Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive181

Michael Schindhelm
Biography is not up to date.

- Currently, he works there as professor for the subject of public space.[3] Since 2010 he is also involved in the creation of a think tank for global culture at Zurich University for the Arts. Furthermore, in 2010 he started a collaboration on global philanthropy with the German charity organization Welthungerhilfe.

- He's not a culture manager. Culture Advisor.

- To General: Cultural management => Cultural research, teaching, and consultancy.

Would like to change it. Thank you.


 * Maybe this might help: Edit requests Lectonar (talk) 12:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Jong Soo Park
A lot of potentially libelous material on that page - someone out there doesn't like the guy at all!
 * Not sure what of that was libelous, but it was certainly unsourced. And "hey I just added two paragraphs of unsourced material to this biography, you guys get the references for me, kthx" isn't going to cut it, so I reverted the last IP edit. § FreeRangeFrog croak 19:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

bebe zeva
this article contains no historical or cultural important information and should be deleted immediately
 * The subject was profiled in the NY Times and other magazines so she meets our notability guidelines. -- Neil N   talk to me  22:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Besides, she meets WP:HOTTIE The notability noticeboard is that way, or nominate it for deletion. Either way, this is the wrong venue. § FreeRangeFrog  croak 23:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Jamie Cook


Could stand another set of hands here. IP repeatedly adding unsourced controversial material. Most recent attempt cited youtube. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 23:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Left a twinkle warning on the IP's user page. It's a good idea to leave warnings in addition to edit summaries.  The IP may have no idea they are doing anything wrong.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 23:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Justin Bieber
We have a familiar situation at where some tabloid allegations are being edit-warred into the article. Any assistance would be appreciated. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  00:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've fully protected the article for 24 hours. It is best if contentious material is first discussed on the talk page to see if there is consensus to add it. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 00:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you Paul. I fully agree. I have opened a discussion on the article talk as well. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  01:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Preference for official portraits?
Does Wikipedia give preference to official portraits and images provided or published by the subject of the biography? Please see on Talk:Narendra Modi regarding infobox image(s). See also: WP:AUTOPROB. — Nearly Headless Nick   {c}  17:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it has ever been discussed and we may need a guideline on it. Many editors like to include the newest image in the infobox. Many like to include ones from the peak of their career and much younger. It seems the younger images rarely get into the infoboxes until after the subject is dead though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think that we should express any preference for or objection to an "official" portrait. If properly licensed, such portraits may well be among the best available. If we have several images to choose from, then the one that best shows the subject at "the peak of their career", quoting Canoe1967, should be the lead image in the article, in my opinion.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  02:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I wonder if we should start an RfC somewhere about the time frame of lead images and possibly a guideline adjust. Thoughts?--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Juan Vasquez (drug lord)
Either the article is about 2 people, or about someone with no sources. Something very wrong. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Tagged for speedy as a hoax PRODed instead. It seems the sources used refer to someone else; in Latin America people do use their mother's maiden name, but the two are not interchangeable, so Juan Vasquez is not the same thing as Juan Ochoa Vasquez. In any case, it did not qualify for speedy. § FreeRangeFrog croak 05:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Trevor Hemmings


IP insists on inserting the name of the subject's spouse and number of children, which was reported to OTRS as being incorrect and is unsourced anyway. § FreeRangeFrog croak 16:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have removed a whole heap of unreferenced information, as well as one source which violated WP:BLPPRIMARY. I've also tagged for more sources and added to my watchlist. GiantSnowman 16:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! § FreeRangeFrog croak 17:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have warned the IP and account who are re-adding the information, have protected the article, and will block if necessary. BLP policy is very clear here, but further eyes/input welcome, as ever. GiantSnowman 11:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like the IP reverting the pruning is the same one that objected to the unsourced personal bits. Hoisted by one's own petard and so on. § FreeRangeFrog croak 15:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Anil k khandelwal
A fine example of a promotional article that probably needs toning down a notch.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Moved, tagged, edited (needs more).--ukexpat (talk) 16:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Judith Collins
The Judith Collins article has been receiving a lot of attention lately in NZ including so it may be useful for more eyes. Nil Einne (talk) 08:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I told them months ago that allowing the lady's staff to edit her article (under 'jc press sec' or any name) was a Really Bad Idea. But what do I know, I'm just an amphibian. § FreeRangeFrog croak 16:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Richard Barber
This article about myself is headed by a warning that it lacks sufficient verification and requesting additional sources. I can't see anything more that can be documented. Please advise what is missing so that the warning can be cleared. Rwbarberuk (talk) 15:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Richard Barber
 * Third party sources to show what the article claims. Three sources over three books doesn't actually show any of the other details in the article. Please be aware of Conflict of Interest when it comes to writing an autobiography which is strongly discouraged. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * True, there aren’t very many secondary sources currently quoted in the article, but a quick check indicates that this could easily be remedied. I have found reviews of Barber’s better-known books in diverse secondary sources, both scholarly and popular. As time allows, I will add a few of these to that article. However, the three sources that are cited are actually pretty substantial—NY Times, The New Republic, the Guardian--and I would think they could be sufficient on their own. The Guardian review cited is by an established historian and author in his own right.


 * The article could use a bit of reworking to make it a little more clear at the outset why the subject is notable, IMHO. EMP (talk 22:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

linda reade
I don't believe that the report addresses enough detail to the outrages of Linda Reade's extraordinarily controversial participation in the trial despite working together with the prosecutors on the raid which would strongly suggest an invested interest which should have disqualified her. Furthermore, 6 former attorney generals commented that her sentence was out of proportion to the crime committed which was essentially wilfull misreporting of income to a bank without intent to commit harm. Also, she presided over the first appeal, and there was considerable evidence that she was involved in the decision of the second appeal. Hundreds of thousands of people signed a petition requesting further review of this case including several dozen congressmen.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.251.202.186 (talk) 19:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Unsourced and unsupported arguments intended to put forward a particular point of view have no place in Wikipedia. If you think the article can be improved by the inclusion of verifiable material from reliable sources which results in a balanced, fair accounting of a person's life, you are welcome to work on improving the article. Simply repeating accusations of bias and corruption without any significant evidence will be reverted. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Lance Hohaia
In the refernce section Lance's middle name is spelt incorrectly it should be KORO (I am his sister). The link does not work so I don't know how to edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulaKiri (talk • contribs) 20:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, this site confirms it is spelt as 'Kovo' not 'Koro' - could you possibly e-mail through evidence of the correct spelling to WP:VRT and we will get it changed ASAP? GiantSnowman 21:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Can we just remove the middle name for now? It doesn't add to the readers grasp and it may be a typo at the only source.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Techno Viking
+ File:Technoviking.jpg 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. Several edits on the article and talk page should be hidden, for ex., , , , , !!, , , , ... and the whole article between and. (Repost as the versions are still all visible and the image has been inserted again although there is no IfD-solution yet.) --Trofobi (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Gary Catona
Gary Catona Article is 100% ad copy for him and his voice classes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.55.80 (talk) 14:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This bio should probably be stubbed and rewritten. --Malerooster (talk) 02:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy deleted as entirely promotional (e.g., "Catona’s voice building system represents a veritable revolution in vocal training – a radical break with the typical ways the human voice is both understood and treated."). Can be userfied if somebody unaffiliated with the subject wants to write a neutral article.  Sandstein   07:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Dakota Brant
I don't think this article has any place on wikipedia. I believe this falls under criteria G11 for speedy deletion. Most of the events described in the article have little to do with Dakota Brant herself. I mean are there entries for every student journalist on wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.101.148.119 (talk) 22:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The place to make these arguments is WP:AFD where you can nominate the article for deletion if you think it fails WP:BIO.  Sandstein   07:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Gabriel Calzada Alvarez
This suitability of this article is dubious. Given that most of the length is criticism of a single article, serious balance issues are present even if this does not rise to the level of WP:ATTACK. The independent notability of the subject or the notability of the controversy (for BLP1E) are not clear. Advice on the appropriate disposition of this article is requested.Novangelis (talk) 22:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You should first try removing the "Criticism of his 2009 study" section, or editing it, because it does seem to have balance issues. If you believe that the subject is not notable, you can try WP:AFD.  Sandstein   07:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

James Frenkel
In this article, an IP editor removed a mention of the subject leaving his company because of allegations of sexual harassment. The real-life context will be readily apparent from a Google search or from (though that looks like a blog and thus not referenceable in mainspace). The reason given for the removal of the information, "not to a primary source", is a bit puzzling because per WP:V, we prefer reliable secondary sources over primary ones. But are there serious concerns that the one source cited is inadequate as a reference for WP:BLP purposes?  Sandstein  07:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Wayne Rooney
The article says that he is the third most payed footballer, the source is a Goal.com article from 2011, please revise this information as i believe this information is now outdated, Rooney is not third anymore — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.160.4 (talk) 09:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Julie Larson-Green

 * New director of Microsoft Xbox division has been subjected to sexist crap because she's a mere girl (but hot), even those she's a veteran at MS and a self-taught programmer since before some of these boys were born. Now various editors are trying to remove a link from The Atlantic talking about this, without providing any evidence that the article is wrong. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  19:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Chris Bascombe
An editor is repeatedly reintroducing into the article. While possibly true, it is sourced to the autobiography of one of the participants who was allegedly the target of wrongdoing, and is controversial. This isn't supported by other sources as far as I can tell, and even if notable the accusations are notable the fact most probably belong in Gerard Houllier, as its not clear that they would merit inclusion in this (short) biography. What's the next step for getting this resolved? L Faraone  21:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed
No verifiability or citations for wealth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.187.102 (talk) 16:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There is or was no article of that name.  Sandstein   07:35, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Closest article is Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed al Nahyan.-- Auric    talk  15:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Articles on Dayalbagh and the Dayalbagh Educational Institute
In March of this year, a PhD student was apparently murdered in the premises of the Dayalbagh Educational Institute, and subsequently the grandson of the DEI chairman has been arrested and charged with the murder. While it might possibly seem reasonable to cover this story briefly in at least one of these articles, I have just had to remove a large section covering the story from both articles. The sourcing was poor - including some 'citing' of scanned documents apparently uploaded by a contributor (clearly not WP:RS, and needing translation even if properly sourced), and the section made multiple claims regarding some sort of cover-up, none of which seemed to be verifiable. Clearly we will need to investigate proper sourcing, but can I ask BLPN regulars to lend a hand in deciding what, if any, coverage is appropriate regarding the story in the articles, and to help with ensuring that such coverage complies with policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:09, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I am the contributor in question. The content is true and can be verified by users having knowledge of Hindi at eArchives of the Agra edition of Amar Ujala papers published from dates 16th March to 30th April at http://earchive.amarujala.com/. Also, some of the content of the section can be verified at http://www.indianexpress.com/news/laboratory-of-murder-clues/1107266/0.

I request fellow editors to suggest better ways to source content published in print newspapers. The content is available on the web but is protected behind a login screen. AgraNewsObserver (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Rape victim identification at 2012 Delhi gang rape case
Editor User:TransVannian is rather pointedly trying to highlight the victim's name in the 2012 Delhi gang rape case at the article and on the article talk. The victim has been identified in some reliable press accounts at the direct request of her father; however, most reliable sources (both Indian and international) continue to use pseudonyms. I have mixed feelings myself as to whether the victim's name should be included here, but I thought I should alert this board to the issue to get the thoughts of some uninvolved experienced editors. I'm on semi-Wikibreak and can't really monitor the situation. Thanks all, -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Why should we not show her name when the name what I posted is real according to reliable sources and her father has given permission? Just because some sources do not include her name doesn't mean that we too cannot include her name. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a news outlet. Any content or info that is verifable can be included on.Wikipedia even the controversial ones. It seems like some users are trying to enforce their point of view in this topic which cannot be allowed. It is a blatant violation of Wikipedia policies. TransVannian (talk) 04:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Ben Coleman (American football)


Reported to OTRS. Single paragraph about past misdeeds which have been cleared up, etc. Low-intensity revert war between the subject or people associated with him and some IPs. Removed as WP:UNDUE. § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Sangram Singh
The article doesn't have any references and it just speaks about how great this person is without any verifiable references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anirudha2000 2000 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added a few sources, but had to remove most of the info. Hopefully someone with more sports knowledge can provide sources for the claims of winning sporting titles...but I've removed them until they can be verified. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Sayyaparaju venkata gopala krishnam raju
There is no valid reference for this stub. The only reference is another wikipdia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.25.177.98 (talk) 05:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Tagged it for deletion as unsourced biography. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Jay Jopling
The recent edits to Jay Jopling may or may not be improvements factually, but the removal of references is going to be trouble. Reverted just now. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Sandra Vergara
User:SamerVergara 21 has been repeatedly updating the page for Sandra Vergara, attempting to add dates of birth. My concern with these repeated edits are:
 * 1) The edits are unsourced, and in conflict with her date of birth as published in the media (although media reports are quite inconsistent).
 * 2) The edits are themselves inconsistent; the editor has used, , and  as years of birth and has stated her age to be  (implying a year of 1979) while simultaneously explicitly providing the year 1976 in the same edit.
 * 3) The editor claims to be the subject's son, introducing an obvious wp:conflict of interest.
 * 4) The editor does not respond to messages on his talk page nor on the article's. (I am not sure he even understands that these pages are there; he also manually re-enters information rather than reverting which suggests inexperience.)

I am not trying to get into a debate about the Sandra Vergara's true date of birth; I merely do not think it is appropriate for her son to be inserting unsourced dates into his mother's article, especially given the fact that it conflicts with published sources. (The published sources are also all over the place year-wise, btw.) It seems that the subject does not want her true date of birth to be public knowledge and wp:blp requires that we respect this (implied) wish. In the past, we have not knowingly published inaccurate dates of birth for the sake of an actor's vanity but we have omitted dates of birth from an actor's page if the year is contested, all per wp:blp.

The editor periodically returns to editing his mom's page. It is almost the only page he has ever edited in the article space (with

exception). I would like to propose a subject-ban on this editor.

Thanks, Dusty |&#x1f4ac;|You can help! 14:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know that this merits a topic ban (and you'd have to take that to WP:ANI anyway), but your approach is correct - lacking a reliable secondary source that can establish a birth date, we default to not having one at all. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Varg Vikernes
Just an heads up. Subject is currently in the news due to an arrest. There is, as expected, a spike of activity on the page, and news sources seem to have a penchant for making weak links between the (certainly controversial) subject and Anders Behring Breivik. So far nothing really concerning as far as I can see, apart from a clear violation I reverted, but given the situation I'd like some experienced people to watchlist it. Thanks. -- cyclopia  speak!  14:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Judge Ito


This article is about the judge who is best known for presiding over the O.J. Simpson murder trial. Most of this article is unsourced and appears to be in violation of BLP. I would remove the material but there be little left of the article. Perhaps someone familiar with the subject could look at it. TFD (talk) 17:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Removed the entire section about the trial, as it was weasely, POV and unsourced. There's a lot of information on the OJ Simpson page itself, so that should be enough unless someone wants to re-add the section in a more proper manner. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Luca Parmitano
From the Education section: "Parmitano graduated from the Liceo Scientifico Statale `Galileo Galilei´ in Catania, Italy, in 1995. Parmitano spent a year (1963) as an exchange student in USA with AFS Intercultural Programs."

