Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive180

Silvio Berlusconi
Just a heads up - Silvio Berlusconi has just been found guilty of paying for sex with an underage prostitute, and of abusing his office in the ensuing cover-up. . A few eyes on the articles linked above might be useful. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Howard Lederer
Hello, I'm looking for help with professional poker player Howard Lederer's article, which currently has a few issues that I believe fall under BLP guidelines. Among my concerns with the article is the introduction's focus on Lederer's recent involvement in a lawsuit relating to Full Tilt Poker, and the description of the legal issues relating to Full Tilt later in the article. Two of the introduction's three sentences are about this lawsuit, while other details of Lederer's career are left out. Later in the article, the section dealing with Full Tilt is headed Full Tilt Poker scandal, which I feel contravenes WP:LABEL. I'm certainly not against discussion of Full Tilt and the lawsuit in the article, in fact I think it should actually be a bit more detailed to clearly explain what happened and Lederer's involvement, but I think there are currently some issues of balance and a few inaccuracies.

To address these issues, and to generally improve the article, I've prepared a new draft for editors to review. I do have a COI here, because I'm working on behalf of Proof Integrated Communications, a firm that is creating a new website for Lederer's sister, Annie Duke. Long story short, they'd like to be able to link to Lederer's article here and have asked me to help improve the article by bringing it up-to-date and addressing the few issues around Full Tilt. Due to my COI, I will not edit the article directly and instead would like to ask editors here to take a look at my draft.

For any editors who are able to help, here are the links to the, my proposed version and the Talk page explanation of the differences between the two. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

David Teece
Article displays a sufficient NPOV, materials are cited and sources are available. I recommend removing the Autobiography template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Audiohifi (talk • contribs) 05:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Audrey Assad
The bio for Audrey Assad is badly in need of update

I manage Audrey and would be happy to grant an interview to a writer who would like to help out.

Thanks!

-William mgmt at audreyassad.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.202.225 (talk) 01:05, 25 June 2013‎
 * What we need are reliable secondary sources that provide the updated information, and then since you have a conflict of interest you can post your proposed changes (with those sources) to the article's talk page. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Alexander Montagu, 13th Duke of Manchester
Couple of issues here that deserve a broader audience and establishment of overall consensus, of relevance to other BLPs


 * Are dukes of Britain notable? This isn't a minor title, it's one of the highest ranks of the peerage. Can there be a person of such rank who isn't going to be notable?


 * The AfD for this article has been canvassed at Wikipediocracy, the nominator having first been active there in discussion with someone claiming to be the subject. Do we now have a policy of deletion on request by the subject? Do we now recognise Wikipediocracy as an appropriate channel to canvass or decide such issues?


 * As to this article specifically, there's also a complex issue of whether this person is actually the Duke of Manchester, as claimed by several outside sources. That's an article-specific question though. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Is it definitely the duke at Wikipediocracy? Subjects of articles are directed to info-en-q@wikimedia.org at Contact us - Subjects. I know some subjects have contacted Jimmy Wales directly with some success. Hack (talk) 05:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Andre Rand
This BLP has only been around since 1 May 2013. I noticed an IP makng a large edit and noticed thay were actually cleaning it up noting '' "Immensely speculative article with few sources; all information must be verifiable. Rand is an alleged murderer and convicted kidnapper. The article should reflect facts, not theories." '' A few more BLP aware editors may like to take a look.

The original article also exists on the the creators user page at. (it is almost the only editing they have done on WP) If the article is not BLP compliant then I imagine the user page should be blanked or even rev-deleted too? 220  of  Borg 03:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Convictions make some concerns less pressing - all the incidents are found in reliable sources (though I did not add refs due to laziness), It did need copyediting, however. Collect (talk) 12:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Concur. Did you take a look further back in the history though? The original page was calling him a murderer and "allegedly" connecting the guy (convicted of 2 kidnappings) with a whole slew of disappearances: "the assumed kidnapper and murderer of many children". fixed a lot of that, then  and your good self have cleaned it up a lot. Many thanks! 220  of  Borg 15:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Michael Pliuskaitis
A new article about a former swimming coach for the Canadian National Team - states that he has been banned for life from coaching due to sexual misconduct, and discusses a libel action. I'm not sure how to proceed with this, and would appreciate input from others. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It does relate to his professional career, so it's not irrelevant. I would be very concerned about our reporting it, on the basis of DO NO HARM. This was the action of a professional society, not a formal legal action, and that gives all the more reason for our being very cautious. I suggest retaining mention of the suspension, and not giving the reason. The refs. are there for those who want to follow up on it.  DGG ( talk ) 23:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Teesta Setalvad
This article needs some serious help, currently the controversies sections are bigger than the rest of the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Philippe Quint
Infobox not formatting. Philippe Quint — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosaj2011 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Michael Moorer
This article was tagged for BLP sources, but someone from the 178.98.x.x and 178.99.x.x appears to be manipulating this article over the long term. I don't think it's really needful of page protection, but a few more eyes would help keep it compliant with Wikipedia policies. AMFMUHFVHF90922 (talk) 04:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

caleb ralph
Spouse: Alexis Ralph is wrong Please delete immediately
 * Not sure what you mean, there is no such thing in the article (and I can't tell that there ever was). I did remove some inappropriate gossip. § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

cardinal Timothy Dolan
please delete his title above his picture, it is disrespectful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.106.16.209 (talk) 20:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Vandalism rolled back. Thank you for letting us know. § FreeRangeFrog croak 20:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Francine Shapiro, User talk:EMDRIntl and EMDR
Francine Shapiro created EMDR / Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing. These have been editted by a series of WP:SPAs, at least one of which has claimed to be acting under the direction of the Shapiro. The technique did not appear to be covered significanty in independent sources, so I proposed a merge and several weeks later merged Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing to Francine Shapiro. There is/was a consensus emerging on Talk:Francine Shapiro that maybe sources did exist. User talk:EMDRIntl did a cut-and-paste unmerge to EMDR as their first edit and then forged my signature on a WP:RPP. I may have over-reacted to that; could someone with a cooler head than me take a look at this please? Most of the discussion is at User talk:EMDRIntl. My understanding is that at the very least a hist-merge is required and a decision as to whether it's EMDR or Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (and the capitalisation if the latter). Stuartyeates (talk) 21:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Terry Shook
This is a recreated article which appears to be made by the article creator themselves. Plus I don't believe it should be in located where it is. If it gets deleted again (as I suspect it will be) could it be salted to prevent re-recreation? Thanks. --‖ Ebyabe talk - General Health  ‖ 23:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Deleted and salted.--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 00:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Benjamin Abalos
This article presents a smorgasbord of unfounded accusations, trivial details, and disjointed material. My initial inclination is to take a hatchet to it, however I thought I'd raise it here first in case someone with more patience than me would like to take a crack at it. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Still largely unsourced but most of the unsourced/redundant/puffy cruft removed, and article reorganized. § FreeRangeFrog croak 15:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Many thanks (and as I've already noted, you're a star!). I'm doing a sweep of little watched BLP talk pages for any potential issues. Generally if there are issues with the talk page that went unnoticed then there are also issues with the article itself. If the BLP clean-up is substantial, and a quick triage insufficient, I'll likely be bringing them here for additional eyes and assistance. Apologies in advance for the extra work for the BLPN regulars! --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, send them over. It might take a bit, but we'll get them done. § FreeRangeFrog croak 17:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Ziad K. Abdelnour
Is this Dealbreaker article a reliable source for the statement that Abdelnour was fined $25,000 by the SEC in a securities fraud case? Is that information significant enough to be mentioned? User:TransporterMan suggested this noticeboard might be the best place to ask for confirmation given the "negative nature of this information". Huon (talk) 07:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The source looks okay to me. Is someone suggesting that it isn't okay?  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * See the talk page discussion where TransporterMan said it might be "not reliable enough". Huon (talk) 07:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Kate Garvey
Seems to be a WP:POINTy creation, to prove the New York Times wrong. Dislike. -- Y not? 13:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Fails WP:Notability (people). AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have proposed the article for deletion. If this is contested, I can see no reason not to continue with an AfD. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's been contested. -- Y not? 14:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * And an AfD has been started (not by me - I'd have left it for a day or two as a matter of courtesy): Articles for deletion/Kate Garvey. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Nambaryn Enkhbayar
This extremely controversial Mongolian politician has been arrested under controversial circumstances. The current article does not seem to me to be balanced at all. -- Orange Mike |  Talk  15:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Just had a quick purge. GiantSnowman 15:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Tristan Clopet
I am a friend of Tristan's (on Facebook-you can verify the conversation, it's public) and he asked me to change the "ê". I have changed it to "e" everywhere but the main citing of his name. Can you please change "ê" to the regular "e"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Actionmoviefreak (talk • contribs) 17:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Fairly obvious from a Google search that the artist prefers the unaccented version of his name, probably for simplicity. The article is now here. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Luis D Ortiz
Some users are making edits to give a negative light to this article. All fixes keep getting reversed.

Under the state investigation the following quote has been added:

"In a blog post following the incident as well as other incidents involving conflicts with others on the show, Luis stated of his mother, "My mother always said that is better to ask for forgiveness than permission."[7]"

This quote is taken completely out of context and he was talking about doing a listing. Also the sources used come from blog entries and twitter twits which are not allowed as sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senencito (talk • contribs) 18:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I removed the last quote (clearly out of context), but if the guy is known for being in that show, and he cheated (or whatever) then there has to be consensus as to how to phrase that neutrally and source it well. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Theodore Garland, Jr.
I want to start out by saying that I'm not familiar with BLPs and the policies that apply to them, but when fighting vandalism, which is what I usually do on WP, I encountered an IP editor (at the University of California in Riverside, which is where Garland works) who repeatedly adds external links to a long list of PhD students and general postgrads that are listed on the Theodore Garland, Jr. article. Which is the reason why I'm posting here. So could someone please take a look at the article and see: A) if Theodore Garland is notable enough to even have an article on WP (I've taken a quick look at WP:PROF and as I see it it's doubtful whether Garland would pass that test, but I could be wrong...) and B) if it is normal procedure to list all postgrad students a professor has had, and then trying to add external links to them all as some sort of directory. Thomas.W (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I removed those two (completely unsourced) sections, per WP:NPF, plus that bit about his grandfather (?) as unsourced trivia. As to the notability, you'll find that taking one of these to AFD results in all sorts of arguments about book holdings and citation indices which I admit I am not knowledgeable enough to assess. Regardless, it still needs a good de-puffing and removal of all those external links. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have removed a few additional links, which seem to include the names of the professors he took courses with. (the name of his actual advisor is relevant content, but not his advisor's advisor, or his advisor's other students). I think we'd find him notable at afd--full professors at the University of California usually are, even when it's not UCLA or Berkeley or Irvine of LaJolla. I've also removed some external links to instructional videos he has made: listing them is why he has a website. And a PdF of the table of contents of his book. etc. And all the references to him as Dr. Garland. I've left the editorial board memberships, but not advisory boards; tho they do not show notability, they are customary content. If I do not finish the cleanup, I;ll put a "press release" tag on the article.  DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Zlatan Ibrahimovic
Zlatan Ibrahimovic had 7 assists in league play in France for PSG this past season as seen here. http://www.ligue1.com/joueur/ibrahimovic-zlatan He also had 7 assists in the Champions League which is stated on his wiki page, the second to last PSG paragraph.

I recommend that the career stats at the bottom of the page be changed for accuracy. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.246.199 (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

David Gorski
There has been debate on the David Gorski talk page as to whether or not he is notable per WP:PROF. Comments anyone? Thanking you in advance for your participation. -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 15:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * One side says: The sources in the article make it look like a "vanity BLP".  There are 25 citations.  However 7 of them are websites where Gorski is employed, 6 others to sources where Gorski is either the author or the managing editor, plus a YouTube video, cites to a mom and pop website called www. Lanyrd.com, a local radio station, a podcast and a few newspapers/magazine articles where he is referenced in a single sentence. A breakdown of the sources can be seen here.
 * The other side says: Gorski appeared in a symposium for The Lorne Trottier Public Science Symposium Series of the McGill University: Drs. Ben Goldacre, David Gorski and Michael Shermer on the threat of Pseudoscience. The introductory information for this states his contributions to the Science Based Medicine Blog have a world wide following. This statement and his appearance in the Trottier Symposium seem to support notability and come from a reliable source. The event was reviewed in The McGill Daily. He was an invited speaker at Michigan State University's DO-PhD Seminar Program which aims to “to introduce DO-PhD Students to exceptional physician-scientists and translational research both from Michigan State university and from other distinguished academic institutions.” He was chosen to contribute his views to an article on Medscape about alternative medicine What to Do When a Patient Wants 'Alternative' Medicine.


 * Whether or not he meets notability criteria, I'm not sure we need his vacation photos in the article. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 16:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I think he barely meets WP:GNG if you loosen up a bit (what there goes beyond the average academic/researcher?), but WP:PROF is trickier. At AFD ultimately it comes down to the person's g- or h-index, which is tricky at best sometimes. At least to me. § FreeRangeFrog croak 20:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * User:Keithbob I don't think it is appropriate to remove the comments from other editors on a talk page, even if you place them here. Additionally the portion of my comments you chose to paste here were a few additional references that I prefaced with 'this may' support notability. I am also concerned by an earlier statement to another editor, “you are destroying the format of the article and I can't stand by while you do that.” The format of an article regarding what sections are most appropriate is not strictly governed by policy the issues with format should be discussed collaboratively and supported by guidelines that are linked to on the talk page (rather than using multiple reverts). The tone of User:Keithbob in that statement and the one that follows in the discussion section on the talk page strongly suggest a poor understanding of WP:Ownership.


