks on his edits, in the wrong section (so I moved it up here), to suggest that it's forum shopping to take the WP:OR topic to another forum given that I wasn't sure which was best and since no one except the other editor who also opposes Specifico's edits responded, I wondered if that would be forum shopping. I really don't know.
 * But obviously User:Specifico doesn't care to share his rationales for his edit with this noticeboard - or much on the talk page where two editors disagree with his edit. It really would be great if people could opine. I feel like no one cares anymore and it's very frustrating. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 04:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Given no response on the WP:OR policy issue, also brought to WP:ORN. Not too late to comment on either that issue or ridiculing the subject of the bio on the talk page. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 14:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Other issues
Since User:SPECIFICO often fails to engage in talk page discussions per WP:BRD, also could use an eye on these two issues clearly explained by my talk page sections: WP:FORUMSHOP SPECIFICO  talk  19:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:Undue on Larry J. Sechrest criticism - resolved
 * Removing full names/links of primary influences from lead (i.e., leaving those way down in the info box) - think I'll just fix it
 * Per this diff keeping primary source info on Huerta de Soto's views which adds to/clarifies another source's perhaps inaccurate description in the preceding sentence made seven years earlier. Discussed here at my talk page. Resolved. Thanks for any help... ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 14:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Forum shopping
I express no opinion about the substance of this request, but the forum shopping allegation is nonsense so long as proper procedures are followed. WP:FORUMSHOP says: "Where multiple issues do exist, then the raising of the individual issues on the correct noticeboards may be reasonable, but in that case it is normally best to give links to show where else you have raised the question." If there is an OR issue here as well as a BLP issue, there is no reason to not list in both places, provided that you are clear that you are doing so and cross-links are provided. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for outside neutral opinion. Hard to keep it all straight, sometimes! ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 15:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, OP expressly stated that the reason for the anticipated move was because OP didn't like the way the BLP posting was going. That is forum-shopping. Moreover, as is consistent with such motivation, the stated intent (before my reminder re:policy) was to move, not to dual post or to link, the matter. SPECIFICO  talk  17:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * a) If there's no response except process issues, that's not an issue of "how it is going" policy wise. b) Move was a suggestion. If that's not the right thing to do, I won't do it and other alternatives here and elsewhere have been suggested. c) Just because people aren't commenting on it doesn't mean it's not a clear policy violation that needs to be dealt with. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 18:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Please do not refactor other editors' remarks. My words above were as indicated in the edit summary, a response to TransporterMan. Thank you. 18:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't understand your comment or, looking up WP:OP, who the open proxy you are addressing is; am I an open proxy? ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 20:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * OP = original poster. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. So to clarify "Don't understand your comment." You mean only Transporter man is allowed to respond because you were responding to TransporterMan? And therefore it was OK for User:Specifico to change his/her comment after I responded??  New one on me... In any case, when one starts with "perhaps i came to wrong board" and ends with "Hearing no dissent" it means, hey, is this ok?  ie. trying to figure out proper procedures. I thought moving was better than leaving in two places, but putting in two places seems ok after all. Who would have thunk it? ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 20:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Assuming good faith and not the alternative possibility, WP:NOTHERE, I will recapitulate: Putting it in two places only after you are dissatisfied with the result of putting it in the first place is forum shopping. There are well-documented policies that would lead you to post appropriately at the outset, but the choice should be based on the content of the question not the outcome of your first attempt. If you had liked the outcome of your first try, would you be contemplating a second go-round? The answer is blowing in the wind. Time to chill on this. SPECIFICO talk  21:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * May it's so obvious to other editors that Srich and I are correct, they didn't have the energy to affirm it. Often editors are more motivated to disagree than to agree. ''CarolMooreDC - talk to me &#x1f5fd;  22:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:Undue criticism issue vs. BLP
I have quoted BLP which says: Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Nevertheless User:SPECIFICO continues to remove material that is neutral or positive while packing in critical material, necessitating more long discussions and visits to noticeboards. Is this all acceptable now? Do tell. ''CarolMooreDC - talk to me &#x1f5fd; 17:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC) Please refreain from WP:FORUMSHOP posting. For many reasons, for example to avoid wasting the time of those who comment, it is important to determine the issue and post in the appropriate venue. Note that the source which states the opinion of the two authors is not a secondary source. SPECIFICO talk  17:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Per this talk page discussion loads up Huerta_de_Soto section with criticism of a book by one individual, with a really long footnote, even though the article is easily available on line.
 * Yet removes at this diff a Journal review of the article which neutrally describes the book's content, as well as another Journal article explicitly saying other well known economists have a similar view to Huerta de Sotos.