Year 1963 is a typo, as Luca Parmitano was born in 1976. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.236.218.45 (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Rick Still and Ufo Phil
Our article on says he is "best known as the creator of UFO Phil - in both cases the source is IMDB which of course we cannot use as a source. The closest I can get to a source is  which only suggests that it is possible. The problem exists at both articles. I'm not sure that without this suggestion that they might be the same that Rick Still is even notable. Looks like quite a bit of coi also at Ufo Phil, IPs from LA and a new editor named - Ufo Phil. Dougweller (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's Rick Still's home page. Dougweller (talk) 13:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Babita Sharma
The subject has contacted OTRS about the repeated addition to the article of an unsourced DoB. I have warned the most prolific reverter not to add it back without a reliable source, per BLP. More eyes please. Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 15:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I love the edit summaries in that one - "I don't have to provide a source". § FreeRangeFrog croak 05:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Ravens Wood School


Several accounts are using the article to vent on a teacher arrested for sex crimes with minors, adding some sourced and some unsourced content. This involves non-notables, and I've suggested this be discussed at the talk page, to no avail. 76.248.144.216 (talk) 19:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I have reverted it again and directed the user here.--ukexpat (talk) 20:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Isn't the first time we have seen this in school articles. I would keep this out unless the person/teacher is highly notable and it is or becomes world news, ect. --Malerooster (talk) 23:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Article now semi-protected.--ukexpat (talk) 01:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

aL sHARPTON
There is a absolutely no evidence that Al Sharpton should have the title of Rev. He attended no seminary, etc. To call him a Rev. is a disservice to those who spent years in a seminary and have been called by God to service their congregations with the church's peace and love message. He is a publicity seeker and in no way represent sane or rational discussion of race in this country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.115.231 (talk) 23:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The article's talk page is ---> that way.--ukexpat (talk) 01:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Pope Francis
Has categories all to himself - including "Jesuit Popes" and "Argentine Popes." Are they really of any conceivable value to readers? Collect (talk) 11:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * We should keep Category:Argentine popes as it fits into the structure of Category:Popes by nationality, and the geography of papal selections is an often remarked upon issue. Category:Jesuit popes strikes me personally as pretty useless, but some might make the same argument I just made and apply it to Category:Popes by religious order. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 14:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

John Acquaviva
Not an urgent request, however I'm hoping an interested editor will be willing to give this BLP a good NPOV scrub. I also have concerns regarding copyright issues related to material lifted from his official bio. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ug. Lots of puff. Sounds like a copyvio to me, but I didn't check.  Just removed some POV, but there's a lot more to be had if anyone is bored and looking for something to do.  Ditch &#8733;  00:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Question about Gateways (organization)
I just noticed that the advertising tag on had been removed and took a look at the article for the first time in a while. I've brought it here because most of it is really made up of 3 BLP 'articles', each of which dwarfs the information on the organisation itself. This seems inappropriate but I'm not sure what, if anything, should be done about it. Maybe the 3 biographies need to be turned into articles? Dougweller (talk) 08:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the individuals meet our notability standards, as does the organization. There have been AFD's on the individuals, as can be seen on the article's Talk page, but in my opinion freestanding articles on the individuals are warranted. Bus stop (talk) 10:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Although it may seem to be eclipsed by the world at large, within the field, so to speak, of Orthodox Judaism, Gateways is a notable entity, as are the 3 rabbis mentioned. Freestanding articles of the rabbis were in existence but were merged because it was felt by consensus that their combined notability within the organization substantiated a presence on Wikipedia, while each alone did not.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 21:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. Dougweller (talk) 20:59, 19 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. Archived by bot, re-listed for still needed admin action. FactStraight (talk) 16:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Protected for 3 months which can be extended if this continues. Dougweller (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

John Sankey (drummer)
The chief problem with the John Sankey (drummer) article is its tone: self-serving, overly positive and promotional. It reads like a media release, perhaps written by the subject, and at times like a fanzine article (e.g. 'needless to say Sankey fired Carpenter from the band immediately'). Further, the article fails entirely to meet the verifiability standard, due to the inclusion of numerous unsourced quotes and unreferenced mentions of awards, praise and renown. There is too much information about the career of the band Devolved (band), which has its own article. A minor issue is idiosyncratic formatting of the article: the image of the subject is large and located top and centre of the page, instead of being thumbnailed and placed on one margin, and the subject's name has been formatted in bold type throughout the text. Last, the links at the bottom of the page have been headed as 'References' but they are actually 'External links'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pondrumm (talk • contribs) 04:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, that article made my eyes bleed. Tagged for multiple issues (formatting, citations, etc) but I'll leave it for others to determine if he meets notability. I'd wager 75% or more of this article can be trimmed. Echoedmyron (talk) 19:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It needs to be blown up and started again - tagged for G11 speedy.--ukexpat (talk) 19:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I found a workable stub in the article history. If notability is a concern then PROD and AfD are certainly options.--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Good call -- you have more patience than I do!--ukexpat (talk) 13:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Marcial Losada
Article looks like it was written by himself. Interesting, in view of recent debunking by Sokal http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2013/07/16/death-of-a-theory Richard Gill (talk) 19:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Depuffed. Removed some detail as being too negative.  Collect (talk) 12:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Dale Berra


The user is presenting himself as Dale Berra. He has first attempted to delete sourced material from the article about a drug indictment (most recent diff) and lately has been trying to add material claiming sobriety for the last 20 years (diff) using only primary, non-published sources. —C.Fred (talk) 04:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not care who he is - the source was ill-used for the claims made in a BLP, and is now corrected. Collect (talk) 12:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Andrew Holden, sociologist
I am raising an issue that has been raised at WP:ANI. My complaint has been swamped there with a hijacking of the thread by irrelevant material that needs to be raised elsewhere.

User:Corjay has made multiple attacks at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses on Andrew Holden, a published and widely-cited English sociologist, arising from objections that Corjay (a self-identified Jehovah's Witness) has with a statement about the religion sourced to Holden.

Corjay has claimed Holden: Corjay has brushed off my warning about personal attacks. WP:BLP covers comments on talk pages. Holden is a reputable academic and such personal attacks on that talk page by a defiant and unrepentant editor deserve to be sanctioned. BlackCab (talk) 11:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Is not objective, not a researcher, opposed to Jehovah's Witnesses and a poison-pen writer;
 * Can not be taken seriously by other academics;
 * Does nothing as an academic but obsess over Jehovah's Witnesses and has a clear bias against the religion; took part in a study initiative involving Muslims only because he was paid to, but would rather have attacked JWs;;
 * Has a vendetta against JWs;
 * Is an outright opposer of JWs; and
 * Is an obsessed ex-JW (for which there is not a shred of evidence).


 * This is in direct conflict with an interview given by Holden himself which explains his views []. This is just a few of the quotes from it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 11:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Given that this is being discussed at ANI, I can't see the point in splitting the discussion. BlackCab, if you want sanctions to be imposed against Corjay, ask at ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I did. That part of the conversation has been lost amid the cacophony of rehashed arguments that belong elsewhere. And I know no admin is going to have the patience to trawl through all that garbage again. BlackCab (talk) 12:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

John Sinrud
Article violates wikipedia guidlines. In addition to being difficult to read, the content is poorly sourced and editorialized. In addition, there seems to be a debate taking place on the page that is more suitable for the Talk Page. Furthermore, I'm not sure that this article is noteworthy enough to merit its own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.78.122 (talk • contribs)
 * I reverted to a BLP compliant version from the history and will keep an eye on it.--Jezebel's Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 00:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Nadim Kobeissi
After a recent controversy, this article has completely lost its neutrality. Please check the edit history and the talk page for the discussion and circumstances regarding this complaint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.241.213.18 (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure what we can do about this, other than promote the 'Controversies' section up to the Activism one. I mean if that's all he's basically notable for, but it looks like it went up for AFD and kept as notable. You'll need to be more specific as to what parts you find to be non-neutral. § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Grover Norquist


"primary architect of the decline of The United States"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.126.109 (talk) 08:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like the Correctly pointed out Grover Norquist's inevitable legacy edit was reverted. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Andy Burnham
The Daily Mail is in a lather over this article today. I explained on the talk page what the problem was, and would appreciate some input from non-involved editors.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 12:53, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We need a wider discussion of the role of editing from Parliamentary IP addresses. They are frequently used to score partisan points. I can appreciate their occasional BLP concern though. Why have they not been subject to the levels of engagement that public relations companies have? Gareth E Kegg (talk) 17:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

S. P. Balasubrahmanyam
This article is subject to a lot of additions of gushing fan cruft. Usually, it is done by IPs, but the latest offender is an auto-confirmed account, although it's possible that some of the IPs preceding the registered account adding the same material are the same person. I've warned the editor, but it doesn't seem to do any good. They're one of those editors who never talk. They just keep plugging away like no one else exists but them. They have added a large section to the article charmingly entitled "Love for Karnataka and Kannadigas" with some choice tidbits like: In addition to that (and more), there are long quotes from the subject about how he feels. --Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * He has sung thousands of songs in Kannada for all the stars of the industry, mainly for Super Star Dr.Vishnuvardhan.
 * In a felicitation function to the popular and noted singers of South India that happened in Chowdiah Memorial Hall ...
 * their very first song 'Haavina Dwesha Hanneradu Varusha' composed by Vijaya Bhaskar and written by Vijaya Narasimha was a huge hit and is still remembered

Removed blatant puff lists of everything he has ever done with anyone -- I suggest the linked list of "awards" may also be a tad down-filled Collect (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You removed quite a bit, but the one thing you didn't remove is the section I was specifically complaining about? Was that an oversight? If not, why?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Collect, please be very cautious about what you are removing. Filmographies are not "puffs". You could even be blocked for WP:BLANKING if this discussion is not taken into consideration. I suggest you keep out of this if you are unaware of how film personality's articles are to be. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 15:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Please be aware that your claim of "BLANKING" is inapt here, and that as you appear to be the one violating policies, it is far more likely that you would be blocked. Now listen to what others say before Streisand is invoked. Collect (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay! So lets listen why you have removed the filmography section. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 15:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There was an existing section on his film work. Wikipedia does not automatically have extensive filmographies of every film a person has ever worked on in their BLPs.  Even famous actors on Wikipedia generally do not get that treatment, so a voice-over worker is likely to be less notable for the extensive filmography.  Listing everything a person has ever done is "puff" in my opinion, and in the opinion of others here.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Some featured articles that have filmography sections: Phil Hartman, Ethan Hawke, Jake Gyllenhaal, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Noël Coward, Steve Dodd, Kirsten Dunst, Jay Chou, David Bowie, Mariah Carey, Eric Bana, Reese Witherspoon. And i also know of some FAs which do not include such lists and some which direct you to a totally different page. The main point is that filmography section is not the main concern here which Bbb23 is notifying about. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 16:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest that such is not a requirement (in fact, is rare for anyone other than a primary star for films), and for a voice-over person - it is simply not found. Collect (talk) 16:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm! Anyways... Happy editing! §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 17:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Bbb23, most of the statements do look like praises and fan cruft. But some of it is fact and can be well sources. For example SPB has sung over 40,000 songs. I would request that blind blanking of article shouldn't be done. Maybe someone who is regular on it should clean it. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 15:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Taking a go. EBY (talk) 16:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Dulee Johnson
Would someone please take a look at the message I have posted at this article's talk page following an e-mail from the subject at OTRS? Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I would just trim anything that is non-English sourced and contentious. If English sources don't see it as notable then en:wp shouldn't either.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Sources don't have to be in English to demonstrate the notability of a subject.--ukexpat (talk) 14:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Very true. EN:WP is not just about what is notable in English. There are WP:RS in every language, just need an editor who can help establish same. EBY (talk) 16:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Ram Revilla
Hi, I'm currently expanding the article Ram Revilla. As suggested by User:DGG that I should make a request here before editing the article to prevent me from making any more mistakes that would violate the BLP policies. I have read the policies and somewhat edited it to my best. I have now my draft, but I am warned that if I post anything I'd be blocked. So, where do I show it for your approval? Thanks a lot. By the way, I was originally creating another article for the same person Ram Revilla Murder Case but now, as suggested I will just expand it on the main article. Fearjesus (talk) 08:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC) Also, as said on the policies that unconvicted or suspects's name must not be included, so I only made it as their initials. But I also see an exemption about putting names if they are publicizednow in the news over and over again. Fearjesus (talk) 08:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I tried my best to edit my article to a much better that is complacent with the BLP policies. I will now post it on the Ram Revilla page. Please review. Thank you! And please, do not block me. I do not see any reasons for it to be happening now. Fearjesus (talk) 13:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Very strange BLP issue...
That being, I don't know who the heck the guy is! Marc Biedermann is the title of the article. The AllMusic entry used as its only source says he's "Mike" Biedermann. A Google search gives two non-WP-related hits, one where he's listed as "Marc" and the other as "Mark." He's borderline notable due to tour/session associations with other acts, so article deletion isn't likely, but it's hard to do anything with the article when the name can't be searched for easily. MSJapan (talk) 20:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what is strange here. You say the article does have a reference and that he is somewhat notable and the article is unlikely to be deleted, but you are concerned because you do not know who the guy is and you only find a few items in a Google search. I have to admit I don't see the issue here.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In short, I can verify work (there's only one Biedermann in the band) but I can't verify the subject's first name - it's either Mike, Marc, or Mark. MSJapan (talk) 23:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * His name does appear to be Marc . He's not massively notable, though.  He's been a full-time member of one minorly notable band, played on one album for a similarly minorly notable band, and played on one track for a very notable band. To pass WP:MUSBIO#6, you'd have to assume him to have been "a member" of the 2nd band as opposed to a session musician.  Given the lack of sources, it's an edge case. Black Kite (talk) 00:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Guys named Marc (maybe) are allowed to use varying stage names such as "Mike" or "Mark", and doing so has no impact on their borderline notability. Energy devoted to analyzing stage names would be more useful if devoted to removing promotional puffery from the biography.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  02:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Mehmet Oz
An IP editor ~ 86.19.115.227 ~ is repeatedly adding soapboxing commentary on an alleged controversy concerning Mehmet Oz's ("Dr. Oz") views on circumcision. The IP's original edits accused Oz's views as "ludicrous" (which they may be but that isn't for the IP to tell us). I have unsuccessively tried to indicate to the IP why these edits aren't acceptable. The IP instead responds with false accusations of "vandalism" in edit summaries and with rants and threats on the article's discussion page. Apart from the edits being both soapboxing and commentary no citations have been provided that Oz's views on circumcision has attracted any controversy. I will appreciate other editors and administrators having a look at the IP's edits and monitoring the page for further BLP violations. Afterwriting (talk) 04:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Definitely inappropriate. The subject's views on the matter could be included, but not that way. I note the IP has already been blocked once for soapboxing, so I'll also be watching the article. § FreeRangeFrog croak 05:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Evie Sands
I know Evie Sands personally, and she assures me that she was NOT born in 1946, and her birthday IS July 18. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.105.109.203 (talk) 06:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've removed the birth date until a good reference can be found. My cursory search did not turn up anything. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  06:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Use of primary sources making inflammatory claims
Article: Li Hongzhi

Paragraph in question:
 * ''On 29 July 1999, after Falun Gong was banned, the Chinese government leveled a series of charges against Li, including the charge of "disturbing public order," and issued a wanted circular for his arrest.   At that time, Li Hongzhi was living in the United States. The Chinese government's request to Interpol for his arrest was rejected on the grounds that the request was a matter "of a political or religious character" and lacked information on any "ordinary law crime he would have committed"

Issue: Two editors (one of whom is now topic banned) have repeatedly added citations in this paragraph to Chinese government sources (second and third citations, from the Chinese embassy and Xinhua, respectively). I am concerned that this violates the spirit and letter of the BLP policy, as these sources contain inflammatory and unfounded allegations about a living person. Note that I am not disputing the text, but merely the inclusion of these two supplementary, primary source citations. My concerns are as follows:


 * The Chinese government is engaged in a well-documented campaign of misinformation and propaganda against Li Hongzhi (similar to their treatment of the Dalai Lama)
 * The Chinese government sources cited are primary sources, and the BLP policy counsels extreme caution in the use of primary sources
 * The government sources make unfounded and inflammatory statements, including the claim that Li has "caused deaths." This is a serious allegation.
 * The sources are completely unnecessary, since there is already a reliable, secondary source that presents this issue in a fairly balanced way.