 * The single clearest and strongest case for notability is per WP:ACADEMIC. Criteria 1 is substantially satisfied by a single article by David Gorski, "Blockade of the vascular endothelial growth factor stress response increases the antitumor effects of ionizing radiation". This article is identified in Google Scholar as being cited by 777 other articles. This should clearly meet the standard as spelled out in ACADEMIC. As further evidence of notability Gorski's work led Case Western University to apply for a patent on the “Gax gene” (Growth arrest homeobox gene WO 1995023161 A1) this application has been substantially cited.  Gorski's work is featured in a book published by Elsevier under the imprint Academic Press, Gene Therapy of Cancer (Second Edition) Translational Approaches from Preclinical Studies to Clinical Implementation (Edmund C. Lattime, PhD, and Stanton L. Gerson, MD, eds, 2002). This book features an entire chapter with Gorski as lead author.


 * A critique of the current references in the article appears on the talk page most of the criticisms are not valid per RS. The radio station identified as “non notable” has a WP article that has not been marked for deletion.


 * Regarding the references in the truncated quote starting this section, on the talk page User:Keithbob states, “I hardly think a promotional brochure that is trying to hype the appearance of one of its guest speakers qualifies as an objective reliable source for establishing notability.” This seems a disingenuous description of a University's biographical material on the invited speakers for an established lecture series, note there is also review article. User:Keithbob's representation of the Science Based Medicine blog as “his personal blog” is inaccurate. It is described in the book The Best American Science and Nature Writing 2011 (Mary Roach, Tim Folger, eds, 2011) as a prominent medical blog. The Science Based Medicine Blog is cited by this article in the Toronto Star (Alternative treatments led to Steve Jobs death, says Harvard researcher by Lesley Ciarula Taylor, 2011) and adapted to this article (Is Oprah Winfrey giving us bad medicine? by David Gorski, 2009). The Science Based Medicine Blog is mentioned in several of the book references that follow.


 * User:Keithbob goes on to ask, “Has he ever been on national TV? been the subject of an article in a science or medical magazine? or even in a skeptics magazine? featured in a book on cancer research? has he written any books on skeptics or cancer research that were published by an independent publishing house? These are things that might make him notable.” While these are indeed things that would contribute to notability they are not required if the above WP:ACADEMIC criteria is satisfied and it is not up to an individual editor to create a set of standards for notability.


 * In answer see the book above about cancer research featuring Gorski. National press coverage includes articles in USA Today (How to guard against a quack by Liz Szabo, 2013), The New York Times (Bridal hunger games by Linda Lee, 2012) and The Washington Post (Oprah: High priestess of the New Age by Amarnath Amarasingam, 2011). The Medscape article above is a reliable source choosing to feature Gorski's opinions. Books that cite him as a source or present his views include: The Book of Common Fallacies (Philip Ward, 2012), Alternative Medicine (Catherine G. Davis, 2012), Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Harms the Planet and Threatens Our Lives (Michael Spector, 2009), Science Left Behind: Feel-Good Fallacies and the Rise of the Anti-Scientific Left (Alex B. Berezow, Hank Campbell, 2012) and What If There's Nothing Wrong? (Alison J. Kay, 2012). These references should provide more than adequate substantiation of the notability of David H. Gorski per WP:GNG.


 * I remain concerned that the approach and attitude of User:Keithbob is not in keeping with WP:Ownership and the series of multiple edits does not follow WP:BRD and could be seen as WP:EW and seems a clear violation of the three revert rule per “An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert.” The agreement to notability and removal of the notability tag only to replace the notability tag later is certainly questionable. That said, I respect the experience of User:Keithbob and acknowledge and appreciate this article being discussed on its talk page and here.


 * MrBill3 (talk) 21:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

A list of publications including blog entries? Not really encyclopedic, nor is a comprehensive listing of articles generally found in Wikipedia BLPs for doctors. Collect (talk) 01:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * @MrBill,


 * It seems when I right clicked to copy and paste a portion of your comment here, I inadvertently selected cut and paste instead. This was unintentional and I have rectified this error in this edit. My apologies and thank you for bringing this to my attention.
 * The rest of your comments about me have no place here and without diffs are considered personal attacks per WP:NPA. The accusation that I have not followed WP:BRD  is false.  I made one revert with an edit summary saying "see talk page"   all one has to do is look at the talk page to see the discussions there and realize this is a falsehood.  My other revert was a copyright violation  which I stated in the edit summary.  Yes I have made changes to the article (as have other editors) and I have cited policy in some of my edit summaries   and also on the talk page.  Please note that notability will not be established by attacking the messenger.
 * One of the recommended measuring sticks for citation metrics is Web of Knowledge which only yields two results for Gorski. I have not had time to check the others but will check Google Scholar and other recommended criteria when I have time.
 * If Gorski has received coverage in notable publications like USA Today etc. than please cite them in the article as they are not present in the article now and do not come up in my search using High Beam. I hope they contain more than a mere one sentence mention.  I look forward to seeing these sources, do you have URL's so we can all look at them? Many thanks and enjoy your weekend. -- — Keithbob •  Talk  • 04:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're using Web of Knowledge correctly; I'm not sure how you got only "two results". When I search Web of Knoweldge for "gorski dh", I get 33 results, which makes sense as it roughly correlates with the number of PubMed hits for "gorski dh[au]". Among the Web of Knowledge hits are a 1999 paper in Cancer Research cited 560 times and a 2008 paper in Blood  cited 145 times, along with a number of others cited in the 20-50 range. MastCell Talk 19:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I am posting the following references to support notability. I will also post them on the talk page of the article. As there are several other editors working on the article at this time I will allow them to include the material in the article itself. My apologies for my lack of focus on the article and its content.

Newspaper articles Journal articles that are highly cited Book Chapter
 * Cited by 949 (PubMed) or 777 (Google Scholar).
 * Cited by 118 (PubMed) or 208 (Google Scholar).
 * Cited by 128 (PubMed) or 549 (Google Scholar).
 * Cited by 143 (PubMed) or 224 (Google Scholar).

Gorski is cited in the following books

Patent

Inventors: Gorski, David H.; Walsh, Kenneth, Patent: Growth arrest homebox gene, Publication # USRE39219 E1 (Grant), Application # 09/755,320, Publication date; 01-08-2006, Filing date; 05-01-2001, Original assignee; Case Western University.

MrBill3 (talk) 20:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * An editor posted on the articles talk page that Gorski's H-Index is 19 and that, that is high enough to establish notability under WP:ACADEMIC

Additional References



The above include several authors who are notable themselves.

MrBill3 (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

More references
 * (This is journal article that cites Gorski's criticism of NCCAM)
 * (This is journal article that cites Gorski's criticism of NCCAM)
 * (This is journal article that cites Gorski's criticism of NCCAM)
 * (This is journal article that cites Gorski's criticism of NCCAM)
 * (This is journal article that cites Gorski's criticism of NCCAM)

I hope these additional references are helpful in establishing that Gorski is a notable skeptic blogger. Although the volume of text devoted to discussing Gorski may be limited this is frequently as he is cited and his blog entry is linked. Multiple citations describe his blog as thorough, accurate, insightful etc. His blog is cited in a peer reviewed article above. The relative level of WP:RS on the various references should be evaluated per the policy, of note are sites that have clearly stated editorial policy as well as the notability and authority of the authors on the specific subject.

Regarding WP:ACADEMIC what number of citations for a single article in cancer research would meet criteria for notablity? What number of articles with over 50 or over 100 citations meet the criteria? What H-index would meet the criteria? Another editor stated Gorski's H-index was 19 here. --MrBill3 (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The only way to find out if someone is notable here is to bring the question to WP:AFD. Based on what we normally do with academic bios, I don;t think there is any question at all that he is notable. We do go by citations: the figure varies by subject, and is not a fixed bar, but I have never sewn anyone with 2 or more papers with over 100 citations ever get deleted here for failing WP:PROF, and his counts are 779, 546, 226, 208 etc. in Google Scholar. h index is significant in the middle range--it cannot discriminate between someone with 15 papers each getting 15 citations, and someone with 12 papers each getting 15 citations and 3 getting 300. they both have h=15, but one   is unquestionably notable in any subject. (He also clearly meets the GNG, which is an alternative guideline).
 * The problem with the article, as mentioned is the degree to which it resembles a press release. I suppose the opposition is to some degree because of this. What we do in such cases is edit. The section of "Skeptical advocacy" needs editing. First, the title, skeptical of what,? The criticism of what he dislikes are not clear, e.g.the totally meanigless sentence, "He has analyzed and commented on the ethics, methods and results of the study of alternative medicine", but their significance is shown not by his own writings, but what others say about it. There's too much repeat of Dr.--we do not do  that. There's too much notability-by-association with other famous people--we remove that also. it doesn't matter who also attended a meeting.  There's too many adjectives. No adjective of judgement can be used here without a specific third party cited source, preferably a quotation in context. e.g. "in-depth analysis" Or "the use of proven therapies for diseases" -- even utter quacks think their remedies are "proven"  A judgment by someone is only meaningful if they are an authority--who is " David H Freedman that his opinion is meaningful?  As some minor points, (10  "Gorski has been cited for his work" is ambiguous. If we're talking in academic terms, which paper got how many citations? if we're talking in in common parlance, it means he has been given a prize for it.  (2) we do not include the thesis title in the infobox; (3) Is the "Advanced Clinical Research Award" a notable award? we usually call an award notable if its the highest level national honor, but what this seems to be is a research grant. (4) if a book is being cited, especially for controversial information, a p. number is needed ("may have been responsible for the death of ...") (5)Too many of the references are not reliable sources, but are organizations associated with him of advocacy groups supporting his positions. There are quite enough good ones that these aren;t needed. \:I'll be back tomorrow when I recover from some dental surgery. If it isn;t fixed by then, I'll fix it.  DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Why is notability being debated at BLPN? This noticeboard is for issues surrounding BLP policy, IRWolfie- (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Swami Maheshwarananda - need someone that knows German
There's been a merry edit war ongoing here about whether to include some "allegations" material about a yogic guru called Swami Maheshwarananda.

Meanwhile over at the talk page Talk:Swami Maheshwarananda, there's some lengthy "discussion" about whether to include mention of the material, but also there is now enumeration of some possibly reliable sources that do seem to mention the allegations.

First problem is, most of the sources offered are in German, and all of them seem to be of German origin. I can't read German (and don't want to rely on Google Translate for tone), and also am unsure of whether Respekt, for example, is the equivalent of Private Eye in terms of reliability, or something different.

Ultimately we need to establish, first, whether the allegations should be mentioned at all, and secondly, with what wording. (The one English source offered claims that none of the allegations relate to behaviour that would be considered criminal in the countries involved, and therefore no-one has been charged or convicted.)

Please help! :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, if it is published in reliable publications, it should be included in the article. It is enough to have one reliable source in order to state it in the article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Profil is a reliable source by any measure. That said, I'd be concerned that even that article, although well-written and relatively neutral, covers no more than allegations. All the given sources are that - allegations. Essentially gossip at this point. When and if this dude gets actually charged with something, or an official investigation exists, then fine. We add that to the article neutrally, etc. But not at this point. WP:BLPGOSSIP covers this well - the gossip loop might come from the Profil article for all we know. Either way, allegations. § FreeRangeFrog croak 20:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The point has been made on the talk page that such behavior is not illegal in his country. Therefore, all stops at allegations stage, no criminal charges could be made, ever. His alleged behavior is immoral, not illegal. In my country, if one 60 years old man has sex with a 16 year old girl he has committed no crime, but it could lead to scandal in the press, especially if he alleges to be some sort of saint (Swami means a highly spiritually advanced ascetic, comparable to the Western concept of saint or beatified). Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

So what now? Three very respectable news sources deem the accusations believable and the witnesses trustworthy, but Wikipedia thinks it just knows better? Lovelybeing (talk) 17:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I would object to the inclusion of the material for the reasons I detailed above. It's not our place, as supposedly neutral editors, to determine what is "immoral" or not, or what is considered right or wrong in one country or another. Ultimately these are, again, nothing more substantive than allegations and rumors. And I'd point out that three very respectable news sources did not deem the accusations believable, they deemed the story juicy enough to publish. Those are two very different things. § FreeRangeFrog croak 20:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, I think there is nothing illegal when a guru has sex with his female disciples (given they are above a certain age). I did notice on the 3news.co.nz report that he preaches chastity and total control of bodily desires to his disciples. But hypocrisy and lying about being chaste ain't legal charges. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "did not deem the accusations believable". They did not? This is a funny reading of the facts. They published them and thereby put their reputations on the line, as well as risking law suits (which never came, of course). I don't see how one Wikipedia editor, in absence of original research, which is disallowed, can question that judgement. Lovelybeing (talk) 12:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It may not be illegal for a guru to have sex with his disciples; and yet, the Wikipedia entry did not claim that he did. It only reported that such reports have come forward from many sources, different countries, different people. The article is not only about legal matters, but it praises Maheshwarananda without end. Now, if praise is allowed, could someone please explain to me why less comforting information is suddenly forbidden?
 * Furthermore, each single article referenced finds the accusations believable. Please read them again if that isn't clear.--Pythagoras01 (talk) 21:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I've read the only substantial source provided that's in English, and it appears to say it (all of it) was written for an organisation which has disagreements with the guru and his organisation. That's not the same as the reliable source stating it finds the accusations believable. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "was written for an organisation" This is not true. The article is the result of original research by the Respekt journalist. The English translation, on the other hand, was helpfully provided by a member of the group which has the disagreements. Lovelybeing (talk) 10:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * So because Demuirge can't read German and accepts only one English article as basis for his views, the allegations are not important? Wow. I'll remember that next time I am in a debate.Pythagoras01 (talk) 11:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Include There's a nuance between gossip and scandal that's dogged BLP editors since the beginning - John Edwards extramarital affair, anyone? As for religious leaders, there's an entire category for just those by Evangelical Christians. Consensus in these articles can be a waxing & waning tide, but for this subject it certainly looks like enough reliable sources have weighed in - this scandal affects Maheshwarananda's legacy, therefore it goes in. As neutrally as possible, and with wording and importance as reflected by the sources. EBY (talk) 04:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Jon V. Ferrara
I question the objectivity of this article. It seems snide and snarky -- like it was written by his enemy. While I don't expect to read a puff piece, making light of someone's cancer, in particular, is low. I expect better out of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.23.147.63 (talk) 15:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Followed the link as section title, found nothing of the sort, article hasn't been edited in months, is this some kind of trolling? Boogerpatrol (talk) 15:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

No it's not trolling, just someone who reads. These are sentences at the end, that appear extremely snarky to me:

"The valued employees that endured and were loyal to the company for 10 years got pink slips. After a short tenure with the new company Jon Ferrara begins his retirement. Only to have a close call with death due to having cancer, but miraculously survives and in 2009 almost out of money starts a new venture called Nimble."

