Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive186

Irreligion in the United States
This revision of Irreligion in the United States has an image array of "irreligious" people. These image arrays are usually used for cultural, rather than religious groups, though Islam in the United States is an exception. My chief problem is making people "poster children" for irreligion. WP:BLPCAT says "Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." This explicitly applies to infoboxes as well. With many of the people in the image array, (Zuckerburg? Wales? Pitt? Jolie? Gates?) their beliefs are not "relevant to their public life or notability". Am I over-reacting here? Is there a BLP concern? StAnselm (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the images aren't appropriate, unless those people's main notability stems from the fact that they have no religion (which it doesn't in these cases). Not to mention that those people's religious convictions would have to be very well sourced, which I'm guessing that most of them aren't. Black Kite (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oy. This whole article seems to me to create a bundle of issues, but specifically as to the photos I share your concern and your rationalization. Dwpaul (talk) 21:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That article has huge problems. It seems to make no distinction between organized religion and other forms of religion.  There are many deists, for example, who are very religious even though they subscribe to no organized religion.  For the article to imply that all the pictured people are "nonreligious" or "irreligious" just because they may reject organized religion is just false.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I checked a few that I was somewhat familiar with, and based on their articles, their religious beliefs were either not a key par of their notability, or in most cases, were sufficiently ambiguous (It wouldn't be wrong to call them irreligious, but their positions are more nuanced) that their inclusion in the array seems inappropriate. Monty  845  22:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The pages title goal to be overly inclusive makes it difficult to allow anyone to be identified as part of this group without violating BLP. If it was Atheists in America or Deist in America, but you would be hard pressed to find someone publicly talking specifically about their irreligion. D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 05:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Adding a link array to this section for convenient access to the article's Talk page, where there is additional ongoing discussion of this issue. Dwpaul (talk) 15:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

clara maria lovett
Having just looked up my Wikipedia biography, I found a completely false reference to my having attempted to censor or discredit the work of Christy Turner on cannibalism among ancestors of the Hopi tribe in Arizona. Please remove this sentence, which is a complete fabrication.

Also, note that my husband, Dr. Benjamin F. Brown IV, died in November 2011 and that I now reside in Chevy Chase MD, just outside Washington D.C. and no longer reside in Arizona.

Thank you.

Clara M. Lovett President emerita Northern Arizona University — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.96.182 (talk) 13:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * While WP doesn't take directions from anonymous people claiming to be a BLP subject, I have no problem removing unsourced personal and controversial claims and have therefore deleted the content cited by the IP above.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 15:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Clara Lovett have almost no references, should we just delete it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm adding sources but not sure if there is enough to justify notability. Opinion welcome.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 15:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The IP (or authorized account if any) cannot dictate more info for the article that would improve notability without COI, but I assume they could point out published sources an editor could use to improve the article, if they are so inclined. I assume they should do so on the article's Talk page. Dwpaul (talk) 16:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, pointing out sources is always helpful. It seems Lovett has written several books too.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 16:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Article looks much better now, well done! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've fleshed it out a bit and it may meet the standards for an academic BLP. Thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 18:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Brandy Alexandre
An old, contentious issue is about to flare up. Please see here, here,here and here. David in DC (talk) 20:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Since the real name apparently is a privacy concern then we should keep it off. I found an old ticket regarding this, and it looks like the discussion in the talk page predates the more stringent BLP policy now in place. Watching. § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Gilad Atzmon
I am concerned that a sentence in this biography is in contravention of several wikipedia guidelines, and that a stalemate has been reached in resolving the issue, as can be seen in the talk section.WP:Talk:Gilad_Atzmon.

The sentence reads:

""Atzmon has defined himself variously as a "secular Jew",[3] a "proud self-hating Jew",[52][53] an "ex-Jew"[54]"a Jew who hates Judaism"[55] and "a Hebrew-speaking Palestinian."[3]""

As the claim is that Atzmon has defined himself in these ways, one should expect that the sources provided will back the claims:

With regard to the claim that Atzmon has defined himself as a secular Jew, the passage from which the claim is extracted appears to be:

"He agrees, however that he has, in effect renounced his Jewish identity, although, he adds, he grew up in a secular Jewish environment: "So I'm probably very loud and rude at times. You can take the Jew out of Israel but you cannot take Israel out of the Jew."