One of the opposing editors noted that "the Chinese government is a reliable source for the position of the Chinese government on issues of relevance to the Chinese government." I agree. However, these sources are not merely stating the position of the Chinese government; they are making derogatory and extraordinary statements about a third party, which is why there's a concern. I would appreciate community input in this matter. The Blue Canoe  18:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Could you clarify which sources are problematic? The article seems to cite china-embassy.org for the charges, and the BBC for essentially the same thing. Are you objecting to either, or both? And why is this problematic? The article states that charges have been made, not that there is any basis to them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yep, you've got it right: it's the Chinese embassy source and the Xinhua article (via BBC World Monitoring). BBC's World Monitoring service supplies verbatim translations of articles from around the world, and in this case it's from Xinhua News Agency, the official mouthpiece of the Chinese Communist Party. Again, I have no problem with the text--it's balanced and supported by a good secondary source. My question stems from the inclusion of the two additional links to primary sources that make inflammatory and unfounded claims about a living person (specifically the assertion that Li is responsible for "causing deaths"). It's similar to how we wouldn't include external links to pages making libelous statements about living persons: even if those claims don't appear in the text of the article, linking out to them is still problematic. Does that clarify the issue?  The Blue Canoe  19:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * There is nothing libellous about reporting that someone has been charged with something. Even if we think the charges are a pile of poop. There doesn't seem to be any reason to doubt that the Chinese authorities have made the charges, and I can't see any obvious reason to avoid telling our readers what the charges are. I think we should give our readers sufficient credit to allow to decide for themselves whether there is any basis to them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I concur with Andy. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority
Since the original charges agains Assange were issues, there has been a long running debate on how to characterize the charges. Some editors have suggested that the charges should be called "rape", while others have suggested more general terms like "sexual assault". Complicating the issue is the fact that the exact charges are legal in nature and roughly translate to something like "rape lesser degree", for which there is no congruent term in the English language. The general nature of the charge appears to be a category of sexual assault which is somewhere between "date rape" and "sexual harassment", though the precise definition is a bit nebulous due to translation issues, both legal and language.

This topic has been discussed several times on both the case page, and Assange's page:,. Similarly, from Julian Assange,, , , , , , ,.

The general consensus has been to prefer high quality secondary sources when referring to the charges. Currently an editor is attempting to insert descriptions based on this source:, which is a foreign language primary source from the prosecution. Using this source seems to run afoul of WP:BLPSOURCES, WP:GRAPEVINE, WP:BLPCRIME, and WP:CRIME. Higher quality sources like in-depth reporting from large news outlets are safer sources for supporting controversial content like the exact nature of the charges.

Any guidance here would be appreciated. aprock (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Can any editors more experienced with WP:BLP comment on this issue? 17:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * To add, I'm the user in question, though more accurately I'm attempting to revert information that was removed by Aprock. I have presented three BBC articles, as well as two court documents to go along with one of the original sources. These are all high quality sources, yet the information (what the warrant actually details) is continuously being removed by Aprock, despite the page being about said warrant and the high quality reliable sources. As we've now come to a stalemate it would be best if there were further comments on this situation, as we can't resolve it among each other. Pluvia (talk) 20:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * This has always been problematic, not only due to language difficulties, but due to the way the Swedish legal system works. Strictly speaking, Assange hasn't as yet been formally charged with anything - such charges come relatively late in the legal process, as I understand it. Added to that is the difficulty of accurately translating the alleged offences: våldtäkt, olaga tvång and sexuellt ofredande. Certainly English-language media sources have referred to 'rape' as being amongst the alleged offences (e.g. the BBC: "Mr Assange is wanted for questioning in Sweden regarding rape and sexual assault allegations", and The Guardian: "[Assange] has been accused of sexual assault and rape." ). While I agree that attempting to translate court documents from Swedish is problematic on several levels, I do wonder if the current article could be seen as understating the serious nature of the allegations. If mainstream sources refer to allegations of "rape and sexual assault", it really isn't up to us to second-guess them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I would have to agree with AndyTheGrump I cant see any reason not to use wording from a reliable source like the BBC. It is not our job to guess or translate original documents but to report the reliable sources. MilborneOne (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The cited BBC source is not the only one that has described the charges. Actually, an other BBC included how the alleged crime was downgraded from "rape of the normal degree" to rape of a lesser degree following discussions with Sweden's Court of Appeal (source). In the older discussion on the article talk page, I myself pointed out a UK court document, which translated the charges as lesser degree rape. And if we just go and look, more news articles report the same. We got a few huffingtonpost articles, one that specifically addressing the issue under the heading of: How Rape Is Defined Around The World: Todd Akin's Comment, Julian Assange's Case Raise Questions Over Definition. Google gives more sources, such as this LA times opinion article or this reuters article. The independent calls it "minor rape", but I would call that a slight variation of rape of lesser degree. In the end, given that the Swedish text do translated into rape lesser degree, why should we not use it when it also is reported as such by several reliable sources? Its about a living person. so don't we have a responsibility to "get it right"? Belorn (talk) 14:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Kuldip Singh Kular

 * related edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kuldip_Singh_Kular&diff=565219969&oldid=564844916
 * location of previous discussion: User talk:EncyclopediaUpdaticus

Gsingh (talk) 01:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe the current version of the article violates WP:BLPCRIME. For the following reasons:
 * The person in the article is relatively unknown, he is a former provincial MLA. A google search under his name "Kuldip Singh Kular" only has 1,750 results.
 * There was a full acquittal due to insufficient evidence, and he was immediately reappointed to his post after this.
 * For these reasons I believe that there is no reason to include the charges as it had no effect on his career, inclusion seems to imply that he was guilty of some crime he never committed.
 * Irrespective of Google hits the person receives, the fact of his being charged and later acquitted can go in the article irrespective of how big/small the issue was in media. If the issue was well documented and if the person is actually known for this incident only, it can go in lead also. If not, it should be kept out of lead but be retained in the article. When a biography is written, we will have to mention why he was removed from his post for a certain period and then the reason for it would obviously be needed. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 06:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not what BLPCRIME says. If he's relatively unknown, we are permitted to, and often should, leave out the information that he was accused of committing a crime.  Google hits are relevant to whether he is "relatively unknown".
 * And if the person is actually known for this incident only, then WP:BLP1E applies and we should not have an article on him at all. Ken Arromdee (talk) 14:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * that's exactly what I was trying to say. The person is a provincial member of parliament, and I believe he is relatively unknown in the realm of Wikipedia, in his own province, nationally and internationally as he was simply a back-bencher politician. Gsingh (talk) 04:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Dave Hilton, Jr.
Some days ago I came across this article while monitoring recent changes. I removed a paragraph of unsupported criminal allegations. My removal was undone today, with two footnotes added -- one an invalid URL and one to an aggregator which backs up almost none of the paragraph in question. Upon looking more closely, the sources adequately back up such a small part of the article as a whole that it seemed worth bringing it to the noticeboard. I should say, however, that I had absolutely no idea who Dave Hilton Jr. is and can't make a judgment as to whether the article is actually true -- just that as it stands the sources don't back it up.
 * Particularly damaging is the first sentence of the second paragraph, the end of which is tagged with cn. --Rhododendrites (talk) 02:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Improved the second paragraph citing; but the last one seems not only uncited, but way off topic. Removing. --GRuban (talk) 13:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Need some further input on an article
Hi all,

The subject of the article (R.A. the Rugged Man) has been in touch with the OTRS response team (ticket 2013070710000468 for those with OTRS access). He has claimed that among other issues, there are two significant inaccuracies in his article - that the lede section has his name as "Richard Andrew Thorburn" where "Richard Andrew" is his middle name, and his first name is not public knowledge, but due to how article is written, it looks as if Richard is his surname. He addressed this in a radio interview at 31:45 that the information is incorrect (along with his DOB being incorrect, and this too being non-public info). I am thinking we should consider changing the lede section to either omit the real name as the first name is not known, or detail in the lede that the names we have don't include first names (but that doesn't make much sense to me). In regards to the DOB, he is contesting that the year is incorrect, however in the article a passage says "In 1992, at the age of 18, Thorburn signed with Jive Records, then in the mid-1990s signed with Priority Records/EMI." This info largely seems to have come from this reference and if you take this tweet from the subject, their date of is on Jan 10, in either 1973 or 1974, most likely 1974. The subject is stating this is incorrect and that he has spread misinformation about his actual date of birth, so it may be possible to note an approximate DOB and further down note that the subject has provided conflicting information about their DOB. Can I get some input on this one please? Steven  Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 14:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi there. I'm one of the editors who's been restoring the repeatedly deleted content. On the name issue, just a slight correction to the above: the linked interview on the Combat Jack Show is where it was first revealed (to my knowledge) what "R.A." stands for. Prior to that interview I had attempted to find out and all I could find were rumours that it was something embarrassing ("Reginald Arbuckle" was one of the rumours). So, in that interview he doesn't claim that the info on Wikipedia about what his initials stand for is incorrect. Now, yes, the way the lede is written does make it seem like "Richard" is his first name, but frankly I don't think that matters. Because even if his name in the lede was written as "R.A. Thorburn" it would equally imply that his first name was whatever the "R" stood for. He is personally and professionally known by the initials "R.A.", which stands for "Richard Andrew", so whether we write his name as "R.A. Thorburn" or "Richard Andrew Thorburn" in the lede, either way we suggest that his first name is something other than what it is. Did anyone who ever wondered about the initials ever think that the "R" wasn't his first initial? I think it's safe to assume that everyone has been assuming that his first name was something beginning with "R" since the early 1990s. So we're going from a situation in which everybody thinks R.A. the Rugged Man's real first name begins with "R" to a situation in which everybody knows that the "R" stands for "Richard" and that is isn't his first name. On what basis would we exclude this information from the encyclopedia other than by violating neutral POV and WP:PROMOTION? Sure, the subject may not like it, but I don't see how there's anything wrong with putting up his actual name. On the DOB issue, I'll just copy-paste what I wrote on the talk page: "The subject of the article claims that the year of birth we have listed is incorrect, but he refuses to correct it; he just wants it removed. This means that he doesn't want people to know his year of birth. We therefore have reason to believe that he is lying in the interview referenced above. The date is fully referenced. The subject has not taken issue with the claim that he signed to Jive in 1992 at the age of 18. If he was 18 in 1992, then he either turned 18 or 19 that year, which means he was either born in 1973 or 1974. His birthday in on January 10, which means that unless he signed to Jive in the first 9 days of the year, he turned 18 in 1992 (he was either 18 for 9 days of the year or for 357 days of the year). This means that his year of birth is 1974. This is also explicitly stated by XXL magazine. For the subject to simply say the information is incorrect is not sufficient to contradict or undermine the secondary sources we have, since the subject refuses to correct the information and we therefore have reason to believe he is lying when he claims it is incorrect." -- Wetdogmeat (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me see if I have this right: We have no impeccably reliable sourcing about either the subject's birth name or the subject's date of birth. We have a request from the subject at OTRS to remove the information, but an editor calls the subject a liar and wants to keep it in. The lead of the article includes uncited harsh criticisms. Here's my recommendation: Remove the claimed birth name and DOB, remove the harshly critical language, and stop calling people liars unless you have rock solid proof.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  20:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, if there is no public knowledge of the actual name there can be no public knowledge of the birth which would be a matter of public record. We just can't verify it with no name. First we have to come to a consensus that if a true name cannot be found it should not be referenced at all. We can only go by the reliable sources, however if there is a question on the accuracy of the name and the DOB, it might be best to just note that it is not a confirmed name or DOB if any such information is included.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Historically by simple virtue of courtesy and privacy we have no problem removing DOBs, family names, middle names, etc. from articles - most personally identifiable information that has no inherent value in the context of a biography. The subject has been quite adamant here and via OTRS that he does not want this information in the article, and I have no problem whatsoever with removing it once and for all. "Sure he may not like it but we are going to include it anyway" is a valid argument when dealing with sourced, non-defamatory criticism or controversy, but not in this case. I say let's just get rid of all that and move on. A lot of time has been invested in this issue that has served no purpose whatsoever. We're not talking about the President of the United States or the Pope or some truly important historical or contemporary figure where the birth date is of true encyclopedic value. Mr. Rugged Man (or anyone else) does not have to 'prove' his true DOB to us, he merely has to request for it to be removed. § FreeRangeFrog croak 20:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Based on the discussion here and my assessment of the article, I have gone ahead and removed the DOB and name from the lede, and amended his year of signing to Jive as "early 1990s" as this is what is stated in most of the references. You can see my changes here. Regards, Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 21:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

james Randi
I would like to add the following to the James Randi article: On May 29th 2012 James Randi's long-term partner, Deyvi Pena was convicted of stealing the identity of Jose Luis Alvarez, a teaching assistant from the Bronx. Pena was sentenced to 6 months house arrest, but may face deportation. He had lived for 24 years under the stolen identity causing numerous problems for the real Alvarez, including an IRS investigation. Deyvi Pena had also played the part of 'Carlos' a fake channeler, in James Randi's Project Alpha.