(a) How do you know they were valued? How do you know they didn't get large severance payments? I used to be a lawyer, and that's a loaded comment based on conjecture, belief and hearsay, not fact.

(b) "miraculously survives" cancer? That's so snarky I would never expect to see that in a serious authority like Wikipedia and in my own publications, we would edit that sort of snark out. Plus, it's just LOW to make fun of someone's cancer.

(c) "almost out of money" -- where is the source authority for such a statement? Where's the evidence. Again, it's insulting snark meant to diminish the person who's the subject of this article.

I cam here for information to complete an interview we're doing of the guy. We have no financial interest whatsoever -- just trying to get more background on him. Couldn't believe what I saw.

If that's how you write about businesspeople, I won't be getting any more background from Wikipedia 72.23.147.63 (talk) 15:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I have removed a chunk of the article per BLP as unsourced.--ukexpat (talk) 16:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ The BLP chainsaw has been fired up and the material removed. I agree with 72.23 that all that was inappropriate at best. Thanks for reporting it. § FreeRangeFrog croak 16:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * and my apologies, don't know how I missed that earlier, I will go WP:TROUT myself... Boogerpatrol (talk) 17:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Tibet births
Without digging through archives here and the VPP has there been a consensus on those born in Tibet? See: Talk:14th_Dalai_Lama for details. I know we have had discussions about sports people born in the former USSR. This one may need similar discussion. Shall we discuss it here or move to the article talk page?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this is best discussed on the talk page, or perhaps even an RFC? I'd be concerned that calling him Chinese would be quite demeaning. There is the precedent of former Soviet people preferring to be called Ukrainian, etc. § FreeRangeFrog croak 20:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Two of us are on the talk page now with a third edit requester. We feel that he was born in Tibet but the article uses the PRC name for the province and the country as China. All three of us agree that it was Tibet he was born in at the time but possibly occupied by the Chinese. If we had a few more editors to agree with our sources then we could edit the article. I may try now and see if anyone reverts it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * My edit was reverted so I removed the birthplace pending further consensus and research.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Jason Lewis (Adventurer)
I have been trying to add the photo to this wiki page through Creative Commons, but it keeps on getting pulled down. What am I doing wrong? Totally frustrated with the Wikipedia template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tammie6123 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅I fixed it. The photo was titled File:Jason Lewis kayaking through Indonesia.jpg, already available on Wikipedia.-- <font color="#FC3700">Auric  <font color="#0C0F00">talk  12:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Shahid M. Malik
IP claims that he is the subject. Had taken it to AN/I but was redirected here. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Sarah Harrison (journalist)
The Daily Mail is reporting this woman had an affair. Given the Mail is the only source, and the Mail is a scandal sheet, I'm not comfortable having this info in the article. BLP guidelines seem to suggest removing first and asking questions later. But I'm no expert on BLP. Did I do the right thing? If not please revert me. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You did good. Per WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, controversial information like this (even if well sourced, and the Mail is not) should not be included in the article - unless directly relevant to why the person is notable (which isn't the case here). FurrySings (talk) 02:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Juan Fernando QUintero
A not confirmed information is being repeatedly inserted in the article about Juan Fernando Quintero.

The player is not currently playing for FC Porto. The news just say he's being negotiated, but there's no confirmation either from the clubs involved or the player.

I've corrected the article two times, and in both ocasions, the error has been recovered...

Amandiofelicio (talk) 23:35, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Mike Gatto
The biography of Mike Gatto, a local politician, seems overly positive of the person's career and accomplishments. Not only that, but the majority of the editing and writing in it, including uploading the picture, has been done by a single user (looking at the history of the page should make it clear which one I am referring to). Edits to this article also constitute the majority of the contributions from that user (and the rest are all about subjects related to Mike Gatto's position and district area). I am not trying to start an accusation or harassment but I am wondering if some sort of higher-level action should be taken besides just editing the article for NPOV.  K . Bog  21:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC) *Little wonder: it was apparently largely copied from smartvoters.org. I've templated the article for copypaste issues, with a link to the source. 76.248.151.159 (talk) 21:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a promotional bio, and carefully tended by several accounts. 76.248.151.159 (talk) 21:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have deleted an image identified on the talk page as a copyright violation, material sourced to a bio supplied by the subject, and material sourced to the subject's then-law firm. This page is well-tended by the subject and/or his supporters. I fully expect to be reverted. Some administrative action may be called for if this pattern keeps up.  Looking through the edit history, I think it's gone on for quite long enough without sanction. David in DC (talk) 11:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've also started fleshing out the refs to actual reliable sources. At a glance, they do appear to stand for the propositions they're used to source. But a second set of eyes would help.David in DC (talk) 12:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This entire article is an advertisement and is effectively owned by one user. It's difficult to know where to begin when the entire thing reads like a political brochure. Edits are quickly reverted without justification as "vandalism." It might be worthwhile to tag POV or Advert until one of us takes the time to fix. Sources are cherry-picked and often don't include what's written in the article. I agree that higher-level action may be needed. Quac (talk) 05:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Concur This is a puff piece suffering from a severe case of WP:OWNitis. If PC-2 comes into use, this article would be a good place to implement it. David in DC (talk) 11:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I depuffed it a bit - too many politicians think every word they say and every bill they support merits space in their BLP. Collect (talk) 20:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The article OWNer has repeatedly reinserted campaign material and puff in this BLP -- will someone else please go in? Collect (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC) Oh - tha editor dropped in on my talk page to apparently assert that anything which is sourceable in a campaign brochure or website is proper in a BLP <g>. Collect (talk) 21:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have removed the OWNer's campaign material multiple times only to have it quickly re-added because, apparently, removing "sourced" information under any circumstance automatically constitutes vandalism. My talk page also got a visit; I was told that I have an "agenda." Pretty ironic. Is there an admin who can step in here? Quac (talk) 21:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I've added a note, for what it's worth, to the editor's talk page, if for no other reason than to underscore that they're editing against both policy and consensus. If this goes on I'd reprise the discussion at ANI, and perhaps seek page protection if necessary. 76.248.151.159 (talk) 21:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe we need to hunt up a willing Ed who is an expert on BLP specialising in U.S political bios. To begin a meaningful dialogue with the OWNer would probably be the best thing in the long run. Irondome (talk) 22:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That would be a good idea, although one likely to be painful to the editor.Capitalismojo (talk) 18:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * This article looks like it could use a lot more criticism and some rephrasing, but the critics launched straight in deleting random facts for no justifiable reason. "Fluff" is not a reason to remove where a person first worked after law school from a biography, nor to remove mention of a bill he proposed. Wnt (talk) 20:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

In a BLP, anything unsourced and derogatory must be removed. And everything that is not sourced can, appropriately, be removed. For the non-derogatory stuff, editorial judgment comes into play about what should be deleted and what should be tagged. This particular BLP was stuffed so full of hagiography that it was begging for sustained, intensive remediation. I've now reviewed almost every ref, replaced a few dead links with working ones, filled in the data for author, publisher, date, access date, etc that the WP:OWNers couldn't be bothered with, and generally tried to help shape the thing up. It's my hope that the SPA's that have tried to turn wikipedia into a 24/7 campaign platform for Assemblyman Gatto will now turn their attention elsewhere. What's left here after the de-fluffifying complies with WP:BLP and WP:NPOV and ought to be unobjectionable to Gatto-supporters, too.

I knew nothing about Assemblyman Gatto before reading about his article here on BLP/N and then reviewing the article and its references. I have no agenda other than helping build a better encyclopedia. I think the current article better reflects what a wikipedia biography of a living peson should contain than the article circa a week or two ago.

Does it need more work? Yup. The fact tags should be replaced with refs, for one thing. There's probably more biographical info it could use. And, given the nature of the SPA behavior thus far, the article needs to be watched. Maybe an admin should consider PC1 protection. If it's ever implemented, maybe even PC2.

But for now, I think we've got a "baseline" article to revert back to if the POV-pushing recurs. David in DC (talk) 04:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Here is the baseline article, with changes highlighted, I referred to in my last edit. Props to NeilN and Collect for fixing things I screwed up. David in DC (talk) 12:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't forget to tag the talk page of the Single purpose account after tendentious edits. EBY (talk) 05:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

James Frenkel
We've got people posting allegations of sexual harassment by this individual based on a comment left on a third party blog. Is there a real source on this other than blog rumors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.90.241.117 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 28 June 2013


 * I see this has been removed - and no, it doesn't belong in the article. Firstly, it is sourced to a blog, and secondly, it is only an allegation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if other contributors kept an eye on this article, in case the material is restored, or there are further developments. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's on my watchlist, Andy.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  07:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk page removals


I came across this because of a revert on talk: Jimmy Wales of a post that was probably meant for user:Jimbo talk. Mr. Wales is on a wikibreak for 3 weeks from the 1st of July. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJimmy_Wales&action=history is the link to the Wales talk page revert. I also noticed some removal of talk page comments from the Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati talk that may have just needed hatting. I don't have time to look into it but others may wish to.--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like a lot of pointless drama to me. The article was deleted but recreated and sourced, and I assume it meets WP:GNG at least. I think the revert on Jimbo's talk page was appropriate since it was the same person making the same overly verbose "just cause" argument they made on the article's talk page. § FreeRangeFrog croak 20:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Wendy Davis (politician)
Davis is notable only as a state-level politician, but received national attention for her filibuster of an abortion-restricting bill in Texas. A few days ago, buried in a lengthy article about her, the New York Times mentioned that she was "dating" another Texas politician. Sure enough, a gossip maven quickly inserted claims into her article and Will Wynn that the two were in some amorphous and unexplained "relationship". When I removed this claptrap, another user reverted ot. After some back-and forth, a "currently dating" version is now in both articles. (However, Wynn's prior marriage is not important enough to mention, nor is the identity of Davis's first husband.) This fascination with gossip is ridiculous. Who a politician happens to be dating at the moment, especially at this level, is typically unrelated to their notability and has no encyclopedic value. It is intrusive, especially since it is usually more prominent here than in whatever source it is drawn from. There will certainly be cases where the matter relates to their notability, as when an archbishop rather colorfully denounced Andrew Cuomo and his partner. But there's been no attempt to demonstrate that this is such a case. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It is trivia, and per WP:BLP policy, should be removed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That whole section about the arson thing seems rather trivial as well. Isn't that a normal act of violence to politicians down there? Was it widely covered on a slow news day? I can see its inclusion if the building has an article but she wasn't even in the building at the time.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree - not really relevant. Furthermore, naming the person responsible seems questionable under WP:BLP1E grounds, given the circumstances. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I disagree. Isn't that a normal act of violence to politicians down there? Slow news day? Uhm....wow. Non of that is of any relevance to our use. Is it widely seen in sources in the mainstream? Yes. Is it accurate information? Yes. Trivial? No. Important to her biography as an act of violence which has context as reaction to her filibuster. I have no idea how anyone can call it trivial, but I see it in print so there it is. I just think it is not and feel I have demonstrated such.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The arson at her office took place in 2012, so it has no connection to the recent filibuster. No one was injured. Interviews with family members of the man arrested indicated that he has a serious mental illness. In my view, the incident is trivial and unworthy of mention. To mention the suspect's name is a BLP violation, as I see things.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  05:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * (copied from the talk page) I've removed it. It should rate a mention in her biography only if a reliable source details it had an effect on her or her policies. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  05:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Per the information provided by Cullen328 and Neil, this does not rate mention without a reliable source and it does seem that a mention of the suspect would be a violation of BLP policy.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