In effect the claim is wrong because Atzmon stresses that he has renounced his Jewish identity despite growing up in a secular Jewish environment. The source does not back the claim.

More worrying is the claim that "Atzmon has defined himself as a "a Jew who hates Judaism".

This claim is taken from an hostile article in Ynet, published by Yediot Aharnot - which is described thus in it's Wikipedia article WP:Yedioth Ahronoth: " It is published in tabloid format, and according to one author, its marketing strategy emphasizes "drama and human interest over sophisticated analysis."

BLP guidelines note: "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism"

Furthermore, when the article was published Atzmon immediately disputed the claim, writing <ref: The article in English contains some gross mistranslations and misquotes. It seems as if Yediot's writer failed to translate 'self hatred' into Hebrew. He has managed to come up with with some very creative ideas, such as ‘a Jew who hates Judaism’, and ‘Jew Hater.’ - the article fails to acknowledge that Atzmon has specifically refuted the claim - and that therefore it is bordering on weasel words to claim that he has defined himself thus.

It is also a guideline of BLP that: " an editor who is involved in a significant off-wiki controversy or dispute with another individual, or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the possible conflict of interest."

The edit was reverted by WP:User:RolandR whose own page makes it clear that he and Atzmon are rivals - see the pink box headed ""Reliable sources: where he quotes Atzmon thus:
 * "One may be surprised to discover that chief amongst ‘Wikipedia Jews’ is alleged ‘Anti Zionist’ (RolandR)... a London based Jewish Marxist who spends most of his time peppering Wikipedia entries with Judeo-centric context." Gilad Atzmon, 20 August 2010 [2]

BLP guidelines note that: "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." and that "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material."

The whole sentence is in need of rewriting in order to ensure that the claim that Atzmon has defined himself is backed by clear and undsiputed evidence that Atzmon has indeed defined himself thus.(Roy Bard (talk) 06:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC))
 * There are a number of points in dispute here. The easy one first: Yedioth Ahronoth is an eminently reliable source. It is Israel's most widely read paper, and although tabloid in format, its content is not in the least comparable to the gutter-press tabloids prevalent in Britain and the US. The paper must be cited in several hundred Wikipedia articles, and I would strenuously oppose any attempt to disqualify any content solely on the basis that YA was the source.
 * Secondly, this dispute appears to be about translation, not content. This was an interview in Hebrew of an Israeli musician, by an Israeli journalist, appearing in a Hebrew-language newspaper. In the article talk page, I have linked to and cited the original text. Atzmon has made no objection to the Hebrew original of this interview, only to the English translation. Any other Hebrew-speaking editor can easily refer to the original, and see that the correct English translation is indeed "a Jew who hates Judaism", not "a self-hating Jew" (for which there is a widely-used and well-known Hebrew equivalent). So the complaint itself would appear to lack weight: this is an accurate English translation of an unchallenged Hebrew original.
 * Roy Bard then proceeds to insinuate that I should be disqualified from making such edits, since I am a "rival" of Atzmon. What he neglects to report, however, is that he is himself a close ally of Atzmon, publishing articles on his website and collaborating with him on a blog. He has also attacked me, while defending Atzmon, on several sites. So his strictures apply at least as much to himself as they do to me.
 * In sum, this is an invalid claim of unreliability, made by a person closely allied to the subject and publicly hostile to me. The claim should not be accepted, and the well-sourced edit should be allowed to remain. RolandR (talk) 12:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