 * Is pushing hard to remove a favorable quote by what he calls "a couple of nobodies" (two academics in a book by an academic publisher) at his "Quote from two nobodies" section. (Which I brought to WP:RSN cause I thought it was that kind of issue but his comments made me recognize it's more part of his POV pushing.
 * Above I document User:Specifico's "ridiculing" Huerta de Soto himself. Here, as well as elsewhere on personal and article talk pages, User:SPECIFICO has mocked associates of the economist.
 * First, you are the one who denied it was a WP:RS issue and it's only one of several listed here. But now you suddenly here bring up a new issue which you don't even explain or prove, "Note that the source which states the opinion of the two authors is not a secondary source." I hope that won't confuse anyone else as much as it does me. ''CarolMooreDC - talk to me &#x1f5fd;  17:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Lee Grant/ mis Use of United States Census records as an only source for dates of birth
In her interview with the Archive of American Television, some years ago, Lee Grant avoided questions about her age and finally stated that until she was a teenager she believed that she was born in 1930 and then found out she was actually born in 1927. Whether Ms. Grant is vain is not the question, (and please refrain from comments about her personally) the question is should we accept articles like hers, where 1925 is used as her DOB by a single source, (minus secondary sources) which is the 1930 and 1940 U.S. Census, when this is not supported by Primary? The United States Census/Ancenstry.com is not considered a reliable source and its use in Wikipedia for DOBs (including by myself) is a direct violation of BLPPRIMARY. Furthermore; Wikipedia:Privacy of personal information and using primary sources states: "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object." This is not the case with Lee Grant, it may reasonably be inferred that she does mind having her age written all over the internet. i'm not even going to go into a discussion concerning her talk page, where the editors seem to be making fun of her and the fact that they have revealed her date of birth. Why does she deserve this? That is not encyclopedic at all. Do not know the woman personally, just think that this is injustice and in violation of Wiki's policy. Therefore, I pose to you the question. Should her date of birth be removed from her page on the grounds that it is supported by a single source, which is considered unreliable per Wikipedia's standarts. Incidentally, the same goes for some other Ancestry-sourced articles in Wiki.Radiohist (talk) 14:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems like a pretty clear case to me, and I've removed the birth date from the page. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right, they're wrong. We remove the birth date. We could leave a note there stating that there is no reliable secondary source for the information. § FreeRangeFrog croak 16:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I also left a brief note on the talk page but probably won't be watching. If the birth date goes back in without a proper source, and you can't get it resolved on the article talk page, feel free to come back here or contact me on my talk page. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * If US census records alone are not sufficient to establish year of birth as per one activist editor (User: ‎Radiohist), then how about IMDb? That would provide a secondary source. The editor in question stated that info gleaned from Ancestry.com records as somehow "unreliable", tacitly implying an intention ("... the same goes for some other Ancestry-sourced articles in Wiki") to revise other articles and undo other editors' work, while pursuing his/her agenda, which includes referring to denying Grant's "plea" (transmuted apparently via Radiohist) re publishing the true year of birth as a form of "rape" (see here, here), which is amazingly offensive, in my opinion. (He/she also has a habit of constantly blanking his/her talk page, especially after receiving any kind of criticiam, making referencing and communications more difficult.) Are these broad opinions shared by other editors/admins? Quis separabit?  19:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, if Grant acknowledges being born in 1927 (" some years ago, Lee Grant avoided questions about her age and finally stated that until she was a teenager she believed that she was born in 1930 and then found out she was actually born in 1927"), then why wasn't that year restored?? Radiohist has some kind of agenda here. Quis separabit?  20:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Per long established consensus IMDB is not a reliable source for personal info in biography articles. This is especially true when the information is disputed. --Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 21:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I know IMDb is not always reliable regarding biodata. I was just asking if, in combination with census records, which are reliable, it [IMDb] would be an adequate secondary source. I was just curious. More importantly, Grant acknowledges 1927 as a year of birth per Radiohist then why is he/she unwilling to restore that year of birth? Quis separabit?  21:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Am a "he". in answer to your question, no census records are not considered reliable, mainly due to the fact that they have too many errors in them to be considered even remotely reliable. And yes she did say that, but I can't find a link or reference in which she says it, the archive of american television should be incorporated into the page Radiohist (talk) 16:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Just because you claim census records to "not [be] considered reliable", I think this is your personal opinion. It would be absurd for Ancestry.com, Social Security Death Index, findmypast.co.uk (digitized records of the General Registry Office of England and Wales), and other government-based records (state and federal), opened to the public and thus not involving any violations of the 1974 Privacy Act (U.S.), are somehow unsatisfactory because one activist editor doesn't happen to appreciate them. These sources are not 100% perfect (what is??) but they are sourced, unbiased, and non-POV sources. Quis separabit?  18:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "And yes she did say that, but I can't find a link or reference in which she says it" -- you had no problem with 1927 until the correct year (1925) was substituted. Grant's Film Reference bio has 1927 (last time I checked anyway). Quis separabit?  18:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not a single editor who has concerns regarding the use of online genealogy websites and social security index info in BLPs. The use of such sites have been discussed many times at the reliable sources noticeboard and the consensus leans towards not using them as they contain user-generated content (in some cases) and they tend to call for original research. If you want to use any such sites as a source for controversial info in a BLP then it should be cleared by the relevant noticeboard first.--<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 19:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What is "controversial", may I ask? An 87 year old woman who insists she's 85? How to define "controversial" when only one editor, possibly working for or related to the subject of the article, has raised objections. What about BOLD and IAR? Quis separabit?  19:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Political activities of the Koch brothers
Is subject to WP:BLP and currently has several sections devoted to one author/critic of the family (Jane Mayer) - which may breach WP:UNDUE especially since they cover pretty much the same territory each time. In addition, there is a section on "Public Television Controversy" which appears not to relate to their political activities, and seems an eensy bot gratuitously argumentative, makes claims for which no "fact source" is given, and which has zero connection to any acts of the Koch brothers even according to the source "Democracy Now!" . In short - extensive ranting on the part of a "documentary maker" whose "documentary" about the Kochs was not picked up by PBS. BTW, will someone remove the deadlinks and blog posts from the references? The concept of WP:RS for contentious claims about living people is being thoroughly ignored here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The section on the documentary has now been removed -- though it's a bit difficult to see why, as the film itself (Citizen Koch) is clearly (& more than "eensy") relevant to their political activities. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The article is a mess, which is not surprising given its politically charged subject. First of all, why is there a subsection entitled "Criticism from Jane Mayer"? "Criticism" sections in general are a bad idea, and this particular section is a bad idea squared. If Mayer has published criticism on her personal blog, it shouldn't be in the article. If she's published on the topic in the New Yorker, then we need to treat that work like the independent, reliable secondary source that it is, and integrate it into the article rather than ghetto-izing it. Separately, the PBS controversy is clearly notable and was covered in a long piece in the New Yorker here. This is a "fact source" which clearly connects the event to the Koch brothers' political activities, so I don't see any factual basis for Collect's comments on the subject. The Democracy Now! pieces should not be cited - it's a partisan website and should be avoided in favor of independent, reliable sources like the New Yorker. The section could be cut down in the interest of WP:WEIGHT, but simply excising it doesn't seem consistent with our content policies, and certainly isn't warranted on BLP grounds. MastCell Talk 18:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Problem: No source makes any connection between the Kochs and the decision of PBS not to fund what might be considered a "political viewpoint documentary."  Including the New Yorker piece you seem to think is important here.  In fact it makes absolutely no claim that the Kochs threatened PBS about the "documentary" in any way at all.   So how is it notable in this article?  Meanwhile, since Mayer was cited multiple times in the article - is there a problem in putting all of that material into one section?  Collect (talk) 18:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The Citizen Koch paragraph should definitely be kept. The political activities of the Koch brothers are described in the source as having a bearing on the PBS decision. Binksternet (talk) 19:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Collect, the New Yorker article is subtitled: "Public television's attempts to placate David Koch", which connects Koch and PBS' editorial decisions, right? The article describes the handling of two documentaries: one ("Park Avenue") which subjected the Kochs to scrutiny based on their political activities, among other things, and another ("Citizen Koch") which was explicitly focused on Koch's political activities, in particular in the Wisconsin anti-union legislation battle. The New Yorker piece clearly bears on the political activities of the Koch brothers. I don't know how else to respond to you - you're repeating something that I don't see how anyone who's read the source can possibly believe. MastCell Talk 19:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * IOW - the accusation is made by the filmmakers that PBS sought to be nice to the Kochs - but says absolutely nothing to support any claim that the Kochs had anything whatsoever to do with it. Now if the Kochs had nothing to do with PBS not funding a film then where is the nexus to put it under their "activities"? Collect (talk) 19:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The article states that PBS altered their handling of two documentaries which scrutinized the political activities of the Koch brothers. It further suggests that PBS was motivated to placate the Koch brothers in part because of their role as potential financial supporters of the network. As you note, the article doesn't say that the Kochs directly pressured PBS; rather, the article suggests that PBS engaged in "self-censorship" to please a wealthy potential donor. I think we agree there. At the same time, the article relates clearly and directly to the political activities of the Koch brothers. You aren't seriously denying that, right? MastCell Talk 20:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope - it says the filmmakers accused PBS of doing it, but nowhere does it say the Kochs did anything at all to influence or threaten PBS. If the Kochs are not even alleged to have anything at all to do with the PBS actions then it is clear that the claim has nothing to do with Koch actions.  