NNDB
It's been repeatedly discussed that this website is not a reliable source, but it has been included in various external link consolidation templates that are commonly placed on BLPs. Per number one at wp:elno, I can't see that it adds anything unique to our articles, and I can't dismiss the serious issues with its reliability and accuracy. (The discussions at Talk:NNDB are a good place to start for more than a few of the issues raised in the past, especially relating to the fact that the site appears to have no particular dedication to neutrality in its listings.) Its existence is scattered throughout a number of templates, so I thought this would be the best place to raise the issue first. user: <b style="color:#df1620;">j</b> (talk)  01:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see this as any different from IMDb. As an external link target it is subject to the vagaries of the internets - any site can be demeaning or problematic and should be dealt with appropriately. Of course I would never support its use as either a factor to establish notability or to source facts in a BLP (especially controversial stuff), but beyond that I don't see any problem with using it. Again, in this sense it's no different from IMDb. § FreeRangeFrog croak 20:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't recall ever seeing significant questions about the neutrality of IMDb. In addition, however, IMDb does add something unique, in that its filmographies, photos, etc. are considerably more detailed than ours would likely ever be, even if any given article were to become featured.  On the other hand, very few articles on NNDB have any significant amount of information beyond what we would have in a featured article.  The neutrality issues, however, are the biggest concern.  (The lack of "unique" content simply makes it spam, frankly; the lack of neutrality makes it a BLP issue.)   user: <b style="color:#df1620;">j</b>  (talk)  21:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The neutrality of IMDb is not an issue because we don't accept it as a reliable source. It's just used to augment articles via an external link to its profiles. I don't know that neutrality comes into play here at all - if the external link is inappropriate per WP:BLPEL we just remove it. If it's not, then it can stay. The reliability of a source is only relevant if it is being used to support assertions in an article, not as an external link - those are either appropriate, inappropriate or spam. I would agree that our standardization of links to it via templates does gives it legitimacy to a certain extent, but in reality we don't have any control over the content of AllMusic or IMDb or all those other "accepted" sites. So how do you determine if another website is at least minimally reliable? I'd look to our own definition of notability, and I'd say in this case it's not looking good since it's had at least one AFD. Still, maybe a formal RFC would be in order so that we can see some consensus? § FreeRangeFrog  croak 23:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Burton c bell


The section on my Burton C. Bell page under controversy/trivia should be deleted. It keeps being replaced by an vindictive person. Every time I delete it or even try to revise the section, it is changed back within the day. Please delete permanently or set this page so any revisions/ changes need to be approved before posted. I will be happy to assist in this issue and welcome any feedback you can offer. Thank you, Burton C Bell
 * Removed, as it was unsubstantiated and/or irrelevant gossip at best. § FreeRangeFrog croak 19:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Charles Pugh


A few eyes on this one - apparently a scandal, etc. Copyvio just removed but more negative material will probably be inserted as the issues develop. § FreeRangeFrog croak 22:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Henry Cavill
Two requests in one day. This one is quite different from the Chinchilla one (thanks for pitching in, btw). This involves a problem with most articles about celebrities, particularly sexy ones like Cavill who don't have the good sense to settle down. No matter what we say to the contrary, Wikipedia is not much better than celebrity tabloids. In other words, we have to report every single person the celebrity has ever dated, even if it was only for one day.

So, if you look at the recent editing history at Cavill, you'll see that after he supposedly broke off his engagement (read the wording carefully) with Whitaker, he started, uh, stepping out. So, he dated so-and-so for a few months. Then, it was reported that he "split" with her (how can you split with someone you date for such a short period of time?) and started dating a different so-and-so. The latest so-and-so (no offense) is Kaley Cuoco. People magazine, a tremendous source of scholarly material, calls them a "couple". Although they "have yet to step out publicly, they're enjoying getting to know each other." One assumes that they're doing that privately. And the source for this is unnamed but "close" to both Cavill and Cuoco. That source acknowledges that the two individuals are in "'the beginning stages of a relationship'", which makes some sense since it was also reported that Cavill broke up with the first so-and-so in May.

In a fit of pique (I should know better), I removed all of the dating history except for the supposed Whitaker engagement (I figured that was a little more important). I don't know why I bother, as I knew it would be re-added. If anyone wants to look at this date-a-thon - and I can certainly understand why no one would - please do.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We might want to keep a closer watch on the talk page as well.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Hassan Rouhani
This BLP article on Iran's President-elect contains some controversial claims. One of them is a statement about suicide of his son which is not supported by reliable sources. Sources are Radio Farda, Alireza Nourizadeh and Ynetnews which I don't think that could be considered as RS in this case. I tried to remove it but my edit has been reverted. Other issue is this part of the article which is totally original research or poorly sourced (see related discussion) on the talk page. I think that both these allegations should be removed.Farhikht (talk) 19:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Another editor & I have made edits based on your request, the sources, and the relative impact of the plagiarism claim. The suicide of the son is widely reported; details are not currently in the article but that may change based on RS reports going forward. EBY (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your constructive edits. About the suicide of son, the problem was some sources provided for its reason which is now removed. Yes, I think that in some weeks we will have more information about this incident.Farhikht (talk) 19:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Laura Chinchilla
Could editors please take a look at some very negative material being added to this article? The latest variant on the same theme is this edit. It's even worse than some of the earlier ones. In my view it's not a blatant BLP violation that permits me to keep reverting. My suspicion is some balanced material regarding the polls belongs in the article, but not the way it's being presented.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:09, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I reworded and moved to the Presidency section. Mitofsky surveys are considered notable, and the report is being quoted by El Pais, which is one of the main news outlets in Costa Rica. I used that source instead. § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I just noticed it is a poll in Mexico about the Costa Rican leader. Is that the same as a Canadian poll on American leaders or a USA poll on Iranian leaders?--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Pretty much yes, Mitofsky is a Mexican company. But they are notable in Mexico and South America. I would compare it with a Canadian or French company doing a survey on American politicians, but probably not Iranian (either way). Mexico doesn't have a lot of historical belligerence towards Costa Rica :) § FreeRangeFrog croak 22:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I wonder if they are like Pew Research Center. 120 employees but we have their polls all through WP and the media. I read the criteria at their site and sometimes it is just 100 phone calls for all of the USA. Their site doesn't contain the sampling sets anymore though. I know major Canadian Opinion polls have higher standards and publish sampling numbers with each poll.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know that I would place them at the level of Pew, but they are basically a division of Mitofsky International, which is relatively respected. That and the article from El Pais (which includes a quote from one of the pollsters) gives it legitimacy I think. Of course if there's consensus that it shouldn't stay then that's fine. It was the initial wording that was problematic, which is why Bbb32 probably reported it. § FreeRangeFrog croak 23:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I am wondering if these polls should be included at all in our Wikipedia. If you look at Kim Campbell and Rita Johnston who many may consider as 'sacrificial' leaders. Their huge defeat margins as provincial and federal government leaders were mostly not their fault. Depending on who sponsors a poll the numbers can vary greatly. A low one like this subject's may have another poll published somewhere with much higher numbers. A sponsor funds a poll to smear a leader. a paper prints the lowest results, we repeat the results. Doesn't that make us gullible editors helping the spin doctors by smearing subjects in their articles?--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Canoe here. Polls are a battleship-grey area as solid ref material I feel. Irondome (talk) 23:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Editor UnknownBat/166.147.88.26/other IPs adding "big forehead" comments
This user keeps adding text to the Megan Fox article that asserts that Fox "has a very large, shiny forehead and likes to chew gum." He has also been adding text to other articles about female celebrities "having a big forehead." See this discussion on my talk page; that IP (the one discussed) is very clearly the same person that I am now reporting here, and I will be leaving a note about this in that section. I've reverted the editor here and here at the Megan Fox article, and here, here and here at the Chewing gum article. Like I stated in that first edit summary of the revert I made to the Chewing gum article, the image he keeps adding to these articles is a fake image; it's fake because the gum is quite obviously photoshopped into Fox's mouth. Also see this edit and this edit at the Forehead article. He has also been reverted by others at the Forehead article.

No, I have not left a warning on UnknownBat's talk page; I have not because the editor has been warned as different IPs and thus warning the editor on the talk page of his registered account will obviously be wasting my time. This editor, I dub "the forehead vandal." And he is clearly only here to joke around. Flyer22 (talk) 03:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * This one's definitely a vandal or clown... but also mixed in is the occasional oh-so-slightly helpful edit, so maybe a troll. Whatever, the remedy is usually the same.  It might be better to drop this off at AIV or ANI instead of here.  This might get "resolved" without a warning, or one might be required, 50/50 odds on that.   03:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, Zad. Looking at the editor's contributions as UnknownBat, I don't see any helpful edits, though a few of them at least are not vandalism. Any helpful edit made by the IPs this person used may have been made by someone else. I thought about reporting the editor at WP:AIV, but I realized that I had more to state about this matter than the "keep it very short" commentary that is expected there, and, if I were to keep the commentary very short, I know that they would very likely turn me away with a "User not sufficiently warned" statement because I didn't leave warnings on UnknownBat's talk page. Taking it to WP:ANI would help, but I somehow didn't think of that; I likely didn't because I know that this is a BLP issue and that administrators who watch this board will help. Flyer22 (talk) 04:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I see that the image has been deleted. And since no administrator at this noticeboard has weighed in on this yet, I suppose it's not a dire matter. A few moments ago, I considered posting this matter at WP:ANI, but then I decided not to...especially since my first post to UnknownBat's talk page would be a notification that I reported him at WP:ANI (instead of a Welcome template or a warning). That is, if I wouldn't be required to leave him a notification about the report...considering that the new notifications system will let him know of the report if his username is Wikilinked while posted there. Flyer22 (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I had the image deleted at commons. It was a copyvio image that was photoshopped to put an ugly piece of gum in her mouth. I think the same image was uploaded and deleted before judging by his talk page over there. If there is a report to ANI here, someone may wish to mention that he uploads 'doctored immoral' images for BLP article inclusion.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Need help of a German-speaker in Daryush Shokof
This article was full of original research, and had multiple other issues. I edited some parts of the article and also related articles like this one. Could someone please take a look specially at this controversial section of the article which is an allegation of apparently a "fake kidnapping"? I note that some IPs are active on the article and its talk page.Farhikht (talk) 09:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I had a look at the German sources, and the article at de-Wikipedia, and have rmv the parts not really sourced there. Lectonar (talk) 09:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your prompt response.Farhikht (talk) 10:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Lectonar (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Jessye Norman
The section titled "The Jessye Norman School of the Arts" reads more as an advertisement for the school without stating any facts about the organization, merely their mission, etc. It's Augusta, GA location is not even listed, nor is there background information regarding its founding or relation to Norman herself. Seems misleading and unrelated in a biography page.


 * Done - Made edits. Next time, please feel free to Be Bold! EBY (talk) 20:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Benjamin K. Sovacool
Hi Wikipedia, looking for help here. I am indeed Benjamin K. Sovacool and there are a number of small errors in my bio. What is the best way to fix them? Happy to work with an editor on this. I didn't think I was permitted to edit my own bio anyways ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.109.164.28 (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Your best course of action:
 * Do not edit the actual article, because that would be a conflict of interest
 * Do post on the talk page of the article (when you're looking at the article, there is a tab at the very top of the page that says 'talk') outlining your concerns
 * Do be aware that all information on Wikipedia must be verifiable to external reliable sources, especially when it concerns the biographical information of a living person.
 * — <span style="font:small-caps 1.2em Hoeflr Text,sans-serif;color:#000;letter-spacing:0.15em;">The Potato Hose 19:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I’ve just stumbled across this thread, and am pleased to see the Sovacool BLP issue raised here, as it affects many articles and needs to be resolved. A single WP editor (we shall call him BL) seems to have taken exception to Sovacool and his work, and has made derogatory remarks about him on many WP pages, (see Talk:Life-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions of energy sources, Talk:Climate change mitigation, and Talk:Nuclear safety). Other examples which illustrate the BLP problem are and . BL calls Sovacool an “anti-nuclear activist/advocate/lawyer” when in fact Sovacool is neither biased against nuclear power, nor is he an activist, advocate, or lawyer. He is a well-published senior academic. Several editors have tried to set BL straight, on various Talk pages (eg., Talk:Nuclear safety), without success. I have found his work to be scholarly and high quality, and have sometimes used his writings as a source on WP.


 * I’ve noticed also that BL is doing the same thing with Mark Z. Jacobson, a Stanford University professor, see for example,.
 * -- Johnfos (talk) 10:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Johnfos, I appreciate and support what you're doing. Wikipedia must strive to be accurate, fair, and balanced, since so many people rely on it for information.  Editors shouldn't be able to make derogatory, or biased, comments against living persons (or dead ones, for that matter!). Bksovacool (talk) 15:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I wanted to add that I do believe it is a mischaracterization for BL and others to call me "anti-nuclear." I do not receive money nor do I work for any "anti-nuclear" groups.  I produce independent research and scholarship, not tilted advocacy, and have no vested interest or stake in the energy sector.  Basically, I call things as I see them.  Moreover, while I am balanced and critical of nuclear power, some of my work has argued that nuclear power makes sense as an alternative to coal and fossil fuels, and that it has its own political economy of sorts.  These arguments are neither "for" nor "against" nuclear power.  See, for a start, these two peer-reviewed books, https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/climate-change-and-global-energy-security,  and http://www.anthemenviroexperts.com/?p=423 and http://routledge-ny.com/books/details/9780415688703/ for more. Bksovacool (talk) 17:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks John. Yes, I am a senior academic, writing to this noticeboard because it appears that User: Boundarylayer has  consistently misrepresented me and my research. He has misquoted my  affiliations, shown only one side of key data from my studies, and excluded research questioning his views. Of particular concern has been his insertion of derogatory material at Benjamin K. Sovacool and Talk:Nuclear safety. Bksovacool (talk) 03:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Larry Norman, Randy Stonehill
Could someone take a look at Larry Norman, Randy Stonehill, and Relationship of Larry Norman and Randy Stonehill and check them for neutrality and proper weight? (Stonehill is the living person.)

I ran into this one at The 6 Most Needlessly Detailed Wikipedia Entries and Larry Norman caught my eye. This looks like we have enshrined one side of a years-old business dispute that nobody cares about.