There is currently virtually no criticism of Randi in the article, and no mention of his partner being convicted, despite the fact it mentions their marriage and the Project Alpha. I feel the article is not NPOV and is being controlled by those who support Randi's work with no balance. Solar (talk) 14:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Such an edit can only mean you want to make Randi guilt by association. Sorry but it is not going to fly, this would seriously violate WP:BLP. -- cyclopia  speak!  14:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, and just found you tried to sneak this into the article almost exactly one year ago. It was wrong before, it is wrong now. -- cyclopia  speak!  15:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Please be polite, I did not try to 'sneak' anything into the article, I just want to add relevant information about the key person in the Alpha Project and Randi's partner. I had talked about adding it a year ago yes, and I was advised to add it here, which I did not get around to doing at the time. I am also not trying to imply guilt by association, just add a point about his private life and the person he worked with on a major project. I wonder if a major psychic performer's partner and co-performer was convicted of identity theft if this would be considered a problem. I'm sure it would be added before the day was out. Solar (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Uh no, it wouldn't be added, BLP has nothing to do with the subject being a psychic, a skeptic or whatever. And "add a point about his private life and the person he worked with on a major project" is the textbook definition of guilt by association. That stuff does not belong to the article on Randi, because it is not about Randi, first and foremost. -- cyclopia  speak!  16:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The article currently says that Randi came out as gay in a blog post; it mentions his marriage which happened less than a week after DOMA was struck down, includes the name of the husband, and has a section beginning "In 1988, Randi tested the gullibility of the media by perpetrating a hoax of his own..." about their efforts to seek publicity. That section mentions the name of the person whose name was assumed by Randi's partner. The victim's name should be removed from the article, and these new details about the victim should not be added. Randi's husband doesn't seem like a low-profile person to me, having appeared (if I'm reading correctly) on 60 Minutes. The fact that he used a false identity, apparently so that he could live in the United States, seems noteworthy in the larger context of gay immigration, and in Randi's personal life. — rybec   18:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Inserting references to crimes for which there is not the slightest evidence or even a claim that James Randi was involved in is clearly a prohibited attempt at guilt by association and has no place in James Randi's biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Randi testified in court—whether willingly or under compulsion, I do not know. Had he been married to a woman, he could not have been compelled to testify against her. This fact need not be presented as an attack on Randi. I feel it's important to his story, particularly since he himself is an immigrant. — rybec   00:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Many people testify in court over many things. There exists a general consensus on the article talk page (and, I might add, a general consensus on Wikipedia) that we do not discuss on biography pages unrelated crimes committed by a person's family, partners or friends. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Supposedly, this person, spouse of James Randi, "doesn't seem like a low profile person" to Rybec. OK then, write well-rounded and well-referenced NPOV biography of that person and include this information in a due weight fashion there. Rybec believes that this information is "important" to Randi's biography, "particularly since he himself is an immigrant." James Randi has lived in the United States since the 1950s, I believe. Please, Rybec, explain to us why you believe that a biography of an "immigrant" requires a "particular" level of scrutiny from you? I see absolutely no reason to include information about another person's infractions in a biography of James Randi.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  02:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't say or imply anything about greater or lesser scrutiny for biographies of immigrants. That's a misunderstanding. My feeling is that if someone immigrates it's an important event in the person's life. So is getting married. If Person A marries Person B, who immigrated, that fact (the immigration of Person B) is likely to be pertinent to Person A's biography. This situation where the two couldn't legally marry because of a discriminatory law, so that a common justification for immigration was denied, seems rather an important circumstance to both of their personal lives.
 * Suppose that, as you request, a separate article about Pena were written. I had the same thought, but didn't see how having a second article could be more fair to Randi without losing intelligibility. Wouldn't Randi be discussed, or at least mentioned, in the new article as the subject's partner in "the Carlos hoax" and later husband? If Pena's false identity were also covered in that article, what's the difference in a possible impression of "guilt by association" that a reader might draw? Is the benefit simply that readers won't look at the Pena article, because Pena is less well-known than Randi? What should be done with the section in the Randi article about "the Carlos hoax"? Should it be moved to a new article about Pena, just deleted, rewritten so it doesn't use the victim's name, or what? It strikes me as an important episode in Randi's career. Will the article on Randi still make sense if that material is removed or shortened? — rybec   04:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If there is sufficient information about Pena to write an encyclopedic biography of him, then that information would belong in the context of his life.
 * Personally, I don't think there's enough information available about Pena to write an encyclopedic biography, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise by reliable sources.
 * The issue here is the intent clearly demonstrated by the OP in this thread — the line, There is currently virtually no criticism of Randi in the article is quite telling, because something Pena did should not be viewed as "criticism" of Randi. The OP clearly has an axe to grind and wants to use the criminal acts of Pena to attach a negative taint to Randi, even though there are zero reliable sources drawing any connection between Pena's crimes and Randi. That is right out. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It would be simple enough to add a parenthetical such as (whose real name was Deyvi Pena) with an appropriate citation. Or change it to use Pena in most places but include a parenthetical with the assumed name. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Nonsense periodically erupts at James Randi because skeptics with a focus on hocus pocus ( couldn't resist! ) attract such attention. Nevertheless, articles do not contain "guilt by association" factoids such as the fact that Obama might have met Bill Ayers, or that [a certain well-known author] has a spouse who was accused of some very bad behavior. It's fine for someone's blog to assert that person X had partner Y, and Y is really bad, but at the encyclopedia anyone can edit, standards are higher. When X is convicted of aiding and abetting Y, of course that will appear in the article. Until then, it's gossip, and won't. When an incident has suitable notability, an article on the incident can be created, such as Bill Ayers presidential election controversy. Johnuniq (talk) 02:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * To clarify, Deyvi Pena is already referenced in the article in several places, not just for being Randi's partner, but for playing the part of Carlos in the Carlos Hoax. The article currently uses the name he illegally obtained. If this is not explained you have the name of a person who is unrelated to the events being named. If you just change it to Deyvi Pena, all references and videos like the 60 Minutes show still use the stolen ID and will be very confusing. It is not just useful to the article to explain this, but also reflects on the honesty of the man who played Carlos in Randi's hoax. Solar (talk) 13:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that that may force the issue. Normally we wouldn't include the information that someone's spouse stole someone else's identity.  But if the spouse is named in the article in connection with an event, and if circumstances mean that we must refer to him by the stolen identity in connection with the event, we have to point out that the identity isn't his. Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I realize that Wikipedia errs on the side of caution and privacy when it comes to BLP issues, but occasionally, common sense needs to be interjected. Keep in mind that this is a biography - the description of someone's life. From what I gather, this person's spouse was tried and convicted of a crime. Are we seriously suggesting that this had no impact on this person's life? This discussion, sadly, seems more focused on whether this event makes this person look good or bad. Instead, we should be focused on providing our readers an accurate description of a person's life. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Are there reliable sources discussing the crime in the context of its impact on Randi's life, rather than making an in-passing mention of the fact that the person's partner is Randi? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with NorthBSB. We are writing about a person's life, but that person is Randi. So what we should write in the Randi article should be about the coverage by reliable sources about the impact this has had on Randi. If we don't know what impact that is, we can't write about it. If Randi organizes a fervent defense of Pena, we can write about that. If Randi divorces Pena over this, we can write about that. If he moves to Mexico to be with Pena, we can write about that. But if we just write about Pena, we're off topic. --GRuban (talk) 18:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The discussion above is not about the reliability of sources, but the assertion that this had no impact on Randi's life (which I find, unless someone can demonstrate otherwise, ridiculous). How many people, come home from a hard day at work, discover that their spouse has been arrested and say, "Hey, this doesn't matter to me.  What's on TV tonight?".  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We don't base Wikipedia articles on what you think is ridiculous or not. We base Wikipedia articles on what is published in reliable sources. We are already seeing multiple attempts (right here in this thread, even) at using this fact as an attempt to unreservedly smear Randi as being connected with, or an "accomplice" to, the criminal acts committed by his partner. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I can believe it had some impact on Randi's life. But until reliable sources write about that impact, we can't either. --GRuban (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The use of the identity in the Carlos/alpha stunt seems incidental to the BLP (although the identity swap should be mentioned in the alpha article). The ID theft itself is not relevant to Randi's BLP, however, one of the sources does indicate a portion of the story that IS relevant to his BLP "Pena stole the identity a year before he began traveling with Randi in the magician's crusade to expose mystics, faith healers and psychics as frauds. Randi testified at an October court hearing to Pena's true identity, acknowledging he had seen Pena's Venezuelan passport years ago." <BLP violation redacted> So, the only question remains are the sources reliable enough for the BLP allegation? Gaijin42 (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You've just made a completely unsourced, unsupported and knowingly-false statement asserting, as fact, that the subject of the article is guilty of committing criminal acts. I have redacted it per BLP, and will note the irony of unquestionably violating BLP on the noticeboard meant to discuss potential violations of BLP. Randi has not been arrested, charged or convicted of any criminal act and making insinuations or allegations about his conduct in this matter is right out. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

In other news, between the current scandal articles, and the previous fame from the alpha hoax, It seems like pena may pass WP:GNG where more of this information could correctly go. (Although obviously he is only getting coverage (in both cases perhaps) via his relatinoship with randi - he is getting the coverage. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Robin Hunicke - Notability
Subject person does not appear to meet the WP guidelines for notability. A review of the Talk page shows virtually unanimous consent for this understanding. Additionally, this person's photograph appeared as Picture of the Day on her birthday. This does seem to be some sort of childish prank which dilutes the credibility and seriousness of WP by gerrymandering the consensus system.

First question: what is the appropriate approach for starting the deletion process in this case? I looked at several help articles and found varying methods, e.g. Speedy Deletion, but am not clear what is best here.

Second question: despite the clear consensus on the talk page, the deletion process may well generate self-serving protest, fake voting, further gaming of the system, etc., from the same people who managed to vandalize the POTD process. Is there a proactive way to avoid, detect or otherwise stop this? Skilled and attractive as this person may be, the article belongs on LinkedIn–and the pic belongs on Tumblr–not in WP. Wikipedia is the greatest collaboration of notable knowledge ever undertaken. It's too bad this discussion even exists, but hopefully WP's integrity will benefit. Thanks, Marquess (talk) 00:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussions about whether an article meets Wikipedia inclusion criteria belongs in the articles for deletion process, unless the article does not contain any reasonably-construed claim of encyclopedicity. A quick glance at the article shows a number of reliable sources are cited, meaning that it would survive a facial challenge through the Speedy Deletion system. You need to start an AfD discussion.
 * I would further note that article talk page discussion is not a supportable justification for deletion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Tim Loughton
An IP editor at Tim Loughton has identified himself as a party in an incident discussed in the article. Perhaps some UK editors could untangle this matter? Gamaliel ( talk ) 22:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * This situation is getting more and more out of hand with covert legal threats with the latest edit summary implying an indirect legal threat with the summary "removed lies currently under legal challenge." Please can this be sorted out as soon as possible to prevent this becoming serous disruption. The only contributions made can be seen here and they are exclusively in relation to the Tim Loughton page and are shown here Sport and politics (talk) 19:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Shekhar Gurera
Recent edits have been by the subject of the article, and it's now heavily self-promotional, WP:NOTRESUME. -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I started some depuffing and I will warn the editor.-- cyclopia  speak!  17:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I suspect that socking . -- Red rose64 (talk) 09:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Yasin Bhatkal
No citations given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.46.9 (talk) 23:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I removed most of the bio that was poorly written, sourced, and probably copy right problems to boot. It looks like there is one citation, article. Can this please be worked on or improved? Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 19:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Hal Rogers
I'm in an edit war with an IP user here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hal_Rogers&action=historysubmit&diff=565917520&oldid=565897390