Is that sufficiently clear? Collect (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That response doesn't address the question MastCell asked. That sort of thing is usually a pretty telling indication of what the actual answer is.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Since I damn well indicated what the source states, and it does not state what you seem to think it states, I find your post arrogant and puerile. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If there is a direct claim in the film, it should be quoted and time stamped in the ref, or a WP:RS used to confirm it. I am assuming this is not WP:OR by editors. On another computer that's cranky and don't have time to investigate further now. Just popping in. ''CarolMooreDC - talk to me &#x1f5fd; 19:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The information about PBS and the documentary are clearly related to the subject of this article and should be included in it. Silver  seren C 09:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Ricky Ian Gordon


...and this makes one's teeth ache just looking at it. A long adulatory press release. 76.248.151.159 (talk) 00:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It's gone from 19,400 bytes to 4,700 bytes (I removed just a bit.) I'm not real fond of the section of positive statements from critics, but they are sourced, and I'm not inclined to get into arguments over exact wording. (Someone else is welcome to do this, of course.) -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 04:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Terry Jacks
Sort of a minor blip between two IP editors, here, it's the edit comment on the right that has me more concerned than the out of place blurb re what Mr Jacks doesn't want in the article on the left that of course shouldn't have been placed anywhere but the talkpage, and is WP:OWN anyway. My suspicion, unprovable of course, is that the IP user on the right is a regular editor not posting from their usual account....or someone who has a hate-on for Mr Jacks "and his opinions". Nothing much to be done but the article like many celeb articles is full of OR and spin and unsourced material as are many. His environmental agenda, like David Suzuki's, often draws character putdowns and attacks of various kinds. I'm just reporting this, I happen to have him watchlisted, I don't think I've ever done much with the article. I did meet him once upon a time, back in '89, when I was organizer for an environmental-issues concert.Skookum1 (talk) 01:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've final-warned the IP and if someone wants to rev-del that edit summary I wouldn't try to stop them. The article itself could use some more editing, but I don't see it as containing any significant BLP problems. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've made the edit summary go away.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 01:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Julia Fordham
There has been a spate of promotional editing on this article in advance of a possible new album release tomorrow. Spam links to her itunes and Amazon downloads have been repeatedly added as has a bunch of original research and promotional material (e.g. "In 2012, Fordham played the Pheasantry in London and announced that she had been approached about a UK tour some time in the future and was excited at the prospect."). It would be appreciated if someone could take a look and give it a good scrub. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 21:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The links to itunes and Amazon downloads certainly don't belong, but almost all the rest of the text (which I've done a quick edit of) seems to me to be factual and relatively neutral in tone. It can be maddening to see facts added without any citations, but Wikipedia doesn't have a rule that says that unsourced material should be removed, so I'm personally inclined to let it stay in the article. That's just my two cents, of course; I admit to being influenced by the offending editor saying that he/she is just a fan, and won't be posting any more (after being warned). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 04:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Jenny Owen Youngs
Jenny Owen Youngs has publicly identified herself as "super gay." For categorization purposes, is this the same as "lesbian"? An anonymous IP has been removing Category:Lesbian musicians from the article, arguing that they are not the same thing, but WP doesn't use "gay women" as categorization or distinguish it from "lesbian" - lesbian is how we identify a "gay woman." What does BLPN think? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * If that phrase were the only evidence, that would be one thing, but if you look at the sources, it's pretty clear there is zero ambiguity. "I began to realize that I was interested in girls in junior high..." I suspect the edit warring IP editor has not read the sources in their entirety.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 01:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Not true, no source states she identifies as lesbian, I checked them all. 24.90.156.122 (talk) 02:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What exactly are you arguing here? I thought that what you were arguing that someone who identifies as "gay" should be categorized as "gay", an exact-words sort of thing, but in your edit summary at the article you seem now to be arguing that she might be bisexual. But that's flatly contradicted by the source. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You seem to be discussing this everywhere except Talk:Jenny Owen Youngs. Make your case there and discuss the issue with other editors instead of edit warring.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 02:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Roscelese I was responding to Gamaliel's foolish statement that "marrying your girlfriend" makes someone automatically lesbian. Not true, they could be bisexual, queer, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.156.122 (talk) 02:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * So would you like to respond to my statement? We don't categorize that way - one can recognize that there is a diversity in the language people prefer while also recognizing that it's impossible to let categorization reflect that. We use "lesbian" as a synonym for "gay woman." –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Richard Garfield