Compare this with Mick Jagger, Keith Richards and Relationship of Mick Jagger and Keith Richards. Oh, wait, that last one doesn't exist. I guess Jagger and Richards aren't as notable as Norman and Stonehill... --Guy Macon (talk) 19:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What the hell - How in heaven's name does that article even exist??? There is no way any of that can be made "neutral" to begin with! Why is all that important? It belongs in a book or a website, not here. § FreeRangeFrog croak 20:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am tempted to do a major bloatectomy on the two bios and to AfD the relationship page. Of course the same editors who made it number one on the list of The Six Most Needlessly Detailed Wikipedia Entries will no doubt object, so is anyone willing to lend a hand before I get buried under a steaming pile of POV? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Go for it, we are all counting on you...--ukexpat (talk) 02:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Why folks think BLPs of that length and detail are good for an encyclopedia is quite beyond me.  Collect (talk) 12:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, there's a page for Lennon–McCartney, so there is some precedent. Of course Lennon–McCartney isn't as long as Relationship of Larry Norman and Randy Stonehill, just as John Lennon isn't as long as Larry Norman. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I just cut Larry Norman and Randy Stonehill way back. I discovered that this is an entire constellation of fancruft, including:

Template:Larry Norman

Category:Larry Norman

Category:Larry Norman albums

Larry Norman discography

List of songs recorded by Larry Norman

Category:Albums produced by Larry Norman

Early life and career of Larry Norman

Later life and career of Larry Norman

Musicals of Larry Norman

Relationship of Larry Norman and Randy Stonehill

One Way Records

Solid Rock Records

Phydeaux Records

Street Level Records

People!

Upon This Rock (Larry Norman album)

Tourniquet (album)

Street Level (album)

Stranded in Babylon

Something New Under the Son

So Long Ago the Garden

Only Visiting This Planet

In Another Land (album)

Home at Last (Larry Norman album)

Bootleg (Larry Norman album)

And, last but not least, I found a Scientology connection --Guy Macon (talk) 01:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I added a bit back in the Stonehill article, but otherwise agree that the material needed to be edited hard and I might be accused of bias. I would definitely add the Scientology link to the Norman article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:43, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Surprisingly, nobody objected to the 90% reduction in size. It may be that the editor or editors who made it so large had a personal or commercial connection that became moot. If it was real fans who built this monster I would expect more of it after Norman passed away.

I just debloatified People! and made the Scientology connection more clear, then I proposed for deletion the other auxiliary bloat/fancruft pages except for the record albums. Not sure whether to cut them down or propose deletion.

I will keep you posted about the prods. If they are contested I will file AfDs. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Process Larry Norman has long been one of the longest and most-citation-ed articles on this site and someone has clearly put a lot of time into writing about him here. I don't have any strong feelings on his music or person (I'm totally ignorant of them honestly) but it's inappropriate to empty categories without discussion. I've reverted your PRODs too&mdash;at least one of them already has an AfD and it's not clear why they would be deleted rather than (e.g.) redirected. You clearly haven't thought this through and although I'm sure there's a lot of dross to be removed, wholesale deletion by a single editor is not the solution here. The fact that Cracked made fun of it does not justify it being removed. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Edit hard and Merge I'm not sure why the articles are all pointing back to this discussion rather than an AfD, but there's some information that will be lost if the articles are simply deleted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * (EC) Just to clarify the above, I have removed no articles. I have trimmed down a couple of badly bloated articles (Larry Norman and People!) and proded others that don't have a snowball's chance of surviving an AfD (Early life and career of Larry Norman, Later life and career of Larry Norman, the vanity record labels). I also made some ham-handed newbie cat changes, after which Koavf went through all of the pages with HotCat and made the cats right (thanks!) and of course I am fine with that, being a big fan of WP:BRD. I did look at the pages before prodding them and moved anything useful to the Larry Norman page. While there is indeed a lot of detail there, do we really need to have fifty times more information on Norman than we have on most musicians?


 * It occurred to me that it might be better to replace the pages with redirects to the Larry Norman page. That would preserve the histories. I didn't do that because I suspect that someone would object, but if the page gets to AfD I am going to suggest it as an alternative. Also, the Cracked page is just how I noticed this. It was my own evaluation that led me to the conclusion that it was badly bloated. It turns out that nobody needs to know that Gary Burris played bass guitar for People! for four hours in 1974. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I've just opened Articles for deletion/Relationship of Larry Norman and Randy Stonehill. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 20:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm going to propose a merge from his early and later life articles, since the main article has been considerably cut down. <span style="font-family: Verdana, monospace;letter-spacing:1px;color:#ECCA61;padding-left:5px;">Beerest355 Talk 23:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The following are up for merging or deleting. Please comment. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 18:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Larry Norman discography
 * List of songs recorded by Larry Norman
 * Early life and career of Larry Norman
 * Later life and career of Larry Norman
 * Musicals of Larry Norman
 * Relationship of Larry Norman and Randy Stonehill
 * One Way Records
 * Solid Rock Records
 * Phydeaux Records
 * Street Level Records


 * Nuke them, bury the remains, salt the Earth. There is simply not enough notable information to spread across 10 articles. De-puffing isn't enough. The "Especially the Later life and career" article, especially. From which a special disposal process should be invented for the sentence; "He never expected to be healed and thought he would have to continue chemical therapy until the day after John Barr came into his life and laid hands on him." EBY (talk) 22:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I've restored a very limited amount of the content that had been removed. (I didn't respond/act sooner because I was on vacation last week.) It's currently sitting at ~50k, but that includes 178 citations. While there obviously may still be disputes about what content should be included, I hope no one would find the current text to be remarkably excessive, as it was in older versions. Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Yaheh Hallegua
Is Yaheh Hallegua an article that falls under WP:BLP1E? The article currently has a discussion at Articles for deletion/Yaheh Hallegua (2nd nomination). Comments from editors familiar with the WP:BLP policy would be helpful, as there was little participation on the first AFD. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 11:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I was surprised when I found Martha (Passenger Pigeon). Shanawdithit also has an article. Yaheh Hallegua may not be as notable but when that group of people is gone she may be very notable. A BLP courtesy delete may be warranted as well and undelete in the future if more notability arises. I am not saying wp:otherstuffexists but the notability of these articles could be used in arguments at the AfD. I wish to avoid the AfD (because I actually don't care either way), but someone else may wish to link these other articles there. I see no problem with a redirect and keeping the history. Full deletion of the material would make re-creation in the future that much harder. I haven't looked yet but how many other languages have an article on her?--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Albert Laszlo Haines
A new article about a British man who has been detained as a psychiatric patient since 1986. I'd appreciate regulars familiar with WP:BLP policy having a look. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've PRODded and will no doubt have to take to AFD in due course. GiantSnowman 14:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Albert Laszlo Haines. GiantSnowman 15:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Blog source
Some editors are using a list of notable people at http://www.happycow.net/ to add "...is a vegetarian." to articles. A 'one edit IP' just removed it from Tom Morello so it could be the subject. Should we seek consensus on whether or not to use this a source and whether or not to even use it from good sources unless the subjects identify as being vegetarians? We don't include "...is an omnivore." in other articles.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * We will need a better source than that and I agree that it's a pretty trivial identifier in any event, unless it is part of the subject's notability.--ukexpat (talk) 18:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * At best a "commercial site" and not a reliable source as such for any contentious claims. Collect (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * They have 100s on their list: http://www.happycow.net/famous_vegetarians.html . Will the search function work best to find all the articles or editor histories?--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Search on the "happycow.com" bit - it should find the uses of that site. Appears to be on 22 pages per Wikipedia search. Collect (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Michael Tobias

 * Smarmy advert or near-advert, which I am inclined to suspect of being written and maintained by the subject himself, or else some hireling(s) of his, using throwaway s.p.a. identities. Name-dropping, notability by association, peacock words and unsourced assertions abound. Every time a new book in which he appears is supposed to come out (it's unclear whether some or all of them are self-published nowadays) or he produces a new TV program, however obscure, it is guaranteed to be advertised in this article first. (The article is also full of Manual of Style violations.) -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  20:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Needs more pruning, but I was trying to be nice here for this massive puff pastry. Collect (talk) 20:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Carole Radziwill‎
There is a long standing edit war about whether this BLP should be addressed with a title of nobility. Editors can add their opinion at Talk:Carole_Radziwill. Gamaliel ( talk ) 22:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Roman Reigns
Roman Reigns

I keep correcting this, and it's beginning to get out of control. Roman Reigns is engaged to the mother of his child, and there is no verifiable proof to prove otherwise. Can we please have his page locked from non registered users, so as to stop the vandalism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman_Reigns&diff=561748042&oldid=561747840 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman_Reigns&diff=562797722&oldid=562784191
 * Unsourced material removed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Anil Ambani
Some help here please. There's a tag team of new editors/IPs doing this -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  09:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sigh... I'm at 3RR and don't feel comfortable invoking WP:BLP so I'm not reverting any more. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  10:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Jeepday has blocked the main editor for 3RR. Lectonar (talk) 14:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks. The editor finally started to discuss after the block. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  14:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * For the time being we might consider this ✅. Lectonar (talk) 14:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Subject: Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati: No action/Reply on most of the Suggestions on Talk page/New Section. Please Guide
Respected Authorities: I and few others went for lot of suggestions on the Talk page of the article. Most of the suggestions on the Talk page of the article were not replied by any one. Yes there are few people who took very good initiative to take care of few of the concerns but unfortunately maximum of them were not even replied. I have no guts nor competence to edit the article of the subject. As an edit might not be liked by others. Moreover I strongly believe that the article has lot of scope for improvement and the subject is highly notable. I have already mentioned the scope for improvement on Talk page New Sections. Please Guide: Respected Regards Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati (talk) 09:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That's because no one is inclined to puff up the article any more. As I advised you on the talk page, stop talking up your own achievements. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  09:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * And now you're forum shopping . Wonderful. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  14:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Ben Bernanke at Bilderberg Group
File:BernankeLeavingBilderberg2008.jpg

This picture (used in the article Bilderberg Group) is said to be of "Chairman of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke leaving the 2008 Bilderberg Conference." How in the heck do we know that? BayShrimp (talk) 18:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well it sure does look like it's Bernanke, but of course there's no telling where he was going at that moment. Why is it important? § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * To most of us it isn't. But to conspiracy fans it shows that the Federal Reserve and the Bilderberg Group are, well, conspiring. And that Bernanke is part of the conspiracy, so it could be potentally negative and poorly cited material on a living person. BayShrimp (talk) 21:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I took the picture off the article. Oddly enough it is also being used on quite a few European WP's, especially considering it is just a picture of a guy falling asleep in the back seat of a limo. :-) -BayShrimp (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * For what it is worth, he isn't falling asleep. This image taken at the same time shows him looking down using a cell phone or similar: http://cryptome.org/info/bilderberg08/pict7.jpg --Canoe1967 (talk) 01:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay. I guess I feel better about the state of the economy. :-) BayShrimp (talk) 01:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I was also wondering what message the picture was sending: "Bernanke, exausted from conspiring world domination, falls asleep as he leaves Bilderberg conference." Or: "Bernanke finds conference so boring he falls asleep." :-) BayShrimp (talk) 15:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The BLP argument here doesn't hold water. He's a high-ranking public official and it doesn't serve WP's purpose to protect the public from knowing about his engagements just because it might get commented on by someone on the David Icke forum. Formerip (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with that (there is no BLP issue) but I also agree to the removal of the photo from that article because we cannot possibly verify the context. We don't know if the photograph truly depicts what the uploader says it depicts, and its inclusion (in that context) might be controversial or inappropriate. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we can verify the context if we have Google. It comes from a series of photos which is here. I think there may be reason to wonder about the licencing, since the photo comes from a defunct flickr account, but I don't think there can be any reasonable doubt as to the context. Formerip (talk) 20:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Paula Deen and Category:Hate speech
An IP editor has proposed adding Paula Deen to Category:Hate speech. That didn't seem to smart to me. I took a look at the category, and notice that there are only three people listed, all BLPs. Though I find all three somewhat unsavory characters personally, are these really the three worst examples of people's hate speech in history? I don't think so. I have my doubt that any living person belongs in this category. Articles about hate speech laws and cases are fine for this category. Are we going to add Paula Deen to this category but leave out Julius Streicher? Fortunately, he's dead, so I can use him as a negative example here without fear.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  06:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I say take it off. There is no proof that she hated anyone, although she might have.  Besides that I don't think anyone would say she is important in the history of hate speech. BayShrimp (talk) 15:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that Category:Hate speech should be nominated for deletion at Categories for discussion. Besides being a magnet for BLP violations, it simply isn't all that useful as a category. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I see only one BLP in the category currently -which seems germane to me, but feel free to remove the cat from it or to question the BLP existence- so it is hardly a "magnet for BLP violations", and I see lots of entries which make perfect sense like "Hate speech in Country X" articles, or notable court cases. It seems useful to me, and with little BLP issues. -- Cycl  o  pia [[User talk:Cyclopia|<font

color="red">talk ]] 15:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The question is how many were added then removed because they were BLP violations. Does anyone know how to get a list of pages removed from a cat? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * If they have been removed, then everything is working correctly and there is nothing to report. -- c y c l o p i a talk  16:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * If they were placed inappropriately, then WP:BLP policy may well have been violated, and we can't just pretend everything is well. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * But such violations have been since fixed. This means that everything works. The thing goes like this: There is a sensible category, which is for listing articles related to the topic of hate speech. Sometimes, someone makes a nasty mistake and puts a BLP in the category. This happens, just like BLPs get vandalized and whatnot. That is bad. But as violations can be put in, so we can remove them. If they're removed quickly and unequivocally, that's exactly what should happen. We can't make BLP violations magically stop, unless we remove all BLPs from WP (I know there is people sympathetic to this solution). And we cannot 100% prevent category misuse in BLPs unless we remove all possibly negative categories. So what we do? We keep eyes open and fix problems as they come up. That's what's happening now, apparently, and while not ideal, it is the best we can do without tearing the 'pedia to pieces. -- c y c l o p i a talk  17:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * A clear misuse of categorization if ever there were one. Collect (talk) 16:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Eric Cunningham
This article is wrong. Eric Cunningham was a provincial politician and Geoff Scott was a federal politician. They never ran against each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.17.21 (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ According to the Winnipeg Free Press, Wednesday, September 5, 1984 (page 15) seen here - Eric Cunningham did run in a federal election against Geoff Scott (and lost). In the future, you can leave a message on an article's talk page or you can always ask a question at Wikipedia's reference desk. EBY (talk) 22:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Abdul Mutalib Mohamed Daud
Could someone more experienced than I am with BLP issues take a look at this? I wonder about WP:BDP with regards to the rape allegations, and the sourcing for notability looks pretty poor at the moment - there is this, which is linked in the article, and some Google hits like this, which isn't in the article but indicate he may be notable as a witness in a political 'scandal', and as an activist, but I'd like a second opinion. Thanks. Begoon &thinsp; talk 03:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I removed it. I'm honestly not sure if this was something the subject wrote or reported on, since it was under "Selected publications" but it was talking about someone else? I suspect there's an issue with English proficiency here. In any case, it's a serious allegation and unless we have a reliable English source or a trusted editor that could verify the information, it stays off. § FreeRangeFrog croak 17:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, thanks - and sorry I missed your reply. English proficiency is an issue, amongst others, but I didn't want to prejudge based on my previous interactions with the editor. Assistance appreciated - cheers. Begoon &thinsp; talk  12:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Raymond Monsour Scurfield
Most of this article was written by Professor Scurfield. In a few instances the article comes across as promotional, e.g., including information about his private practice.