My contention is that simply noting the living (last I checked) Congrescritter's vote against a certain measure does not rise to the level we should notice, absent some comment from or about him specifically as to why he himself voted this way. Hcobb (talk) 23:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I removed it. Unless there is more to this "story", we shouldn't cherry pick votes or be the news. If this turns into "something" in 6 months or a year and is widely covered, then yes, more discussion would be warranted. --Malerooster (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Roger Waters
After reading the sources and others the Israel section seems POV. The symbols on the pig included hammer and sickle, dollar signs, Shell oil symbol etc. The article calls them 'symbols of fascism'. Another RS I read stated (by a Jewish notable) that he didn't consider the Berlin show as anti-sematic. The subject is honoring the performance boycott in Israel but that should make him anti-Israeli government not anti-people. This would be similar to calling those that boycotted performance in South Africa as anti-white and not anti-Apartheid. I don't know how many other subjects we have that are boycotting Israel but some of them may be tagged as anti-Semites as well. Thoughts?--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Even if he has been called an anti-semite describing him as such in the first sentence doesnt strike me as balanced given what he is notable for, ie not for anti-semitism but as a musician and lyric writer. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 01:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The sentence in the lead isn't supported by the source (it doesn't mention anything about the Simon Wiesenthal Center even keeping a list of anti-Semites). Formerip (talk) 01:18, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I have re-worked the bit in the opening and put it near the bottom, its now balanced and supported by refs. Personally I cant see anything wrong with the Israel section so havent edited that. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 01:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There is significant undue weight and recentism issues with having a single, hotly-disputed claim by one organization made only days ago, placed in the lede section of an article about a prominent person. We need to wait to see if this really becomes a significant issue in his life worthy of inclusion in the opening section, or if it remains a minor footnote in his biography. If all there ever is, is a claim by one group about one piece of art in one of his concert tours, that hardly seems to justify giving the highly derogatory claim that he is anti-Semitic the significant positioning in the article that it held before I moved it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this boycott issue is carrying on to our articles. The sources I looked at were bias toward Israel. Mainstream sources don't usually mention counterpoints to the bias source claims. Performer boycotts Israel, bias source smears the boycotter, source is used in Wikipedia, no NPOV source cares enough to balance the POV. It happened differently in this case, a little, when the subject got upset at the label but it is still in the lead. I don't think it has anything to do with anti-Semitism just the boycott that most Israeli sources are labeling as anti-Semitism. Do we want Wikipedia to be a smear campaign from both sides? We could just say that subject X honored the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign by doing Y and Israelis responded by stating Z. Name calling and countering is school kid stuff and doesn't belong here, IMHO.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It was in an even more prominent position before I moved it, you were just being bolder, NorthBySouthBaranof, and its initial position in the first sentence seems to me to have been politically motivated. I agree we should be very careful of calling ppl who oppose the Israeli govt as anti semitic on wikipedia. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 01:44, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - Wikipedia gone wild. I haven't edited this bio, but that section should be greatly reduced, way overweight. The whole thing about the lericks get them up against the wall was being critical of racism, but know it reads like he supports it or something. this is a totally face to palm situation, where is that graphic when you need it. --Malerooster (talk) 20:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I just removed some categories and also mentioned on the talk page about this board. --Malerooster (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I see that there is a Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions section as well in the main article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Joachim von zur Gathen
- contained what seemed to me appalling BLP issues after this started. I don't know about the allegations but I do know that they were (like the rest of the article) wholly unreferenced. I've put it back to what I hope is an acceptable state but there's clearly at least one recently active campaigner wants this content in, and the article might benefit from BLP-aware people keeping an eye on it. I am assuming it doesn't need diffs hiding for legal reasons but again I'm sure others will know better than me. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The allegation (such as it was) was completely unsourced so it was perfectly right to remove it. Article is now protected. § FreeRangeFrog croak 20:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 22:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Art Bell
Some editors (including and  are adding info indicating that Bell has died. Nothing online yet indicating that he has.  --  Auric    talk  19:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * As always in such cases, there is little we can do other than delete any unsourced material, and wait until it can be sourced. I've watchlisted the article, and suggest that others do the same. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What I was hoping for. Thanks.-- Auric    talk  19:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Kent Ekeroth
The wording of this Wikipedia biography about a Swedish politician is very negative, extremely suspect and highly inflammatory. Sourcing isn't very solid. Portions of the article are unsourced. Most recent additions were done by an IP editor whose address traces to Sweden. A previous, even more inflammatory and completely unsourced edit, reverted as vandalism, was done by a previous IP editor from the same Swedish IP range. I've already reverted the most problematic recent edits — but I think a little light protection for the article is in order. kind regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I removed some of the unsourced material, not the really negative stuff that do have links, not saying if they are RS or not, but stuff about his mother and brother and some categories. --Malerooster (talk) 19:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree, there's enough negative stuff about this guy that's well sourced, no need to start plunging into poorly sourced territory. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Grant Cardone
Someone should take a look at the new Scientology-related material added to this article. I've tried to keep it out because, in my view, it has too many BLP problems and related sourcing issues. However, a second editor (who's professed interest is only Scientology) has joined the fray.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Since you removed this citing BLP and sourcing concerns, the editor who reverted you on the basis that you didn't discuss it first should not have done so and I have removed the material myself pending further discussion. January  ( talk ) 05:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Please, discuss such large scale edits on the relevant page before deleting. Thimbleweed (talk) 21:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As January notes, you've got it backwards. These kinds of edits are presumptively problematic. It's up to you and any other editor to justify their inclusion. As an aside, I spelled out in great detail what's wrong with the material on the article talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:44, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Thimbleweed and I have reached agreement on part of the material. The sticking point is one paragraph. I was going to suggest some sort of dispute resolution, but really the best forum for resolving a BLP dispute is this board. So, if anyone wants to mosey on over to the article talk page and offer their opinion, it would hopefully provide a clearer consensus. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet (Internet)
At least two (or possibly more) living people currently in this list do not qualify as "sockpuppets" in my opinion. More input would be welcome. My very best wishes (talk) 19:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I removed the sexting politician. Using an alias is not the same as using a sockpuppet to deceive. § FreeRangeFrog croak 20:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I believe Figes should also be excluded, however there are two participants who claim false consensus and edit war to keep this part in article: and  . Curiously enough, one of them was caught as sockpuppet himself right here. Unfortunately, I have to leave for vacation very soon, and will not be able to watch. My very best wishes (talk) 23:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Amir Taaki
The statement that Amir prostitutes girls for Bitcoins, sourced by a forum post, is being added and removed from the article repeatedly, over a dispute about whether a forum post is an acceptable source for it or not. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no question that a Web forum post cannot be a reliable source for derogatory information about a living person. Such claims may be removed and reverted without limitation and if the person persists, they ought to be blocked. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

eugene blair


this article biography of eugene blair need a references. Strongvibration (talk) 12:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The article does have a single reference. Just so you know, this notice board concerns living people and Eugene Blair died in 1942.  GB fan 12:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

waje
there is no Evidence of notability on the article of WAJE. there is no relieble references that proof the Awards or her Nominations... this article need a relieble independent source.Strongvibration (talk) 12:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Recommend posting Waje on WP:AFD -- which is a better place to resolve the threshold question of notability. – S. Rich (talk) 16:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Ana Ivanovic
Per Wikipedia's policies regarding biographies of living persons, we are under strictures to make their biographies adhere precisely to severe guidelines, including legal accuracy. Has Ana Ivanović changed her legal name from "Ivanović" to "Ivanovic"? Could anyone provide a source, that this has happened? Can someone quote Ana Ivanović from a reliable source on this subject? She is a resident of Switzerland now, so perhaps this occurred when filing for residency there? If not, we would seem to be breaking the strictures of WP:BLP by inventing rationale to spell her name other than her actual name.

I also remind everyone that other Serbian (former world no.1 Jelena Janković who resides in Dubai, or Ana Jovanović who resides in Munich, Germany), Czech (eg., nearly the entire content of Category:Czech female tennis players), Slovak (e.g., nearly the entire content of Category:Slovak female tennis players), Polish tennis players (including world no. 4 Agnieszka Radwańska and her Top40 sister Urszula Radwańska), or even Australian player Jarmila Gajdošová -- are consistently spelled in their BLP articles with their actual legal name spelling. At most, we provide redirects from names without diacritics to facilitate search for those who simply are unaware of these precise spellings, thanks to WTA, BBC, CNN, etcetera. Right now, as I am typing this, the 2013 Bank of the West Classic singles final is being contested by Agnieszka Radwańska and Dominika Cibulková. I am sure that hundreds of news dispatches in the English-speaking world and WTA publications online and elsewhere will omit both player's diacritics, but we are an encyclopedia, and I don't see us doing it. So why is a group of editors doing it to Ana Ivanović (redirect since 2012, spelled correctly on Commons)?

My attempts to copyedit Ivanović per this reasoning earlier today have been forcefully and repeatedly reverted by one of those editors.

Thoughts? --Mareklug talk 22:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Mareklug has posted the same question in two places. As there are replies at talk:Ana Ivanovic, I suggest that all additional replies are posted there to avoid repetition and confusion. -- PBS (talk) 10:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I posted the requisite template on the talk page, below the question there, directing discussion here, to a wider community. It is you and one other persistent advocate of misspelling Ivanović who chose to write below it, and now you are squirreling the discussion once again, away from the mainstream.  This is a BLP issue, and should be decided on the BLP noticeboard, if not elevated to Jimbo himself.  --Mareklug talk 12:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If the first reply had been here then this would have been a convenient forum. However as the replies are on the talk page of the article, anyone who has read this thread will know that the discussion is going on there and can read the discussion there and reply there. Nothing is being hidden, but trying to encourage replies in two places is disruptive (see forum shopping). -- PBS (talk) 12:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose User:PBS opposition to discussion here - User:PBS is highly WP:INVOLVED as a vocal (if not the most vocal) opponent of the universal en.wp editor consensus and practice of using unicode (i.e. full spelling) for BLP titles (Talk:Édouard Deldevez etc.). Threatening User:Mareklug with the stick that it is "disruptive" or "WP:Forum shopping" to bring a BLP problem to BLP Noticeboard is inappropriate behaviour.
 * The problem with Talk:Ana Ivanović is that a poorly attended quickie RM (which failed to reference a much longer oppose RM in Archive 4) moved it to be the only basic-ASCII-ized BLP title as the first shot in the Tennisnames Diacritics War. Once moved it got watchlisted since it is the only modern BLP where a foreigner has been stripped of accents and given an Australian/British/American name - thus treating the Serbian tennis player as if she had an exonymic name like the Emperor Napoleon or a monarch.
 * All pages have WP:LOCALCONSENSUS issues, but I would imagine that the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS of editors who watchlist Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard is a broader or more helicopter view than those who have watchlisted Talk:Ana Ivanović.
 * Even if editors at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard don't themselves like foreign accents on foreigners names, I imagine there's enough interest in WP:CONSISTENCY here some may ask why this one particular Serbian woman BLP, alone among all the BLPs on en.wp, is being made into what appears a xenonymophobic trophy? Why pick on her? And why deny Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard notification of the oddity. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

What additional citations does Lilith Love need??
I don't understand why the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith_Love needs additional citations for verification. To my concern there are no links missing. The controversity of Lilith's work has a link to the newspaper that wrote about it, and as far as I'm concerned that's the only part of the article that needs citation - or am I wrong? Please let me know how to complete this article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CortezNL (talk • contribs) 10:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * See Help:Referencing for beginners. The sources need to be inline and most material in the article should be sourced.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Alice Walker
Some extra eyes on this BLP may be necessary. Walker has complained about inaccuracies in the article in the past and she is already controversial figure to some. However, to makes matters potentially worse, the BLP is now being targeted by blocked user AndresHerutJaim via sockpuppetry. Their latest sockpuppet User:Silmeter has been blocked, but given their extensive history of block evasion they are likely to return. I think it is necessary to add that judging from a trivial search, AndresHerutJaim appears to be a pretty fanatical Israel supporter who refers to Arabs and Iranians as apes. So, a blocked user with extreme views who uses sockpuppetry extensively and is probably not a fan of Walker. Exactly the kind of person that needs to be kept away from a BLP. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 19:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Semi-protected for a month and watchlisted. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 19:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Zeitgeist: The Movie

 * Zeitgeist: The Movie
 * Edit in question: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zeitgeist%3A_The_Movie&diff=564455778&oldid=564452015
 * Discussion: Talk:Zeitgeist: The Movie

An Israeli news service called TheMarker reported on their interview with Peter Joseph, maker of the film, Zeitgeist: The Movie. In the report, they said Joseph is now "distancing himself" from the movie. Peter Joseph responded to this via the film's website, saying that he was misquoted and denying that he was distancing himself from the movie.

The addition of Joseph's self-published response (diff above) is the subject of an edit war and a discussion on the talk page. I'm presenting a condensed version of the discussion below (I've made every effort to present both sides without bias. If any involved parties have anything to add, feel free):


 * Some of those against the addition state that WP:SPS prevents the self-published source from being used in this case, as Joseph's website and the statement in question are unduly self-serving and promotional, and the statement furthermore makes claims about third parties (TheMarker). They reject the BLP issue because there is no right of reply on Wikipedia. They say a secondary source must pick up Joseph's response before it is added to the article.


 * Some of those for the addition say that the alleged misquote shouldn't be presented without Joseph's rebuttal. This is in addition to the statement simply being relevant, and its absence would make the story incomplete. They reject the SPS issue because an SPS is not being used to source the claim itself, ie. that Joseph was indeed misquoted; but is being used to source the fact that Joseph made this claim, for which it is reliable.

I myself am on the side of adding the response, assuming TheMarker's report is kept in the article. Some have suggested removing it altogether, which I would also find acceptable, though that removal has been tried and warred over as well.  Equazcion  ( talk )  13:47, 24 Jul 2013 (UTC)


 * Include Joseph's response Including mention that Joseph has "distanced" himself from the film, while excluding Joseph's own statement that he did not, would be wildly inappropriate. WP:PSTS make it clear that primary sources can indeed be used for things like mere statements made by a person, as long as there is no interpretation, and WP:SELFPUB also says self-published sources can be used, as long as the claim is not unduly self-serving. Contrary to what those wishing to exclude the material have argued, pointing out that you did not say what someone says you did is not "unduly self-serving", since "self-serving" means to not merely address your own interests, but to exhibit a preoccupation with them to the extent of disregarding the truth and well-being of others. Nor would including Joseph's statement, as it has been argued, serve to "promote" Joseph's film, simply because it comes form his website for it, any more than citing the creationist Discovery Institute's website to source their date of founding, or citing their About page in order to source who their president is, as the DI article does, serves to promote creationism. Nightscream (talk) 14:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * There is that clause about third parties, though--a self-published source can't be used if it makes claims about third parties. Claiming that he was misquoted is a statement that a third party lied or erred, and as such cannot be used if you literally go by our policy.  Although I am more inclined to think that the policy is broken; our policy with respect to self-published sources, especially in the Internet era, is pretty bad. Ken Arromdee (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * My opinion on that is that SPS doesn't guard against the use of statements about other people, so long as we're merely reporting what was said versus claiming those statements as fact. In other words, the SPS point about third parties is meant to guard against the obvious: An SPS is only reliable for information about their author, and no one else. We're not claiming anything about third parties that would need to be sourced though. We're just saying "Peter Joseph said [something about third parties]." That's the only fact being presented -- that he said this. SPS' current wording might invite confusion between the two cases, but even strictly speaking, the statement doesn't actually violate SPS.  Equazcion  ( talk )  14:52, 24 Jul 2013 (UTC)


 * Stating that you've been misquoted is not a statement that anyone has "lied" or erred, in and of itself, and even if it is, how is merely suggesting that someone "erred" a contentious claim? Reporters make mistakes all the time. In any event, stating that you did not say what has been attributed to you can merely be a clarification of your position, without any direct reference to the reporter. Those of us who argue for its inclusion wish only to include Joseph's clarification that he has not distanced himself from the claims he mad in the movie, without any elaboration as to the persons who reported otherwise. Including the statement that he has distanced himself from the claims made in the movie, but not his public statement that he in fact as not, would be wildly inappropriate, and justifying this on the basis that secondary sources stating the former are oh-so unimpeachable, but that his own words to the latter on his website are not because that's a primary source, is not rational. Nightscream (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * ^What he said. I'll also just add that there are no actual facts in dispute here -- no specific facts that anyone has pointed out as requiring further verification. The WP:SPS argument is therefore quite vague and unfalsifiable. We're told we need secondary sources, but we haven't been told which fact(s) in particular require them. The contents of the quote is all I can think of, and V doesn't apply to those.  Equazcion  ( talk )  19:42, 25 Jul 2013 (UTC)


 * Exclude, for three reasons. It's "unduly self-serving" (phrasing in WP:SPS), not notable, and of questionable sourcing.  It's the film ' s web site, not Joseph's.  If he did distance himself from the film, it's possible that someone more closely associated with the film is now editing the film's website.  Other reasons for exclusion presented in the summary may also apply.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Notability refers to whether topics merit their own articles. It has nothing to do with reliability of sources.