Biographies of living people have to be written very carefully with regard to privacy. Richard Garfield wants the "family" section of his page eliminated, or at least the names of his minor children kept off it. He has been unable to make this happen even after appealing to the editors watching the page. His username is Angryangrymouse. Wikipedia should respect his privacy. Leadwind (talk) 01:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I see that you've posted a note at User talk:TortoiseWrath, who seems to be the editor that has been unwilling to remove the personal information. I've also posted a note to that editor. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 04:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * (cc: User:John Broughton) I am said "unwilling" user, as you can probably tell by my signature. I'd just like to explain what happened. I was first drawn into the matter by User:Angryangrymouse's removal of that content. Not seeing an explanation of why it was removed, I reverted that edit and left a note at his talk page. He responded, saying that he was himself Richard Garfield, and that that section was causing problems with his fiancée. From here, I asked the user to verify in some way that he was Richard Garfield, which he has not done. I am not sure as to why; he said he would back in mid-May and he has not yet done so; I've reminded him a couple times. This verification seemed to me a reasonable request.
 * This user was also insisting that no information be included about his children. This seems like it should be valid, but he instead developed the reasoning that "we can't talk about them because they're under 18," which is obviously not any policy or law. I asked him about this, and he better explained his reasoning and family situation. I continued awaiting his promised sourceable report of the changes in his family life that were causing him so much grief here.
 * In the mean time, I removed the names of the children, which did not seem encyclopedic to me (though they were sourced). I contemplated removing the section entirely, as has now been done, but I did not do so, because that would be removing sourced content simply because of something an anonymous user posted in my talkpage, which doesn't seem like a valid reason to remove anything.
 * Just earlier today, before User:Leadwind started complaining to me about my non-removal of that content, I was about to ask Angryangrymouse for an update again, but I got caught up in the matter over at Talk:Lì (Chinese surname) (by the way, if anyone wants to help out there... I'm getting final warnings for accusing people of accusing people of accusing people of accusing people of conflicts of interest. It's not fun.) Anyway, I didn't get to leaving the message before Leadwind posted on my talk page.
 * Please let me know on my talk page if there's something specific I did wrong in that process so that I can prevent it happening again. Thanks. &mdash; <span style="color:#666 !important;">TORTOISE  WRATH  04:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've replied on at the editor's talk page. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 05:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your speedy assistance, John. For the record, I want to say that TortoiseWrath was trying to be helpful in dealing with other editors who wanted to put even more personal information on the page (specifically the children's names). I don't want TortoiseWrath to come across as the villain in this scenario. Thanks again. Leadwind  (talk) 13:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Uwa Elderson Echiéjilé
(copied from wikiproject football, which didn't get me much help) Q: is footballer Elderson "Uwa Elderson Echiéjilé" or "Elderson Uwa Echiéjilé"? An IP user has added a roster from fifa.com of national teams which puts the name as "Elderson Uwa" and also mentioned that his former team, Stade Rennais, lists him as such on their website, but most other reliable sources, including most other pages on fifa.com, have the name as "Uwa Elderson." Which source or sources should be treated as most authoritative here - is this roster PDF more official than the other pages on fifa.com? Should we go with the larger body of sources either way? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Ahmed Al-Assir
This article states - "He got derailed in life and was reputed to live a life of crime, drugs and prostitution since he was just only 9 years old. His life from 13 years old to 25, Al-Assir was reputedly to have extreme sexual urges towards men and little boys and was detained many times by the police for sexual harassment against 6~10 year old boys. At 25 he got married and had kids but his tendencies are still bisexual without any change" However there is absolutely no proof given (police reports, witness accounts,etc.) about these allegations.This is likely disinformation intended to discredit this political antagonist and constitutes malicious slander which is , as stated , against the Wikipedia policy as stated; "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libelous." I do not personally sympathize with Ahmed Al-Assir's personal paradigm however I am interested that such persons of world fame be represented in a true manner in the interest of history. Not just for the sake of the historical record but because of the heinous attitude represented in the article.

Please remove. Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.90.69 (talk) 09:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Removed, thanks for the notice. -- Cycl o pia talk  09:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)