At the same time, Professor Scurfield is one of the pioneers in the psychological trauma field, both in terms of understanding the long-term psychosocial impact of trauma, particularly with combat veterans, and in developing treatment interventions to help such individuals suffering from what we now know as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). For example, not only is Professor Scurfield a Vietnam veteran himself, he was one of the driving forces behind the development of Vet Centers within the Department of Veterans Affairs. As a psychologist working for the VA, I can attest to the tremendous value of Vet Centers, based largely on scores veterans who have told me how much a Vet Center helped them and their families.

I wanted to offer Professor Scurfield some friendly suggestions regarding how he can edit the article so that it adopts an undisputed neutral point of view and, relatedly, so that it does not come across as promotional. However, I am still a relatively new editor, which brings me here to ask if you might offer Professor Scurfield suggestions.

Thank you very much - Mark /  Mark D Worthen PsyD  01:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * friendly suggestions regarding how he can edit the article he shouldn't edit his own bio, that never ends well. He should use the article talk page for suggestions on how to "improve" the article. --Malerooster (talk) 01:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I would refer him to read WP:COI. --Malerooster (talk) 02:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you Malerooster. I posted some suggestions for the professor, including reference to WP:COI, on the article talk page.  Mark D Worthen PsyD  07:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Orsini family
Anons are used (now several times daily) since 24 Januiary 2013 to restore an unsourced and at least partially inaccurate claim that an alleged illegitimate son, "Dr. Emmanuel Bertounesque", is the rightful heir to the Orsini family's hereditary titles, in the article on the historical noble Italian Orsini family, several members of which are living. The allegations directly refer to and concern living persons mentioned by name in the offending edits. The inaccuracies have been pointed out and explained on the talk page. Diffs are here, here, here,  here and here. It is obvious that the editor understands the nature of the BLP objection because the last-mentioned dif ends with a cite to an Italian Yahoo groups article about a lawsuit for public recognition by an alleged illegitimate daughter of soon-to-abdicate Albert II of Belgium: That cite, however, does not mention the Orsini family or its members in any way. Since most of the inserted violations and reverts of corrections are done by new anons, protecting this article from this 7 month pattern of BLP violations necessitates that the page be semi-protected. Although the problem was reported here, the BLP violations have increased: Admin intervention is needed. FactStraight (talk) 07:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Darren Breslin
I am making a complaint on behalf of Darren Breslin. The information on his Wikipedia page is inaccurate, upsetting and has caused considerable distress to Darren. He did not go to Lourdes to 'try and get cured of cancer' as the article suggests. Considering it is an orphan article and does not have any reliable resources regarding Darren's personal life I am requesting that this information is removed immediately. Hopefully this can be done as quickly as possible and I will not have to undertake further action. Regards, C. Lagan
 * I've removed it. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 19:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Tami Erin


Reported via OTRS regarding the addition of a minor arrest that I removed as being undue and irrelevant at best. I also culled all the unsourced information from the bio, but now an IP (possibly the subject or someone associated with them) has decided that while sourced negative information is intolerable, it's perfectly OK for positive information to be unsourced and have restored it a few times. I'm going offline for the rest of the day, so a few eyes would be appreciated. Maybe protection if they keep it up. § FreeRangeFrog croak 23:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * That IP has already been blocked this week for those kinds of edits to that article. I stuck a warning on the talk page. EBY (talk) 23:34, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We have two editors repeatedly adding information about a trivial citizens arrest for a fight about pizza, or hidden video taping, or something. This got a couple of day's gossipy attention by tabloid style media outlets and was then forgotten. The two editors in question think removal of the content by an IP is "vandalism". How's that for a new definition of vandalism? One complains that the IP didn't discuss the matter. But neither of these editors said a word on the article's talk page, despite a spate of reversions.


 * Yes, the newbie IP shouldn't edit war to keep in puffery. But experienced editors also shouldn't edit war without discussion to add trivial crap about a pizza fight.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  04:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It was a citizen's arrest no less, and it's unclear whether or not Erin was even charged. Whoever is adding this in should be forced to copy out WP:BLP in longhand a hundred times. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  05:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Tom Kundig
Tom Kundig, an American architect, maintains through several caretaking accounts what appears to be a vanity biographical page. As he is currently embroiled in a dispute over a controversial structure of his in Washington State's Methow Valley, I have added a Controversy section to his page summarizing the dispute.

While I am desperately trying to maintain NPOV, I am not a disinterested party, as I can see the property in question from my office window. Kundig's publicists seem to use drive-by one-off editorial accounts, alternately sanitizing his page and adding uncited enumerations of their in-courtroom legal victories. I would very much welcome outside review and correction before this devolves into an edit war. Goetter (talk) 00:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * While your POV might be considered neutral at first glance, you are violating if not the letter at least the spirit of WP:NOR. Where you say ...violates not only good environmental design[16] but also the protective covenants[17]... you are linking to the documents that would be used to technically enforce the removal of the structure, which makes them primary sources. Whatever you are claiming in that paragraph needs to originate from secondary sources, and preferably not that website that organizes and documents opposition since it's impossible for them to have a neutral POV. Which leads me to the next issue - if there is no significant coverage of the issue by secondary sources (media, news, etc) then I'd have to question whether or not the entire section merits inclusion. § FreeRangeFrog croak 00:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Truly, I did not completely understand WP:NOR. I'll prioritize secondary sources, and redact primary sources not backed by secondaries.  Thank you for your speedy feedback.  Goetter (talk) 04:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The interpretation of "good environmental design" is entirely subjective and not subject to factual claims. The claim that the building violates covenants is a matter of legal dispute. I've also renamed the section to be more descriptive. "Controversy" is deprecated as a section title because it's entirely uninformative. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "Controversy" is a pretty common section title in biographies of living persons, but I agree, it is not informative. Thank you for the NPOV lesson.  I was incapable of the objectivity required to summarize and cite The Other Side's position.  Goetter (talk) 06:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be common and it's increasingly being removed because it's a meaningless word. Anything and everything could be a "controversy". Perhaps a more accurate phrase would be "legal dispute." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * A few points: http://www.movethehut.org/ is a 'soapbox' link used in the article as a ref, http://www.methownet.com/grist/ seems to be a biased blog and shouldn't be used as a source for contentious material as well as http://www.mnn.com/about-us . http://www.seattleweekly.com/ and http://www.wenatcheeworld.com/ I would say are RS without looking into whether they are 'huffpostish' which I don't think we use for contentious tabloid trivia. Do we need 6 sources for 3 sentences? If any want to see truly ugly then there is http://www.flickr.com/photos/7663586@N02/5131774896/ on a ridgeline in a national park that is privately owned restaurant at the top of the Jasper Tramway. If there are editors that are connected to the subject they may wish to source images of the cabin with the siding on. Links to soapbox sites with intentionally ugly images of it just creates a bias in the article. "...the cabin can be seen from the valley. But he contends that the photos publicized by Move the Hut, like the one above, use a telephoto lens that make the structure seem bigger than it is. “We’ve had people call us and say: ‘We can’t find it. Where is it?’” I think it is a trivial and local issue that doesn't belong in a BLP article. The subject may be notable but the issue isn't. If a non-notable subject were to be involved would we include the issue in an article on building codes and legal disputes in Washington state? Local coverage by two sources shouldn't cut it for 'widely covered' and 'notable'.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * http://www.movethehut.org/ is only cited to identify the opposition. http://www.methownet.com/grist/ describes only the fact that there were broad-participation meetings preceding the coalition of said local opposition.  The hut has no siding, unfortunately, hence no images of the hut with siding exist.  Per the other sources cited, the hut is quite easy to see from the valley floor: said quote was sourced from the builder.  Without this single dissenting item, this BLP article is otherwise a puff piece by the subject's publicists, per its edit history.  Goetter (talk) 07:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems to be far too much detail for a BLP article. A shorter version would be: "Kundig built a cabin at x and x filed a pending lawsuit claiming it violates x. Kundig claims that x was not violated and once completed it will blend in." As it stands now it has more detail than some murder trials we have here. The more trivial an issue the less material we should use in smaller articles. This one could be considered a coatrack for the local soapbox. We shouldn't be giving them a larger forum here than they deserve. Especially if there are SPA accounts on both sides.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Techno Viking
In the article and on its talk page, there are various (poorly or not sourced) speculations about name and identity posted about a person, who has never agreed to be published but explicitly expressed dissent and per court decisions is granted his name and images are not published anymore by a fine of €250,000. Several edits on the article and talk page should be hidden, for ex., , , , , !!, , , , ... and the whole article between and. --Trofobi (talk) 10:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅The picture is down, pending a decision from a copyright editor. In the meantime, please remember that legal threats are never the way to go. Redacting article histories is pretty extreme, let's first see if the picture is fair use. Thanks. EBY (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "Legal threat"? Ouch, sorry if my words should sound like this, that has never been my intention. I'm not a native english-speaker and have only tried to translate the most important parts from the court paper for helping the experts here who perhaps are not native german-speakers. And if anything here should sounds like I could be the "unknown man" this story is about, sorry to disappoint you, I'm not (wouldn't object to have a body like his! ;) --Trofobi (talk) 13:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Bill Maher/Inflammatory Sentence Added
The LAST SENTENCE in the first paragraph of the Personal Life (or Bio) section of the page for Bill Maher appears to be recently added without a reference. More importantly, the sentence seems overtly inflammatory. I would 'edit' it out personally on the 'no reference' basis alone, but I do not want whomever inserted that sentence to turn his or her hatred toward me. I'm requesting that a moderator please review that section. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.18.161 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 7 July 2013‎


 * Vandalism. Reverted by bot within a minute of being made, over 9 hours before you posted here. If you saw this anywhere, it must have been cached by an outside server, over which we have no control. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Veronica Scott
The page seems dubious at best. Most of the links are from old open post sites. Very little relevancy to the world of fashion. Does not warrant a wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.43.103.164 (talk • contribs) 11:17, 7 July 2013


 * Please note that this page is intended for issues which require immediate attention - unsourced negative and defamatory material etc. General comments regarding the merits of articles are best left to the article talk page - or if you wish, you may propose articles for deletion yourself: see Deletion policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Lawren Pope
The page seems dubious at best. Most of the links are from old open post sites. Very little relevancy to the world of fashion. Does not seem to warrant a wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.43.103.164 (talk • contribs) 11:18, 7 July 2013


 * See my comments in the section above. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)‎

Lisa Pulitzer
Just a note to point out that the person who did this one linked the name of a an alleged murderer, Jerry Akers, to a baseball player by the same name.
 * I've removed the link (you could have too). Thanks for the correction. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  18:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Lapo Elkann
For quite some time, IPs have been adding increasingly sensationalist claims (as evidenced by the "appetite" subject heading I've removed several times, that's unfortunately preserved in at least one edit summary) about the subject's private life, unrelated to whatever notability the subject has. The IPs, likely all for a single user, have lately posted an odd message on the article talk page about "true facts" and keeping the subject "responsible for acts and behavior". Somebody's got an agenda here, and not a very healthy one. Request at RFPP hasn't been acted on. I suspect some RevDel is called for, as well as eyes on the article -- this has been going on at least since April. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify the context: As an Italian, I think I can explain some of this.
 * Yes, the way the IP edited is quite BLP-uncompliant, in wording and sources. But the issue is a bit beyond usual tabloid garbage. The overdose, that put him in life danger, has been covered by all major Italian media (cfr., , ) as the subsequent circumstances (cfr. , ). Maybe outside can look like standard gossip, but it has been huge, in Italy. While it shouldn't be given undue weight, it is bizarre for every Italian reader that the bio doesn't cover the episode. I understand thus the IP frustration. -- <font size="2" color="seagreen">cyclopia  speak! 15:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It may be "bizarre" to Italian readers that we don't repeat stories about drug overdoses and frienships with transvestites that happened eight years ago, but it is certain that we don't sensationalize them.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  07:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, knowing the context would help. It is far from the usual gossip scandal. It has been a turning point in the image of the person and the business empire his family is connected to -which is by far the most important business empire of Italy, FIAT. There are academic Italian books that cite the episode, as well as psychology books, as books on cocaine traffic. It is even mentioned on Italian chronologies of Italian contemporary history. I understand the skepticism from outside, but really, this is beyond tabloids. -- <font size="2" color="seagreen">cyclopia  speak! 10:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

in records section USopen final 2012 and Australian open final 2012 are both written as of longest duration which is not possible so should be ammended
in records section USopen final 2012 and Australian open final 2012 are both written as of longest duration which is not possible so should be ammended


 * The first paragraph of the US Open article calls that match the "second-longest men's final in the Open era, only behind the 2012 Australian Open final." What needs to be corrected? Rklear (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Anna Chapman
Anna Chapman's infobox gives her "criminal status" as "Deported to Russia". This is wrong on two levels.