 * Joseph wrote, directed, edited and produced the movie, and owns it. Therefore, both the movie and its website are both his. The idea that there can be someone "closer" to the film than him is fatuous. Nightscream (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Exclude per WP:SPS. The material the editors are wanting to include are making claims about a third party by saying the author of the article mis-quoted or lied in a self-published source.  The author of the article in TheMaker is a living person, hence covered by BLP.  That's the basis for the "No claims about third parties" in SPS - you must have secondary sources for claims about BLP's.  <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 22:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Include Articles should be accurate and written from a neutral point of view. As a totally uninvolved editor, my perspective is that if an article attributes a particular view to somebody, and the person in question is known to have denied it, that should also be included. How that should be done will, of course, vary. My concern here is that editors are allowing their clearly very strong views on the subject to cloud their judgement, and that reasons are being sought to avoid the primary requirement to maintain a neutral point of view. --AJHingston (talk) 08:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Include for the reasons detailed in the original discussion and above. Sorry I took so long to weigh in. I thought the idea was to leave this to uninvolved editors, rather than drag out the argument to another page. nagualdesign (talk) 02:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Exclude Self published material must be used carefully. In this case there is a claim that the RS reporter took "extreme liberties" with the author's words in an interview. While I am sympathetic to the problem of journalistic mistakes, we have a policy that seems to preclude the usage of a self-published source that makes claims about another, which it does in this case. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That points to a reason to keep the whole thing out altogether, doesn't it? Here we have a dispute between two sides - NPOV suggests either we have both or neither! --AJHingston (talk) 17:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it points to having solid secondary sources for everything. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 17:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Solid secondary sources are only required in order to establish the veracity or notability of a quote. In this case there is no doubt (is there?) that the quote is correctly attributed, and it is automatically notable by virtue of the fact that Peter Joseph is the subject of the article. Before anyone says that the article is about the film, and not the filmmaker, try reading the article. nagualdesign (talk) 23:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In addition, the obligation to maintain a neutral point of view is not optional. There are different ways of achieving that, as discussed on the talk page, but nobody is seriously arguing that Joseph is not disputing the view attributed to him so the article must reflect that. --AJHingston (talk) 23:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Include; reasons as follows:
 * Maintaining neutrality has been problematic on the Zeitgeist article for some time. If the page can accommodate, as it presently does, assertions by Zionist columnists that the film is "anti-Semitic," it seems unfair to exclude assertions to the contrary, even or perhaps especially those made by the film's producer. In other words, to exclude Joseph's own comments would be a contradiction in point; moreover, if we are to exclude his comment, then, we would do well to be consistent and exclude a great many others. While this latter option is indeed feasible, I am not sure if it is desirable. NPOV doesn't mean no POV - or does it? Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
 * On the issue of which comment came from where, can we please take a gestalt view and honestly say "Who cares?" I mean, surely at some point we have to give primacy to the content and not to the source of that content. Wikipedia would be deluding itself to suggest it took every single one of its citations exclusively from valid, reliable sources. Resorting to the "necessity" for secondary sources is, in this case, deliberately bureaucratic, an intentional knights-move defence against the threat of a balanced perspective.
 * Vis-a-vis SPS and BLP, I fail to see any clause which would automatically categorise any comment from an SPS as inherently self-serving. Surely there exist circumstances where temporal constraints mean the only worthwhile comment is found in an SPS, and I think this is one of them. I'm disinclined to counter Rubin's semantics, because there's just no reason why we should even need his magnifying glass. Digressions into pedantic deconstructions of clauses are superfluous and hideously distracting.
 * Finally, Nightscream is one of very few administrators to challenge the status quo at the Zeitgeist article, and that is a good thing. Capitalismojo, Arthur Rubin and most unfortunately Earl King Jr. appear to patrol this page more or less constantly, and in my view they are untrustworthy (with all due respect to Rubin's admin status). I am not meaning to make an argument ad hominem so if you like, you can consider this a sidenote, but I have personally witnessed this trio consistently reverting edits and starting edit wars on the page, whenever an editor does something they don't agree with. The end result is the page looks much like it did a year ago, with an ever-growing talk page. These three are the principal usurpers in most edit disputes, and throw their weight around in order to preserve a far-right, Zionist presentation of the article. This surreptitious behaviour is heavily disruptive and, in my view, seriously diminishes the worth of their opinions in any matter. I will go out on a limb and guess it's one or more of these three who are responsible for warring over inclusion of The Marker's perspective at all. Correct me if I'm wrong.
 * While we're at it can we get these three banned from editing the page altogether?


 * Thank You. sabine antelope 01:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "Zionist"!?! The above is entirely wrong and inappropriate. I have made only two edits ever to this article. One in May, the other after I was asked to get involved in this discussion by User: Nightscream. I have never gotten into an edit war on this article, period, much less "consistently". I am not an "usurper" creating a "far-right Zionist" presentation, and suspect that your accusation says far more about your editing and point of view than it does about me. Why don't you take your theories about other editors and bury them somewhere deep? This page is about policy and content issues not personal attacks and conspiracy theories. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Be that as it may, I've frankly had it with you lot. sabine antelope 01:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Your "include" position notwithstanding, Sabine, the remarks about "Zionist" columnists is completely irrelevant to this discussion, as is the remark about "excluding assertions to the contrary", as that is not what the conflict is about.


 * As far as patrolling the article constantly, well, I don't know if they do or don't, but I myself do keep it on my Watchlist, and have never noticed any edit wars by them, or any other questionable behavior, until now. I'm not saying that they haven't been involved in previous editorial conflicts on regarding that article (I'm not well-informed on that question either way, so I don't have an viewpoint on it), but this is the first I can recall encountering any of them, and Capitalismojo only participated in the consensus discussion because he was one of the many people I contacted for doing so.


 * While I don't disagree with that they have employed intellectually dishonest arguments and other behaviors in the course of the discussion, Capitalismojo, I would point out, at least had the decency to point out at ANI that Earl King's false accusation of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry was inexcusable, and warranted a apology. I think your assessment in summary is a bit overreaching, Sabine, and in any event, it doesn't belong here. At the very least, I think we should relegate such complaints to the article talk page, ANI, or some other avenue like RfC or ArbCom. I would suggest that we narrow the scope of t his this discussion to the strict Include/Exclude BLP discussion. Nightscream (talk) 02:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I suppose Mojo is a rung above the other two when it comes to honesty. I guess Zionist is strong wording, but I'm only using it in a discussion. Aforementioned troublemakers have no qualms hurling around "anti-Semitic" on the page proper when it suits their peculiar (some would say odd) requirements. Anyway, I've given my five cents. I'm not alone in asserting the afore-named tend to cower under policy umbrellas they themselves invoke when someone challenges the anti-Semitic flag they themselves import (from columinists I would have no hesitation calling Zionist). My assessment may be overarching, even base, but I think there's a crux to the matter. sabine antelope 02:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Exclude, for three reasons. It's "unduly self-serving" (phrasing in WP:SPS), not notable, and of questionable sourcing. Earl King Jr. (talk) 15:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Include As I stated on the talk page, when his view is being presented one way and he says that is wrong then it should be included or the offending claim removed. Either the Marker's comments about Joseph go or his objection gets added and I prefer the latter.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 22:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I happened across this from another page, though an actual RfC might not be a bad idea. To address some of the points above:
 * The "unduly self-serving" part of SPS means we can't source "X is the most successful $INSERT_HERE in history" to a self-published source by X. In this case, however, we're sourcing a simple fact ("X states that this is not correct and he was misquoted") to the source where X, well, says so. We're not presenting that "in Wikipedia's voice" or taking a position on who is correct, just factually noting that X disputes the claim.
 * The BLP concern would seem to fall on the side of X in this case. If X states that the claim is potentially false, we are improperly presenting the claim as though it were not in dispute, when in fact it is. BLP concerns about saying "Y was wrong" are misplaced, because, again, we're not saying Y was wrong, only noting that X claims Y was wrong, without taking any position on which one is right. We may certainly report that someone said something when they verifiably did, and that doesn't mean we're endorsing or agreeing with what they said.
 * Additionally, neutrality demands that we do not present a disputed claim as undisputed. That presents only one side (point of view) of the story to the reader, and by silence, improperly implies that it's the end of the story.
 * If there is tremendous concern about the quote, it is not absolutely necessary that we present the dispute in direct quote form. "X disputes having said this", with an appropriate citation, would be fine too. But we must, in the interest of neutrality and fairness, note that a disputed claim is in dispute, while being careful to take no one's side in that dispute. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Exclude, and remove the contentious attribution BLP is clear that contentious material should be removed. Peter's quote about himself qualifies as a credible source because he is talking about himself. Stating one's own feelings is not self-serving.  People haven't been getting this so I'll give a simple example: If Sally says "John is sad," and John says, "No, I am happy," John is not doing anything "unduly self-serving" and, assuming we know only what each had said, we should assume John is the better source of information about the matter.  Given that two credible sources disagree the attributed quote is contentious and should be removed.  Also, this article comes to mind when people claim we can't use Peter's response until a third party writes about it: http://www.zdnet.com/wickedpedia-the-dark-side-of-wikipedia-7000004731/ Dustin184 (talk) 06:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)  EDIT: This might be the better link:http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2012/09/an-open-letter-to-wikipedia.html#ixzz25q0FlTTA Dustin184 (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I had a feeling that for this to have become a simple include/exclude !vote might make this board discussion confusing. The alternative, of excluding both the disputed assertion and the subject's denial, would probably satisfy many of those who have pressed for inclusion. The history is that various alternatives that would satisfy NPOV have been suggested on the talk page, but a number of voices there insist that the disputed interview should be referred to in the article. Several uninvolved editors have advised that in that case NPOV requires that the subject's denial must also be included, for reasons now very cogently set out above by Seraphimblade and others. That was the state of things when the discussion was raised here, but several of us have continued to point out that there is more than one way of satisfying NPOV; what is not permissible is to forgo it. --AJHingston (talk) 09:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Exclude both (first choice), or include rebuttal (second choice). The reliability of the source on this point is in question, and sourcing of biographical material has to be solid. Andreas JN 466 15:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

List of Georgian mafiosi
This list states that certain people are members of organised crime. This is in direct contravention of BLP issues. For such claims to be made the people so listed must, surely, self identify as members of the organisation, if, indeed, organisation it be. Nominated for AfD, but I think there is an urgent issue here. Fiddle  Faddle  14:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem is potentially huge, of course, but all the references are un Russian, so no non speaker can see if these folk have self identified as Mafiosi, or if the list accuses them of being. Fiddle   Faddle  07:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I quickly checked some of the Russian sources, and they seem to generally qualify as RS and support the assertions about the criminals who belong to "Thieves in law". My very best wishes (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Michael Doven
I have concerns about the appropriateness of some of the material related to scientology that is currently included on Michael Doven's page. Although it's reported in reliable sources, I don't think that mentioning that he was involved in some form of confrontation with someone once is due weight for a BLP. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The claims were worded quite inaptly for what the sources actually stated. And the "confrontation" resulted in no civil or criminal actions - and, per the source, consisted of Doven saying "we have to talk" which is pretty weak for a "confrontation" to get into a BLP.   What we are left with is that the person is a Scientologist.  Collect (talk) 15:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Donald Arthur


Subject of a back and forth with Legal a few months ago, the bio was a mess of OR, primary sources and clever editing by multiple SPAs with what appeared to be an agenda of some sort. The article was protected while the legal issues were worked out and then bounced back to OTRS with the recommendation that we bring it into policy, so that's what I did. I'm hoping I'm wrong, but I'd appreciate a few eyes on this in case the "OMG YOU MUST PUBLISH THIS FOR GREAT JUSTICE" crowd shows up for edit warring without reliable sources and the usual undue weight. I also left a comment on the talk page with more detail about what was wrong with it. § FreeRangeFrog croak 02:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "OMG YOU MUST PUBLISH THIS FOR GREAT JUSTICE" should be the title of a Wikipedia essay. Can you imagine the shortcut?   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 12:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * An acronym would be awkward. I'd leave it at WP:GREATSJUSTICE § FreeRangeFrog  croak 16:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Storage Wars
The Talk page at Storage Wars contains a troubling comment under the "Dave Hester" section, specifically this thread. It begins "Dave Hester should be removed completely." I won't repeat the rest. What concerns me is that the statement is signed by one user, but a bot has indicated it is an IP that left the comment. Is it possible the registered user didn't make the comment or the IP piggybacked on it? Either way, it looks like a BLP violation. I'd have removed it myself but am unsure of protocol involving talk pages. 70.76.69.162 (talk) 15:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * BLP applies everywhere - I have removed the comment from the talk page.--ukexpat (talk) 15:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Fort Augustus Abbey‎
This is a heads up, rather than a complaint. I think that I've edited the article so that it's current state is acceptable.

There have been allegations of abuse at Fort Augustus Abbey in Scotland. Understandably, there was quite a lengthy section inserted in the article recently. I'm concerned that while there were a lot of "allegedly"s and "allegations of" in the sources, this was not reflected in the article itself. I have amended the article accordingly, but considering the current newsworthy status of this article then this could become a magnet for BLP issues. JASpencer (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I've rearranged the order to prevent the superficial impression that the school was closed because of the allegations. Mangoe (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Montgomery Police Department (Alabama)
Question for you BLP warriors. I've been working on the (existing) list of "Misconduct" in this article; I've removed the alleged offenders' names and added some proper citations. But the more I think about it, the more I am coming to the conclusion that such a list of alleged misconduct is not OK in the first place--all of them involve alleged misconduct and they are followed by a resignation. None of those cases (as far as I can tell) went to trial. So it strikes me as similar to the "person X got arrested" kind of thing we see popping up in BLPs (but person X wasn't tried and convicted, where convention (I think) says we don't include such information unless it was hugely important and widely covered. So I think the whole section should go, since it's a variety of name them and shame them (well, I took out the names, since there is no encyclopedic reason to include them--the article is about the MPD, not about individual cops). See also my comments on the talk page. Anyway, I don't edit a lot of police department articles and I don't know if there are any guidelines and conventions there; in no way does this compare to a section like Los_Angeles_Police_Department, for instance. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to delete the section as it stands; unless there's a controversy involving some systematic misconduct there's no reason to report on what are really routine disciplinary issues. Mangoe (talk) 17:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I would say there needs to be 1) More than trivial media coverage of the incident to establish the validity of inclusion and 2) Some kind of conviction, official investigation, findings of fact, etc. (and subsequent media coverage of that) that explicitly name the subject(s), if at all. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you both--that's enough for me to remove it, but I'll let this sit for a couple of hours to see if there is dissent. has not responded to any comments or the invitation to this discussion; perhaps they will. Drmies (talk) 18:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I just woke up. I think you are correct. Convictions ought to be included, but not allegations. On the other hand, including the names of police officers who are convicted are critical for two reasons. First because it helps ensure we are not listing one bad apple twice. Second because it lets us see if one policeman is involved in several incidents over time.  The Sanford Florida Police Department article is closer to what we ought to be shooting for. It shows one or two officers whose names come up time and time again. Thank you for your edit. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 01:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Feedback comments: a potential BLP nightmare
Okay, so what do we do about the Article Feedback Tool and comments that violate BLP? I had my first look at the system today and, well, there are some issues.


 * We can hide comments, but how do we delete them? Hidden comments can still be seen, just with some extra clicks.
 * What do we do about editors who make defamatory comments and the editors who mark them as useful?