First, assuming she was deported, this does not affect her "criminal status" because in the United States removal proceedings are civil, not criminal, in nature. On that fact alone the information must be removed as it implies she is a criminal, which she is not until she is convicted of a crime in a court of law, which is not even being asserted. Second, there is no assertions she was subject to a removal order, or even a voluntary departure agreement. A small minority of news media have used the phrase "deported", but this is a non-legal term that could conceivably include a number of situations, not least of which is the extremely common "plea bargains" and "deferred prosecutions" with the understanding she exit the country posthaste. But that's neither here nor there, because of the fact that, again, she was never convicted of a crime, which is what the "criminal status" implies.

Given that the article implies she is a criminal, this must be removed immediately. Int21h (talk) 08:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC) Int21h (talk) 08:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've removed it. You could have done so as well.  Also, the picture looks like a mugshot -- surely not the right choice, per WP:MUG, and sure we could have a better one. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, well, I figured its cloudy enough to be an argument. Now, if they want to, they can argue with you. ;) The mugshot issue came up already in discussion it seems. I haven't even really read the article, to tell you the truth. I got there with a curiosity about the mechanics her legal troubles, happened to notice there was no conviction, and here I am. Int21h (talk) 08:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The article says that she pleaded guilty to a criminal charge -- so it might be that she is in fact a criminal per US law (or something like that). On the other hand, there doesn't seem to be a source that is explicitly linked to that assertion.  You're right to say that deportation is not a criminal penalty; on the other hand, the administrative action of deportation is sometimes adopted when someone has been convicted of a sufficiently serious crime.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Wayne Madsen
Every so often (2009, 2010 and now 2013) an editor adds the pejorative description of "Conspiracy theorist" to the lead, usually with the same sources. I keep asking for mainstream sources but he has only provided sources which I believe are not RS for the claim to be in the lead. The main argument by the two supporters of the term is that the blogs are mainstream reliable sources because most are hosted by mainstream newspapers. The references used, Talking Points Memo, The Telegraph, The Commentator and the Atlantic Monthly are blogs. One of the two Salon references says only that Madsen has "controversial views on espionage issues" while the other calls him a "conspiracy-minded blogger" which is an appropriate term for his blog reporting and was originally in the lead. The Forbes source for the claim is interesting as the conspiracy theory claim is not made by Forbes but is in a paragraph Forbes took from a blog called Harry's Place that it included in the article. The most Forbes itself states is that Madsen "has some fairly out there views" which Forbes states is probably the only reason The Observer pulled the story, as the article goes on to say: however left field the source is what he’s actually said seems to be largely true and indeed a matter of public knowledge for some years now…So the basic information is indeed true yet still they have taken the piece down. So we have the bizarre case of a journalist being called a conspiracy theorist in the lead based on him reporting a true story. The Daily Beast is a news source that has reported that Madsen is a conspiracy theorist but that article has an accuracy problem such as claiming Madsen has a zero batting average with previous "reporting". For example, Madsen was the first journalist to call the Obama birther scandal a hoax, he was the first to report on the existence of ECHELON and PRISM and he reported on the FIRSTFRUIT program a full year before the ABC "discovered" it’s existence and reported it as a scoop. The editor has also included in the article claims that Madsen is "batshit crazy, to use the technical term" sourced from a blog reporting on what someone had told them. And that Madsen is a "fruitloop who thinks Obama is gay" which is also sourced to a blog. Both of these seem to be personal opinions not relevant for the article. He is primarily an investigative journalist and many of his "conspiracy theories" have been proven correct. Most of his reporting, especially that outside of his blog, has nothing to do with conspiracy theories. Just because some of his more ridiculous claims have not been proven correct does not make him a conspiracy theorist or there would be no such thing as an investigative journalist. This argument over whether or not Madsen is a conspiracy theorist has been going on for four years and it needs to be resolved.

As well as reverting the removal of the descriptive the editor has also removed the subjects memberships of several press organisations, a paragraph on his reporting on blood diamonds and a mention of who he was working for when investigating another story. All these mentions were positive, leaving the section with only negative claims regarding Madsens reporting. Wayne (talk) 03:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The Telegraph, Seattle Post Intelligencer, Daily Beast, Forbes, ABC News, Talking Points Memo; these are not blogs. Andrew Sullivan's Atlantic Monthly might be considered a blog but it is ref'd as his opinion. The Commentator site is a hard news site, with good editorial practices. Each of these RS news organizations have described the subject as a "conspiracy theorist" or similar. We have academic experts condemning this BLP subject for unreliablility. (It is an academic who describes Madsen as "batsh*t crazy".) The subject is so controversial that the Guardian newspapers just had to pull a front page article because it was sourced to the subject. A quick google search will find even more RS than those listed. If these multitudes of refs are not sufficient to describe an article's subject I'm not entirely certain what would. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The Daily Beast may have believe that Madsen had a zero batting average because Madsen has "discovered" that Obama is gay and has "reported" that Obama killed his gay lover in a bathhouse, that Obama was installed in the White House by the CIA, and that the Boston bombing was a US government operation. He has stated that the Mossad was involved in 9/11, the London bombings, the Bali bombings, and the Cole attack, and that former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel is a Mossad agent. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Quick Google brings up a RS poynter.org "conspiracy theorist Wayne Madsen". I added the ref to the lead. As Conspiracy theorist appears to be his notability (along with journalist etc), I previously linked to broader notability topic per WP:LEAD > WP:CONTEXTLINK. Damian Thompson at blogs.telegraph.co.uk is a RS WP:NEWSBLOG - "a fruitloop", "an unusual gentleman". There seems to be adequate sourcing.
 * Now, as for the credibility of Madsen's blogging, it is not up to us to judge but the reliable sources.
 * WP:BOOMERANG seems to be pertinent here - if "two supporters" are in agreement (and I'm not sure if that includes me or that makes three?) then that might indicate that there is consensus, and I'm not even sure why it has been taken here when the talk page seems to adequately reply to User:WLRoss. This seems WP:DEADHORSE. If this issue keeps surfacing, and there's allegations of whitewashing / POV pushing on the article, then maybe this is the right place to be discussing after all? Widefox ; talk 11:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree. The sources are fine and its the same one editor that is whitewashing-wikilawyering that article for years trying to paint Madsen as some mainstream investigative reporter or what not. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 16:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have never claimed that Madsen was a mainstream investigative reporter and I'm not the one making false claims about sources. I don't even read the stuff the guy writes, I'm trying to keep the article neutral after noticing that some editors appear to add only negative material and delete anything positive they can. Don't you find it strange that in the reporting and opinions section it's all negative? Why don't you include the notable reporting he has done to balance it? Wayne (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:FRINGE applies. It is undue WP:WEIGHT. Also, please retract the narrative that you are the only balancing editor, when I've edited the article the first time today, so it seems a bit AGF bordering on OWN. Widefox ; talk 17:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Madsen may be unreliable and batshit crazy but that doesn't require him to be described as a conspiracy theorist in the lead. Firstly, I suggest that editors read the sources before accepting User:Capitalismojo's word that they support the claim. For example, User:Widefox has accepted the Telegraph as adequate sourcing per WP:NEWSBLOG yet the Telegraph never mentions the word "conspiracy" anywhere in the article so is unreliable for the claim. As for the sources Capitalismojo claims are hard news not blogs, The Telegraph URL says it's a blog and it does not call Madsen a conspiracy theorist anyway, it calls him "a fruitloop", the Seattle Post Intelligencer does not call him a conspiracy theorist, it reports that someone they spoke to said he was batshit crazy, I've discussed why the Daily Beast is not reliable, Forbes does not call him a conspiracy theorist either, Talking Points Memo is a blog and The Commentator may be a hard news site but the page says it's a blog (comment). Only a single source from the list Capitalismojo gave above supports the claim made and that is only borderline reliable at best because it is not mainstream media, appears to be written in blog style and for the factual errors it contains. Why he uses so many sources that do not even make the claim as refs for the claim is beyond me and calling blogs hard news simply because they are newspaper blogs is also a worry. This has been an ongoing dispute for four years which has included the deletion of anything positive about the guy and until The Observer debacle only blogs made the conspiracy theorist claim. Capitalismojo wont even allow much of his career to be detailed because he says the third party sources use Madsen as their source. Even self published should be acceptable because if he had lied about his career in the Navy and NSA his critics would have mentioned it to discredit him. The Observer article being pulled has prompted some sources to claim he is a conspiracy theorist but is this a reliable claim or a kneejerk reaction considering the actual story is largely true? Madsen never gave them the article to print, in fact Madsen never even wrote the original, it was sourced by the Observer from an interview Madsen gave to a blog. Wayne (talk) 16:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We do not care what your opinions of him are, RS say that. I think wikilawyering non-sequiturs about Telegraph sources is quite transparent. WP:BOOMERANG applies here. WP:LEAD > WP:CONTEXTLINK as notability. Quite a deadhorse really. Widefox ; talk 16:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Why is it wikilawyering to point out that the Telegraph does not make the claim so shouldn't be used to support the claim? Anyway, I just had a look at the Madsen lead...it's now written pretty much how I argued it should read four years ago, mention that he's described as such not that he is. We'll see how long it lasts. Wayne (talk) 17:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The Telegraph is obviously not a blog and, more importantly, it not used in relation to or referencing "conspiracy" in the article.. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I am pleased that we have a lead that everyone can agree on. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It is tempting to be cautious per BLPs and not spell-out a conspiracy theorist as such, but this directly flies in the face of WP:FRINGE " Additionally, when the subject of an article is the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be clear.".  Widefox ; talk 18:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure "conspiracy theorist" needs to be in the lead; but it needs to be noted as the majority view. It may not be the most notable thing about him, but it's accurate and sourced.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with mention in the lead that he has been called one but how is a majority view when it is so difficult to find a reference in support? Of the five refs used to support the claim in the lead, four are newsblogs and the only hard news ref is reporting on what the blogs say about it. Then we have the problem of inaccuracies in the refs with several claiming the story itself is a conspiracy theory despite it being proven to be true. Wayne (talk) 04:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Yesterday the following text was been deleted/reworded twice on the grounds of (1) "per NPOV; he is regarded by many more as a "conspiracy theorist" or "batshit crazy" than as a SIGINT expert" and (2) Per WP:BRD. The first revert comment is WP:OR. Per WP:BRD-NOT, "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes and BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing." As the original is adequately sourced and I'm assuming the editor is experienced, instead of reverting twice, the editor should have brought it to the Talk page instead of making me do it for him when I have no idea what his concerns are. Specifically:"Madsen has been described as one of the world's leading SIGINT and computer security experts. He has been described by critics as a conspiracy theorist."Was reverted to read:"He is generally regarded as a conspiracy theorist.[7][8][9][10][11]"Regarding the deleted sentence: The reference is a RS speaking in his area of expertise. Madsen has testified as an intelligence and computer expert before several Senate and European Union investigative committees. He has written two highly regarded books, Genocide and Covert Operations in Africa 1993-1999 and Handbook of Personal Data Protection 1992, the second of which is used by the NSA as a textbook. He is also co-author with James Bamford of the 2001 rewrite of The Puzzle Palace. The claim has better sourcing than some of the negative claims in the article. Regarding the rewording of the second sentence: The claim has five references in support. The first reference is a news report calling Madsen a conspiracy theorist. The next three are blogs. The last is also a blog, but does not use the term, it calls Madsen a conspiracy-minded blogger which I concede he is but that is a different thing to being a theorist. We must also accept that misreporting of his views affects perceptions of him. For example the article used to say he was a Birther when in fact he was first journalist to report that the GOP was looking for a birth certificate and the first to say that the claim was a hoax. Another example is the claim made in one of those "reliable" blogs above that Madsen claimed the "Boston bombing suspects were government agents." In fact from what I found yesterday, Madsen only claimed that the older bomber had attended seminars sponsored by the The Jamestown Foundation in Georgia in 2012 and that Russia had him listed as a CIA asset in Chechnya, both apparently true claims and public record, and that these people often become radicalized and turn against the US. WP:BLP and WP:Weight both apply. A single news reference does not carry enough weight to use the term "generally regarded," especially as it does not claim that the term is used by anyone else. The fact that all the sources are criticizing Madsen's reporting supports "He has been described by critics as a conspiracy theorist" at best. Blogs are personal opinion and should be used carefully. The blogs may be newsblogs but Per WP:NEWSBLOG, "Where a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer (e.g. "Jane Smith wrote...")." Therefor, described by critics is an acceptable alternative to listing the names of the blogs authors. If I'm interpreting policies incorrectly please point out the actual errors instead of making claims such as It is undue WP:WEIGHT or the sources are fine.  Wayne (talk) 06:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't see how WP:FRINGE applies as the sources that call him a conspiracy theorist are discussing a subject that is not fringe. Fringe does not make normally unreliable sources reliable anyway.

Objection petition for the proposed deletion of the Page FAUSTER ATTA MENSAH
Objection to Proposed deletion of FAUSTER ATTA MENSAH Page, dated

Greetings to you!

I saw a page of deletion request concerning FAUSTER ATTA MENSAH This Person is a Public Figure and we noticed his profile is proposed for deletion. I personally work with the African Union, department of Science and technology and the Executive director of regional outreach programs. Can you help improving or giving an objection to the deletion of this page on our behalf, since we are absolutely novice and new to Wikipedia?. or is there any way you can teach us on how to give an official objection? or for someone to help us buil the page FAUSTER ATTA MENSAH?

Fauster (25 Dec, 1986)was born in Cape Coast in the central region of Ghana, he attended the ADISADEL COLLEGE which was a High School in the year 1999 and later graduated from the UCC with a Bachelor of Science degree in Mathematics 3005 and a Master of Science degree in Computer science from the CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY2011. You may equally request his academic referees telephone contacts, Lest you prefer them instead. Thanks.

With Kind regards!

Cindy Lawson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cindy Lawson (talk • contribs) 22:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This biography of a living person is unreferenced. The topic of a Wikipedia article must have received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources that show notability. Please read the general notability guideline for more information. Unless you can show this type of coverage, the article will be deleted.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  22:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Also some of the text does not match with sources. I've removed it.-- <font color="#FC3700">Auric  <font color="#0C0F00">talk  22:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

List of people with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder
- I haven't looked at this for a while, but some of the sources look pretty dubious. Thus, RS or not, simply has Will Smith saying "“I was the fun one who had trouble paying attention. Today they’d diagnose me as a child with ADHD." Parenting.com is used several times, but again it's happy to say Will Smith has ADHD on the basis of the same statement which suggests to me it isn't necessarily a reliable source. And there's which seems to be reporting 2nd hand stories. Dougweller (talk) 20:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have nominated this article for deletion, as a massive BLP violation using tabloid sources. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It feels like we go through one of these "List of people who [insert pointless categorization here]" every other month. § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I see it's just been deleted. Dougweller (talk) 14:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

jane nelson
-this article is basically a re-statement of claims made on the subject's campaign website. there are few citations and is clearly not written from a "neutral point of view" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.79.40.50 (talk • contribs)


 * After reading the above, I've done some minor work on this article. Theoldsparkle (talk) 13:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Donald Nally
Based on a report filed at WP:ANEW, I edited the article to pare down an absurdly WP:UNDUE section entitled "Racial Insensitivity Controversy at Northwestern". Strangely enough, editors were battling with an IP who kept removing the section. In other words, the editors kept restoring it. No section would be far better than the section that was there, in my view. The IP came back and removed the section again, and then a different IP filed the report at AN3.

Yet another IP has now reverted my edit. Putting aside the section header (which I had removed entirely), the so-called controversy hardly merits a blip. I haven't reverted the IP as I'd like others to look at it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * On 30 June, the section in question was added to the article along with a sentence or two in the intro. I removed it and invited the editors, particularly those who kept adding the text, to discuss the matter on the talk page. Until Bbb23 today, nobody had responded. —C.Fred (talk) 02:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ukexpat has restored the pared down version and made some other changes to the article. There will probably be additional administrative actions taken to protect the article. In the meantime, I still invite regulars here to comment on whether the article should mention this incident at all.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Gary Yourofsky‎
An editor,, claiming to be Gary Yourofsky‎ is editing the article and removing all the current sources and replacing it with unsourced text that he is claiming to 100% accurate. Could someone else please review the article please. GB fan 14:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like he's been permablocked for COI and EW. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Jim Mather
Jim Mather (Hanshi)

This is an article about a martial artist. I had not been familiar with the individual before encountering the article, but clearly the article has very serious issues, and has been flagged for years, with no improvement. As I posted on the article's talk page, the editor makes very extensive and very bold claims about its subject, elevating the individual to a legendary status with historical achievements, not just as a martial artist, but with notable accomplishments in other fields/careers. Despite the high amount of detail that is occasionally added to the article, no references have been added, save for one dead link. I have not received a response or seen any improvements attempted since I posted on the talk page, and since I left the relevant template message on the original author's talk page.

The obvious course of action, per Biographies of living persons, would be to immediately remove the contentious material. However, that would amount, in this case, to a near wiping of the article. I am not experienced enough with Wikipedia editing to know whether, or how, to proceed through the deletion process. In the article's defense, a google books search for "jim mathers karate" reveals that this individual was interviewed in a martial arts magazine on at least two occasions, and perhaps further research may support his notability, but I do not have the time or interest in this subject to research and rewrite an article on this individual. I do feel that something should be done, as this article continues to stand unaddressed.

I've tried to briefly familiarize myself with the appropriate policy regarding this type of issue, but a more experienced editor can likely resolve this far more efficiently. Please forgive me if I am approaching this improperly.AlmightyDoctor (talk) 23:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Turning it into a stub is perfectly acceptable for unreferenced bio info like this.. just get rid of it, stub the article and start over with available reliable sources per policy. — raeky  t  23:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I tried to do that, but have never done so before. Does it need a special "tag" or something? --Malerooster (talk) 02:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What you did seems probably fine, use that as a base to build a better article from reliable sources. If someone starts edit warring over the stubbing then they can be pointed here. It's not a fight they're likely to win, BLP rules are pretty clear with unsourced content. — raeky  t  02:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Frank Sanello
I've ummed and ahhed about whether to mention this article here. I hope it seems sensible. Basically the subject themselves has taken an interest in the article, and as a result of queries arriving at I have been suggesting to them to make suggestions at the article talk page instead of editing directly. I have also tried to copy suggestions and queries received on my own talkpage and the subjects talkpage to the article talkpage in order to try and consolidate and organise/focus the discussion in one place. There is another editor who has been trying to help out a bit, but I'm not sure how much time they will have to contribute.

The topic of a lot of the discussions are concerning libel cases etc for which there has been mention in the press, but perhaps not terribly accurately at times. I felt in the circumstances that the BLP experienced eye of an uninvolved editor or two might be able to contribute a fresh perspective and help progress some of the edits/decisions that have been requested in a sensitive and positive way, that my own contributions do not seem to be doing any more. --<font color="green" size="1px">nonsense <font color="BF1BE0" size="1px">ferret 03:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Orsini family
Anons are used (now several times daily) since 24 Januiary 2013 to restore an unsourced and at least partially inaccurate claim that an alleged illegitimate son, "Dr. Emmanuel Bertounesque", is the rightful heir to the Orsini family's hereditary titles, in the article on the historical noble Italian Orsini family, several members of which are living. The allegations directly refer to and concern living persons mentioned by name in the offending edits. The inaccuracies have been pointed out and explained on the talk page. Diffs are here, here, here,  here and here. It is obvious that the editor understands the nature of the BLP objection because the last-mentioned dif ends with a cite to an Italian Yahoo groups article about a lawsuit for public recognition by an alleged illegitimate daughter of soon-to-abdicate Albert II of Belgium: That cite, however, does not mention the Orsini family or its members in any way. Since most of the inserted violations and reverts of corrections are done by new anons, protecting this article from this 7 month pattern of BLP violations necessitates that the page be semi-protected. Although the problem was reported here, the BLP violations have increased: Admin intervention is needed. FactStraight (talk) 07:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC) Archived without action. Re-listing. FactStraight (talk) 13:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Mo Rocca
Are we still specifically pointing out if a subject is gay? If their sexual orientation has impacted their life in a notable way (covered by reliable sources) by all means, put that in. But the simple fact that they're gay? , -- Neil N   <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  17:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No, unless there is some kind of special aspect to their sexual orientation - for example, "the first openly gay [insert politician title here]" is common, but in this case it would be basically reducing him to being a gay comedian. It should be mentioned in the article of course, but not that way in the intro. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * How should it be mentioned in the article if there's no special aspect? Just, "He is gay"? -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  18:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Removed categories about sexual orientation for which no sources were provided. Collect (talk) 18:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That may be my fault. There was this source (don't know if it's reliable) but I reverted it when I took out the "he is gay" statement. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  18:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Perezhilton.com fails WP:RS every single time. Not even close to a legitimate strong source for such claims. Collect (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh that's right, I thought it was a MOS issue but it's actually sourced to that dude's site. Nevermind then, let's make sure it stays off until a more reliable source is provided. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In the OMG category - hundreds of gays are sourced to that site only! Collect (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Seeing as how he has stated he's gay on The Six Pack during an interview and this has been covered (including his boyfriend in 2011) I'm sure finding a legit source should not be too hard if someone does some digging. He is openly gay, it's not a BLP issue as much as a citation needed issue.Camelbinky (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Which was my original question. Are we noting this? If so, how would we add it (assuming appropriate sources)? "He is gay" seems as odd as "He is heterosexual" but others may have a different opinion. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  19:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's a better source, The Advocate: http://www.advocate.com/politics/media/2011/07/28/daily-shows-mo-rocca-comes-out  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 19:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really -- the "source" is described as from a "podcast interview".   Not a "reliable source" as far as I can tell.  Unless we now count "podcasts" as "reliable sources." Collect (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Podcasts should be reliable if they come from a reliable source. If the BBC did interview podcasts I would definitely count that as reliable. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  20:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * A reliable source reporting on an interview where the subject himself provides the information? How is this insufficient? (Without the scare quotes this time, please.  They're giving me a headache.)  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 20:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought for this type of thing we only accepted direct announcements from the subject, like a one-to-one interview from a RS where they specifically state that they are gay. § FreeRangeFrog croak 19:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

A podcast interview with the subject themselves is reliable for statements about themselves, unless we have doubt that it is actually the subject speaking. Unless a notable aspect of their fame/image, orientation should not be listed in the lede, but if there is a personal life section, their partner or other relationships can be listed as is common in hetro articles. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * A podcast or radio interview as long as it is definitely the person being interviewed is reliable. We never make blanket statements like "podcasts aren't reliable" or "newspapers are always reliable"; each and every source must be evaluated on its factual accuracy in each citation it is being used for. A source that is reliable in one instance may not be reliable for something it has stated on the next paragraph. If Mo Rocca told Perez Hilton in an interview that he is gay and we had the recording or transcript of the interview, then in that instance yes, even Perez Hilton would be a reliable source.Camelbinky (talk) 20:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Nigel Knight
I am the subject of this BLP (Nigel Knight). I wish to comply with the requirements of the Wikipedia deletion policy for BLPs as stated below and request that my BLP be deleted.

“Where the subject of a BLP has requested deletion, the deletion policy says: Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.158.186 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 9 July 2013‎


 * The policy concerned states that the views of the subject are relevant when a discussion regarding deletion is taking place: as yet there has been no such discussion - and incidentally, we'd need confirmation that you are indeed the subject of the article, though that can be dealt with later. For now, I'll look into the article further, and see how best to proceed. If you wish to communicate further, I think the best place might be the article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, a deletion discussion was closed with consensus for keep, exactly one month ago (Articles for deletion/Nigel Knight). I don't think it is feasible to re-open it after so little time. Also I unfortunately have doubts on the subject being "relatively unknown, non-public". -- <font size="2" color="seagreen">cyclopia  speak! 16:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * How the hell does one get good jobs at Oxford and Cambridge with so little attention to one's work?? (Actually, I know the answer to that question; just expressing a bit of frustration.)  Anyway: normally I would give short shrift to requests like this from article subjects -- he clearly meets PROF#1, for one thing.  But I agree that notability is borderline -- something apparent also in the earlier AfD -- and I think it would likely be deleted at a second AfD, particularly in light of WP:BIODEL (assuming validation via OTRS).  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that if a person sets out, successfully, to become a professor at Cambridge, and then chooses to write and publish a controversial book critical of Winston Churchill, then that person has thereby relinquished their right to request deletion of their biography in an encyclopedia, or at least to have that request taken seriously. Other views are welcomed.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  02:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with Cullen.-- <font size="2" color="seagreen">cyclopia  speak! 09:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * All very well. However the article as written was badly sourced, and far too much emphasis was placed on criticism of his two books. One review does not make significant coverage (or even criticism). Not to mention one of the sources used was from a fairly obscure journal. A third of the article was a completely unsourced personal section. So I have stubbed it.
 * I dont agree he passes Prof. At best he is borderline. One of the stronger sources, a telephone interview/debate with the BBC, was because both he and someone else had contrasting books about Churchill out at the same time. Its getting pretty close to one-event territory there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Every Nation


A series of edits by a WP:SPA account over the last few weeks have been devoted to the 'criticism' section, singling out specific individuals within the church. I've pared the most overtly editorial and inadequately sourced stuff, but there's still a lot left that relies upon syntheses from Youtube videos. Would appreciate further eyes to help determine what's, er, kosher, and what isn't. Thanks, 76.248.144.216 (talk) 18:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I admire your tenacity. As far as I am concerned the article should be reverted back to at least its pre-June 24th version before User:Olympic1012 started editing it.--ukexpat (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but it's nothing I--and any conscientious editor--haven't always done here, though under various nomenclatures. I agree re: the pre-June 24 version, though at this point it would be better if someone else did it. Wish I'd used a bigger blade....maybe I'll drop Drmies a line. 76.248.144.216 (talk) 00:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Left a on their talk page with pointers to the various policy pages that they need to read and follow.  If they continue to push the information in the article despite the warnings and attempts to educate them, I'd suggest taking them to the edit war noticeboard noting that it's not a 3RR violation but a WP:SPA edit warrior pushing an agenga.  <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 14:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * And it's a good message. Thank you, and Ukexpat as well for reverting the most recent business. This segment appears to have the same problem re: synthesizing materials and using original research to reach conclusions. Anyone want to pare back further, per Uk's suggestion? My wariness is predicated on not getting pulled into the appearance of edit warring. Thanks, 76.248.144.216 (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2013 (UTC)