Thoughts? Gamaliel ( talk ) 17:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * IMO this feature is useless, as it largely attracts feedback from people saying they didn't find a bio useful because it didn't tell them where to send fanmail to, and other similar things that are not the purview of wikipedia. As for the question above, I would agree that non-BLP-compliant comments ought to be redactable. Echoedmyron (talk) 17:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Admins can suppress comments, and you can ask them to by marking a comment as inappropriate. Drmies (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I can hide comments marked inappropriate, but they can still be seen by users with an extra click. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 17:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * At least all of us are forbidden from leaving nasty comments on BLP feedback, even as Anon IPs, I assume :-) Does NPA apply there and does that also need to be made explicit on the relevant talk page? User:Carolmooredc  17:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I assume all Wikipedia policies, including BLP and NPA, apply to the feedback as well.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 18:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Monty Roberts
Yesterday I posted correct information under the ==Controversies== section on the Monty Roberts page and provided multiple sources for the information. Today I see it has been deleted. I believe the fact that you deleted correct information on this very controversial person is suspicious and that you are being controlled by Monty Roberts himself to have such correct information promptly removed. There was absolutely NO libel involved in the information. I can add additional source material to prove the information true if need be but I am certain you will only delete it again. I have noticed on the talk page regarding this subject that you have elected to avoid all the controversy. Interesting! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SolidGiver (talk • contribs)
 * It's probably a conspiracy. Drmies (talk) 18:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Correct, maybe, but unverified, to paraphrase the user who reverted you, --who, for what it's worth, is a pretty well-respected editor here and knows horsies very well. In their edit summary, they invited you to present your evidence at the talk page and rather than start hinting at conspiracy theories you should accept that invitation. That's all. Drmies (talk) 18:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * LOL and FWIW, it wasn't more than a few months back the Monty Roberts people were on my case and upset because they thought I was part of the anti-Roberts cabal. So long as everyone is pissed off at me, I must be following WP:NPOV perfectly!   Montanabw (talk) 18:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Gary North (economist)
Is the section title
 * Support for executing homosexuals and other sinners

proper in the BLP Gary North (economist)? Alternatives were proposed for "Biblical punishments" and "Using biblical standards for capital punishment" as being valid per WP:NPOV, WP:BLP and covering the actual content of that section. Is the wording of that section proper per the requirements of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV in general? There is another issue concomitant which is whether a primary source should be used to back a claim made in Wikipedia's voice concerning this controversial person. Collect (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that it's POV. What about "Support for executing homosexuals and others"? Coretheapple (talk) 21:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Highly doubt that North is calling for the death of people who eat pork chops or shrimp. or for those that wear polyester-cotton blends. Like most of his ilk, he is selective as regards to what he considers sin, so "Biblical" or such would be misleading. Agree with Coretheapple's point, though. "Sinners" should not be in WP's voice. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As "homosexuals" are the minority of those in the category, why specify "homosexuals"? I would note one editor added a comment that North viewed stoning as "cheap due to the plentiful and convenient supply of stones" despite the fact that the source was clearly not asserting that such were his words or direct sentiments at all -- which I also find problematic no matter how loony North is, Wikipedia requires that WP:BLP be followed.  --
 * I agree, why specify homosexuals? Why not simply, "Support for capital punishment", and let the paragraph speak for itself about the 'biblical' nature of his beliefs? nagualdesign (talk) 22:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Conservative Christians have a particular antipathy toward gays and lesbians, to the point that it even is offputting to younger conservative Christians, according to the Barna Institute. North is no exception. I don't see what the BLP problem is. North clearly holds these views, and whether you or I or anyone else considers them "loony" is beside the point. He himself doesn't, nor would he consider them himself to be embarrassing. The material about stoning is well sourced. Again, you seem to be whitewashing in order to increase the palatibility of the subject for public consuption. As I told you just a couple of hours ago, that is not what WP is for. There are other places for that. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Am I reading your post correctly? You know that conservative Christians hate gays, therefore WP:NPOV and WP:BLP cease to apply to their biographies?     Gosh, I think that, if anything, it is more important to follow policies, even if we "know" someone is an axe-murderer, much less a "conservative Christian"!  And as for your claim that changing the section title is whitewashing -- that is simply an idiotic argument here.   Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW, your snarky link to "conservapedia" is idiotic, asinine, and totally put-of-place on this noticeboard.   Redaction is recommended for such totally off-the-wall remarks to other editors. Collect (talk) 23:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "Homosexuals" was highlighted because there was a specific (primary source only) quote about it. There is no other reason for doing so. The rationale (such as it is) is that all the capital punishments in the Old Testament should still be used today. There seems no good reason for emphasising the punishment for homosexuals, and the comments here ("he is selective as regards to what he considers sin" / "Conservative Christians have a particular antipathy toward gays and lesbians") show how misleading it has been. Also, I have no idea why "sinners" was in WP's voice. The heading is appalling, and I can't understand why people are arguing for it. StAnselm (talk) 00:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Steeletrap did the same thing in the Hans-Hermann Hoppe article emphasizing in two topic areas that he mentioned homosexuals while ignoring other groups of people also mentioned; (this was regarding time preferences and who might be excluded from a private community). But Steeletrap obviously is singlemindedly promoting one group's agenda, while ignoring the need an NPOV Wikipedia presentation. See the talk page, it's disgusted ad nauseum in several sections. User:Carolmooredc  20:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * @carolmooredc -- The purpose of this noticeboard is to seek assistance and resolution from the community. Your stream of off-topic remarks, personal attacks, and diaristic rationalizations is hindering the purpose for which this noticeboard is intended.  By extension your behavior is hurting progress on the North article for the improvement of WP. Please stick to content on topic.  SPECIFICO  talk  22:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Stop with the personal attacks. Keep your comments focused on the Gary North biography and how we will follow Wikipedia guidelines. Binksternet (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

-

Comments by S.Rich – Introduction:

The particular section title posted by Collect is but the latest of a continuing series of BLP problems.

IMO, much of the BLP problem in Gary North (economist) comes from editing efforts by User:Steeletrap. "Steele" has made 79 edits to the Gary North page. See for the stats. Of these, 20 have been to section headings (section titles) and 2 or 3 have been to remove the BLP template. This listing of edits (below) focuses on the section heading changes by Steeltrap. They are listed as follows:
 * 'Date'
 * 'Edit by Steele. Only the diff is provided as these edits are focused the section heading changes by Steele. If more info is pertinent, it is listed after the diff.'
 * 'Edits by other editors. Pertinent info is listed before the diff. (Most of these diffs are section heading changes.)'

As stated, these diffs focus on the section headings/titles in which Steele has added, IMNSHO, they are POV. Steele has made repeated reverts to non-appropriate headings. Much discussion has taken place on the article talk page (and on User_talk:Steeletrap) about the need to follow NPOV, WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE, WP:NDESC, WP:HEADINGS, WP:BALANCE, etc. So, this listing of headings does not include problems in article text where Primary Source into is used (improperly) and templates such as quote, verification, OR, etc. are removed without resolving the problems. In many cases, Steele is responsible for the addition of this material.

Steele has been less than cooperative with very experienced (and previously non-involved) editors who have come in recently to edit the article. E.g., Steele has reverted their edits and argued about the rationale cited by these editors. Indeed, much of Steele's response as been WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. (While I have cited WP policy and guidance, the response has been that I have misquoted policy. And when I've asked for examples, I have not received any meaningful responses.)


 * 24 April 2013
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 16 July 2013
 * 
 * User:OnlySwissMiss Changed "Support for murdering nonviolent people" to "Support death penalty for specific sins"
 * Edit by OnlySwissMiss reverted
 * 
 * User:OnlySwissMiss Changed "Support for stoning to death homosexuals, other nonviolent people" to "Support for stoning sinners to death"
 * Edit by OnlySwissMiss reverted
 * OnlySwissMiss changes to "Support for stoning to death homosexuals, and other sinners"
 * 23 July 2013
 * Adds "North Americans as savages"
 * Copy edit of "Support for stoning ..." heading
 * 25 July 2013
 * Restores Savages, Stoning, Homosexuals headings & text which had been removed for lack of secondary source support
 * 
 * 
 * 26 July 2013
 * [Bullet for space holding]
 * User:DiligenceDude modifies "Opposition to religious liberty" heading
 * DiligenceDude modifies Savages heading
 * User:Carolmooredc removes various headings, citing BLP issues
 * User:SPECIFICO changes "Controversial views" to "Societal punishment of blasphemers"
 * 27 July 2013
 * [Bullet for space holding]
 * Carolmooredc removes Societal punishment heading and different portions of text citing BLP
 * Srich32977 restores Carolmooredc material, citing the ongoing RfC
 * Carolmooredc replaces BLP sources (which had been posted in the past, but removed).
 * BLP template removed.
 * Srich32977 restores BLP template
 * User:DiligenceDude adds to "Opposition to religious liberty" heading
 * User:StAnselm modifies section headings
 * DiligenceDude modifies Native American heading
 * StAnselm removes disputed Native Americans heading & section, citing BLP
 * Restores "Executing homosexuals" & "Opposition to religious liberty" headings
 * 28 July 2013
 * removes BLP sources
 * User:Collect modifies section headings
 * DiligengeDude modifies "Opposition to religious liberty" section heading
 * Collect does ce & modifications on headings
 * Restores "Execution" & "Opposition to religious liberty" section headings
 * Collects reverts "Executing" heading change, cites NPOV & BLP
 * Reverts edit made by Collect
 * StAnselm modifies "Executing" heading, keeping the term Support etc.
 * StAnselm restores "Religious liberty" heading w/o "Opposition to"
 * Restores "Opposition to" change by StAnselm
 * Self reverts previous edit
 * StAnselm changes "Support for executing homosexuals etc" to "Support for capital punishment"
 * User Dominus Vobisdu reverts StAnselm edit
 * User:Binksternet removes primary source material (latest diff provided, but not the current version)
 * – S. Rich (talk) 05:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

@Srich - Srich, this board is to discuss application of policy to content, not editor behavior. Please consider hatting your log of editor actions and your comments about editors, above. Please share your BLP concerns in specific terms that relate WP content to policy. I believe that it's clear that there's been excessive and unresolved revision of these problematic section headings. Part of the problem with this article seems to be that editors have differing understandings of the relevant WP policy statements. Let's try to be clear and specific about our understandings of policy and how policy applies to the text in this article. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk  14:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The matter is pretty simple—if there is reason for Wikipedia to report that someone is a fruitcake, there will be reliable secondary sources to make that assertion. Editors are not free to pick sentences from past statements and add them to Barack Obama, and they are not free to do something similar on other BLP articles, no matter how worthy is the recipient. Johnuniq (talk) 10:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This board is free to act against an editor who continually violates the BLP policy. The discussion is valid. Binksternet (talk) 14:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * First it's necessary to specify the policy violation. That was my concern.  SPECIFICO  talk  15:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Per above: User:SPECIFICO and USER: STEELETRAP have repeatedly been told that cherry picking primary source quotes to make BLPs look bad (plus things like WP:OR/Synth, using hostile self-published sources, etc.) is against WP:BLP policy; policy links and quotes have been given to them. Yet they continue to insert and even revert back such material. They were repeatedly informed at Talk:Hans-Hermann_Hoppe: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.(They do sometimes recognize the policy as being valid if someone tries to use proper Self-Published CV or other material that is neutral or makes the subject look credible.)
 * See also these BLPN Discussions on other BLP issues a few of us have had at BLPN discussions in May 2013 and  June 2013. The editors don't seem to realize that a BLP subject's having obviously absurd views - or views that editors personally think are absurd - is not a license to go to 700 page documents and take a few sentences (which may be partially or entirely out of context) and throw them in the article.  Both have an extremely strong negative POV against certain economists which has been discussed this ANI (as well as several previous ones) and and this NPOV notice. User:Carolmooredc 
 * This discussion is regarding the section titles for North. Let's not get distracted by problems/discussions on other articles. If the section title issue can get nailed down, then the subsections can be addressed on a case by case basis. A proposed, 'carved-in-stone' article outline is below. – S. Rich (talk) 16:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You are confused, Srich. Read the above: This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period. BLPN also can be used to ask editors to come to a discussion on an article talk page and/or b) clarify some policy dispute. I was responding to its main purpose. User:Carolmooredc  19:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not confused in the least. This notice started off focused on the heading question. I've provided information that focuses on the headings and I've proposed a solution. Endorse the solution, and we can implement it. Then we can move on (perhaps on the article talk page) to the other issues. I strongly recommend against expanding this BLPN to include edits beyond the Gary North article. Worse yet would be to expand the scope of this BLPN into the general pattern of any particular editor. – S. Rich (talk) 19:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed section title revisions Presently the article has the following structure. Headings subject to revision are italicized:
 * Contents
 * 1 Education and background
 * 2 Career
 * 2.1 Ron Paul curriculum
 * 3 Christian, Bible-based economic methodology
 * 4 Political, economic, and religious beliefs
 * 4.1 Support for executing homosexuals and other sinners
 * 4.2 Religious liberty
 * 5 Y2K catastrophe prediction
 * 6 Publications
 * 6.1 Institute for Christian Economics
 * 6.2 Books and newsletters
 * 6.3 Documentary and educational film
 * [Footers]

I propose that sections 3 & 4 be combined and revised to read:
 * 3 Political, economic, and religious views
 * 3.1 Christian, Bible-based economic methodology
 * 3.2 Capital punishment
 * 3.3 Religious liberty
 * The "methodology" section is one paragraph – a subsection covers it well. The "capital punishment" and "religious liberty" section titles are WP:NDESC. – S. Rich (talk) 15:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you are correct to get out the specific mention of "homosexuals" but the section heading should make it clear this is capital punishment per the Old Testament. It's hardly typical of advocates of capital punishment in general. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not really "capital punishment" but more about "capital crimes" or "capital crimes and modes of punishment" right? SPECIFICO  talk  16:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "Capital crimes" fits the bill by definition. Nobody gets executed for having committed a non-capital crime. (We gotta leave out any section heading description that attempts to parse Old Test. definitions of capital crimes vs. modern views.) – S. Rich (talk) 16:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

There is another issue concomitant which is whether a primary source should be used to back a claim made in Wikipedia's voice concerning this controversial person.

 * The other question presented at the top of the thread is repeated above. There have been differences among various editors' understanding of WP policy concerning primary sources in BLP.  The article talk page discussion is here.
 * It appears to me that some editors are conflating the prohibition on "primary documents" written by third parties with "primary documents" written by a BLP subject and expressing only the subject's own views. This question should be discussed and guidance sought here so that the same dispute does not arise repeatedly on the article and talk pages.  SPECIFICO  talk  17:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * See BLP: Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies. Much as individuals may disgust us we can't read through their 700 page books looking for those one or two sentences that can be used to support our mere wiki editor point of view on the individual. User:Carolmooredc  20:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You have just made exactly the error which I described above. The link you cite refers to primary documents such as public records, commercial records, and other primary documents not written by the subject of the article.  It does not refer to the subject's statement of her own views in her own words.  If you don't understand the distinction, seek guidance here.   SPECIFICO  talk  20:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * And cherry-picking "embarrassing quotes" which have not been reported by reliable secondary sources is also quite clearly covered by BLP - sorry -- primary sources so cherry-picked make for very poor pies. Collect (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * All I did on this thread was to copy the second point you raised in your notice posting above, in the hope that the discussion could be separated from the question of the OR headings. I don't recall having added any primary-sourced text to the article, which I have edited rather little over the past 7-8 months. I would be interested however to hear your take on the distinction I raised to carolmooredc concerning the two different kinds of reference which might be called "primary source."  SPECIFICO  talk  21:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no such distinction. If there is you'd be able to quote the relevant policy. (Also long section titles like this are very disruptive; feel free to shorten it now.) User:Carolmooredc  21:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Here it is... self-published primary sources usable subject to various limitations which do not pertain to the current iteration of the North article: WP:ABOUTSELF. SPECIFICO talk  22:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This section is "Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves" - it's about what they can say about themselves not whether we can cherry pick and use their primary source quotes anyway we want to show what's notable and what the overall view point is. User:Carolmooredc  22:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for conceding my point and acknowledging the WP policy. I have no further concern. SPECIFICO talk  23:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean conceding your point and don't know if you understand what I'm saying. About self is not about cherry picking quotes of writings. See BLP: "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.[4]" This is what is relevant to the reliable source issue. User:Carolmooredc 

Omitted facts as to why title is appropriate
I am very distressed to see that my peers Carol, Collect, and Rich have decided to focus on the alleged personal flaws of editors rather than engage in an even-handed policy-based discussion as to why the title may or may not be appropriate. The case for the current title is threefold: 1) that North, as confirmed by numerous RS, supports executing gays and 2) The secondary RS are responding to this very point in their criticism of North. 3) The section as written focuses on North's views about homosexuality. I am deeply disappointed that OP did not note these facts at the top. Steeletrap (talk) 17:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Question regarding misleading description by OP OP implies that my title fails to "cover the actual content of that section." This is an apparent untruth, insofar as it falsely implies that either North does not favor executing gays or the section does not focus on his views on gays (it does). I ask OP to explain why his statement isn't an untruth? Steeletrap (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Outside party here. "Capital punishment" seems like weaksauce to me, but could you briefly let this noticeboard know why you think other proposed alternatives are insufficient, such as, for example, the "Using biblical standards for capital punishment" suggested by User:Collect above. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 18:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I think my proposed title is better because it is more specific and descriptive. People know what support for executing gays is; views on "capital punishment" is hopelessly vague and support for "Biblical standards for execution" is just an abstract way of saying what the current title says.
 * I am happy to have a discussion on these issues. (if you look at the talk page, all you see are vague, unspecific (unquoted) references to policy and erroneous allegations that this does not represent North's views). Despite the regrettably misleading remark by OP and regrettable diversions by other users from the subject at hand, some good points have been made regarding use of a term like "sinners." Steeletrap (talk) 18:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * See BLP: Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies. User:Carolmooredc  20:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * For the sake of clarity for editors outside this conflict, can we keep this section of the discussion limited to the title of the disputed section only? Thank you.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 21:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I removed my quote only because I temporarily got confused and thought this was another paragraph based entirely on primary sources.
 * The problem here is POV pushing. [Added later: I feel like] Steeletrap thinks the most important issue anyone can focus on is wrongs to homosexuals.  Other people think the NPOV way to put it is all people who fall into the class of sinners. This kind of narrow focus on wrongs done to only one class of people, downplaying that done to others, does not make for NPOV editing, looks like an attempt to rouse certain groups to hate and/or action, and is extremely disruptive of the encyclopedia. We had the same problem repeatedly with Steeletrap at Hans-Hermann Hoppe.  And it's insulting to everyone else who nutty Xians might want to execute.
 * As a woman who had an abortion I'm quite offended myself. But I'm not suggesting we call it Support for executing women who had abortions and other sinners. Because I care more about wikipedia NPOV than pushing the abortion rights agenda. User:Carolmooredc  21:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Carol, you have already been reprimanded by an admin (after which you apologized) for your personal remarks on the North page. Your unfounded slight that I "thinks [sic] the most important issue anyone can focus on is wrongs to homosexuals" is in my judgment bigoted; I have never said I regard LGBT issues as more important than, for instance, gender issues, and saying that is an assumption based on nothing other than my sexual orientation and support for LGBT rights. (Your bigoted remark is akin to someone accusing a black wikipedian who favors racial equality of caring about "rights for blacks" above and at the expense of all others, on the basis of no evidence) Steeletrap (talk) 22:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The homosexual remark was included because RS focus on the particular issue of homosexuals/homosexuality, as did the (regrettably and inexplicably deleted) well-sourced primary source material by North himself. Steeletrap (talk) 22:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Obviously I'm expressing how I feel and I added that so it doesn't look like some absolute and accurate intellectual judgement. Women do get angry for having their concerns downplayed, after all. As may sinners of other classes that some nutty xians may want or have wanted to execute. Obviously it's an emotional topic - another reason we have to use secondary sources and not interpret ourselves.
 * That said, I really don't have time to see if that is accurate about what the sources say. Being NPOV means not reflecting biases of sources in any case, looking for less biased sources to get a better viewpoint. It certainly is not encouraging people from sexology wikiproject to opine on this topic, which an admin chastised you for recently. User:Carolmooredc  22:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Would anyone oppose me hatting this and redirecting it back to the Gary North page? It seems to be a continuation of the debate at Gary North's page, so for the long term would be better if this discussion was held there. I think this board can now consider itself to have been notified.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Obi-Wan, I believe that is not only permissible but appropriate given how this thread omitted key facts in its original post and has been derailed from the question regarding the sub-title into personal attacks on editors. Steeletrap (talk) 00:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You should ask the Original Poster. IMHO, regarding the purpose of this noticeboard, longterm BLP abuse, it has been useful in clarifying another issue that has been so disruptive over a couple articles and thus is helpful for future endeavors to solve the problem. But the focus mostly has been the WP:OR and title issue which, for now, people are working on. We'll see if two weeks from now when others are finished with the article there isn't yet another attempt to use it for a partisan agenda. User:Carolmooredc  03:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Obi-Wan, please do hat this. The question of problematic section headings is almost resolved. Also, I do not think any assertions in the article text lack secondary sources. Progress is being made on the article and Steele's TP. Slalom. – S. Rich (talk) 04:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What is "TP". WP:TP leads to Help:Using talk pages and I don't think that's it. If editors of seven years don't get allusions, new editors may not either. Let's keep Wikipedia user friendly. Thanks. User:Carolmooredc  13:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Huma Abedin
Huma Abedin has been the subject of Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy theories advanced by a fringe group of right-wing activists and politicians. Their claims have been widely discredited in mainstream media and are considered false and pernicious. User:BingNorton is attempting to whitewash this fact by removing well-sourced rebuttals and rejections of those conspiracy theories from the Washington Post and Anti-Defamation League, which has the effect of making the conspiracy theories seem more credible and important than they really are. Omitting the mainstream consensus (that the claims are evidence-free, politically-motivated attacks) gives those claims undue weight. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No, the comments of NorthBySouthBaranof ("NbySB") are simply not true. NbySB demands that the Abedin article state that one of the groups that have been critical of her is as NbySB states "Need to make *absolutely clear* that these Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy theories are fringe nutjobbery".  You can review that POV pushing statement from NbySB here. That statement is very indicative of POV pushing. Also, the wording that NbySB wants is not supported by a reliable source.  I have removed the commentary because there is no reliable source to support the claim.  NbySB has removed it and makes many different comments similar to the one above--POV pushing comments.  Finally, NbySB's claim above that I removed "well-sourced rebuttals and rejections of those conspiracy theories" is simply not true. I removed a statement by a Wikipedia editor that one group was a MB conspiracy theory (without RS) and I removed one very, very long from John McCain, that was not needed.  I did not remove all of the information, I merely trimmed it down.  The substance of the Abedin's defense remained in the article.  However, the goal of the editing is to provide a NPOV; however, NbySB's belief that the group quoted is "fringe nujobbery" has led him to believe that his POV must be pushed into the article.  The article needs a NPOV, not POV pushing and POV pushing is exactly what NbySB is doing and he is attempting to use this BIO Noticeboard to intimidate other editors from disagreeing with him.--Bing Norton 19:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * For example, Sen Grassley sent a series of questions to Abedin to answer. He also sent a series of questions to the State Dept.  Both Abedin and the State Dept responded to Grassley.  This is verifiable fact and it is supported by a reliable source by me (the RS is CBS News).  NbySB reverted my edit which indicated that there are two responses to Grassley.  This is factual information.  This is NOT opinion. NbySB.  Unfortunately, NbySB has a goal of pushing his POV onto the article and he does not even take the time to review my changes he just reverts them without reasonable comment.  The only comments that one gets when he reverts is similar to the the quote of above where he flat out states that he is going to impose his POV on the article.  Yes the BIO noticeboard is the correct place for this discussion, but the editor that needs to be watch is NbySB.  He is a POV pusher.--Bing Norton 19:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by BingNorton (talk • contribs)
 * The difference is that my POV is supported by a wide variety of reliable sources as being the mainstream viewpoint. NPOV does not require that we treat all claims with equal weight - in fact, a specific part of the NPOV policy directs that Wikipedia articles should reflect viewpoints "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Overwhelmingly, the most prominent viewpoint in this "debate" is that the Muslim Brotherhood claims are scurrilous, politically-motivated conspiracy theories lacking any substance or veracity. They have been refuted, rebutted and dismissed by people and groups ranging from the Anti-Defamation League to John McCain, and an editorial from the Washington Post calls the allegations a "baseless attack" and a "smear." That you do not like the fact that the vast majority of reliable sources consider the claims to be nonsensical and false is irrelevant. Wikipedia ought to and must reflect the fact that those claims are fringe theories rejected and given no credence by anyone outside a small group of extreme right-wing conspiracy theorists. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Standard 3rr warning issued to Bing Norton. Update: and NorthBySouthBaranof. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 19:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * My edits were not disruptive and they were based upon editing reasons. There was no need for the standard warning issued to me.  If there was a need for the warning then the warning should have also been given to NbySB.  However, Gamaliel did not issue the warning to NbySB also.  I don't know the reason for the lack of a warning to NbySB, but I do find the fact that Gamaliel completely agreed with NbySB's edits to be suspicious in nature.  I find it highly inappropriate for Gamaliel to both edit the article and to act as the enforcer of an editing dispute, especially an editing dispute that Gamaliel is part of.  Highly inappropriate.--Bing Norton 22:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As I said, this was standard, and issued to you to inform you as per standard procedure. You are a relatively new editor involved in an edit war, and this warning was solely to inform you of a major policy involving edit wars. If you perceive judgment in this warning, it is not due to anything I said or did.  Such warnings are not given to experienced users as they are presumed to already know the rules. I had seen NorthBySouthBaranof edit a different article and thus assumed s/he was a more experienced user, but s/he is relatively new as well, so I will issue the same warning.  Fair is fair.  As for your claims about my alleged involvement in this editing dispute, as an editor on this noticeboard it is perfectly appropriate for me to both edit the article in line with Wikipedia policies and inform you of those policies. Even so, your claim is incorrect as at the time of this writing I have never edited that article.  Please retract your claim.  Thank you.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 01:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As I have said, NbySB editing is disruptive and he is engaging in an edit war. I noticed that you have since edited the article since the earlier posts.  I will give you an example of one of NbySB's edit war edits.  I made an addition to the article.  I added the comments of two very, very, very well-known writers from the Washington Post concerning Abedin's decision to support Weiner.  This is a notable topic and the people who comments were added are two writers that are known through journalism--whose opinions are also notable. However, NbySB merely reverted the additions and stated in a POV pushing manner that Sally Quinn's and Ruth Marcus's opinions are "random" which of course they are not.  Once again, NbySB is the editor that began this discussion on this page, being critical of my edits, and you have warned me of engaging in an edit war.  Nothing is further from the truth.  I did misspeak about your editing of the article.  However, I now understand my confusion.  NbySB has been following me from article to article and reverting my edits.  You edited one of those articles and of course your edit in that article supported NbySB just like your edit in this article supported NbySB. I apologize for the confusion but my general point still stands--most of your edits align directly with NbySB's edits.  I also admit that you did warn NbySB after I mentioned it.  However, his side of the edit continues.  Also, my edits do NOT violate BLP.  I have not seen any real support for that claim other than this complaint, which seems to be designed to intimidate me from editing the article.  Abedin's handling of Weiner's mayor campaign is a notable topic and I will continue to cover it in the article, which I have done in the past.  I have been careful to only use reliable sources (commentators from the Washington Post) and use straight forward wording that relies as much as possible from the original sources.  However, I must point out that NbySB is reverting and engaging in an edit war.  I would appreciate that you apply the same rules to him.  You can review his war edits here: war edit #1 and here: war edit #2.--Bing Norton 22:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by BingNorton (talk • contribs)
 * The purpose of this noticeboard is not to quell edit wars, but strictly to ensure that BLP articles adhere to the rules of Wikipedia. One rule that you might want to look at is WP:UNDUE, because I think that bringing in quotes from random commentators probably overwhelms such a short article.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 00:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for confirming my original point. You are using your admin position to enforce subjective choices about editing the article to support NbySB edits, which of course, is highly inappropriate--an article that you have been editing.  There still is no reliable source to back up the claim, by NbySB, that the Center for Security Policy is "right wing".--Bing Norton 12:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What paranoid nonsense. I have used no administrative powers in regards to this article.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 12:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Once again, BingNorton, you are just flat-out making things up. I specifically sourced the "right-wing" statement to a dead-tree published book which is a reliable source. You might quibble or disagree with the source, and we might debate the source, but the statement had a source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This is simply untrue, BingNorton. I did not "merely revert the additions." I removed the comment from Sally Quinn, leaving the comment from Ruth Marcus. Marcus' comment focused on her perception of the very-much-public press conference, which I feel is a reasonable subject for questioning. On the other hand, Quinn made a number of speculative, unsupported and invasive pseudo-psychoanalytic remarks about Abedin's personal relationships, a subject for which she has absolutely no demonstrated expertise or training. One of those comments is fair and well-founded, the other is scurrilous tabloid fodder. So I removed the latter.
 * Furthermore, you might note that Wikipedia's own article on Sally Quinn states that she is considered to have an anti-Clinton bias and may be thought of as grossly hypocritical when criticizing someone else's marital problems given that she engaged in an extramarital affair with Ben Bradlee that ultimately broke up his second marriage. In that light, Quinn's comments are astoundingly ill-founded. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)