My concern is that the article is distorted by claiming as fact that Atzmon self-defines as a "Jew who hates Judaism", when he has issued a specific denial that he said those words: - I don't know how it has been established that "This was an interview in Hebrew of an Israeli musician, by an Israeli journalist, appearing in a Hebrew-language newspaper" but Atzmon clearly states that it is a mistranslation - noting "The article in English contains some gross mistranslations and misquotes. It seems as if Yediot's writer failed to translate 'self hatred' into Hebrew. He has managed to come up with with some very creative ideas, such as ‘a Jew who hates Judaism’, and ‘Jew Hater.’", "Clear mistranslation here. the reference is to 'self hatred'. accordingly Jesus was a 'self hater'.  Instead of "Asked why he hates Jews" it should be "Asked why is he a self-hater'. it should read "Jesus was a self hater, and so were Spinoza and Marx." His comments are copnsistent with statement he has made elsewhere regarding Spinoza, Jesus and Marx eg: "Yet, it is hardly surprising that intelligent and creative assimilated Jews indulge in self-hatred. History teaches us that the most universally inspiring Jews, I mean, those who contributed something to humanity rather than merely to their own people or even just themselves, were motivated by some form of self hate. The first names that come to mind are Christ, Spinoza and Marx." , “When you try to think of the biggest humanists ever, Spinoza Marx and Christ were basically proud self-hating Jews also.”. The only source for the claim is that article, and the fact that it appears on wikipedia as fact that he defines himself thus is wrong.

WP:User:RolandR states: "What he neglects to report, however, is that he is himself a close ally of Atzmon, publishing articles on his website and collaborating with him on a blog. He has also attacked me, while defending Atzmon, on several sites. So his strictures apply at least as much to himself as they do to me." - however what strikes me is that I am asking for a contested distortion of Atzmon's views to be edited out. According to the guidelines is ""The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material." and furthermore to avoid a conflict of interest (and there clearly is one here) "an editor who is involved in a significant off-wiki controversy or dispute with another individual, or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the possible conflict of interest." The meaning of "should not edit" seems to me to be unambiguous. I personally became aware of the problem when I received a tweet which stated " Atzmon "hates Judaism", do you as well? Yes or no is fine" - It was through trying to verify the source of that, that I discovered the claim on Wikipedia. I do not agree with everything that Atzmon says, but I do believe that he should be allowed to explore his ideas, and I am opposed to the campaign run by a group of which RolandR is a key member, to silence/censor him. It is no small irony that a key opponent of Atzmon is editing an article on Atzmon, which distorts Atzmon's views whilst claiming to be presenting Atzmon as self-defined by Atzmon, and which fails to acknowledge that there is a refutation of the attributed words in Atzmon's own words, on his site..

I am clear that we cannot resolve this between us - it needs other editors who do not have a conflict of interest to examine the source and the evidence and to decide whether: (1)the case that Atzmon has defined himself as a "Jew who hates Judaism" is made, and should be allowed to stand without any reference to his own words which dispute that definition, (2) and further whether that claim is important enough to be included in a BLP, bearing in mind that it can be used against Atzmon, (3)and whether or not an avowed rival of Atzmon should or should not be editing a BLP of their rival.(92.24.173.188 (talk) 17:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC) (edited for clarity (92.24.173.188 (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC))) Further edits made to typos and I have logged in as I realsied that I hadn't been logged in before (Roy Bard (talk) 17:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC))

Response
Some points in response: Frizzmaz (talk) 14:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * RolandR has taken the translation from a WP:RS, and has independently confirmed the translation as accurate. As such it should stand, along with Atzmon's dispute.
 * The disputed word: []
 * Atzmon is known for his silent, retroactive edits when he has said something unsupportably anti-Jewish on his site and is caught out. It seems likely that this translation dispute is his attempt to do something similar, having once again been caught out. If you are familiar with Atzmon's tendency to aim for the intentionally outrageous anti-Jewish attack, including recently a winking flirtation with Holocaust denial, the WP:RS translation does not seem at all out of character. We are after all talking about someone whom even his best-known blurber, John Mearsheimer, happily concedes is "a self-hating Jew."
 * It should be noted that Roy Bard is a WP:SPA with easily discoverable WP:COI problems on this topic of at least the scale of that of which he accuses RolandR. It's not unusual in the late stages of a career arc like Atzmon's that the last handful of loyalists are the most dogged.

"See you on the streets" It is true I am not a Wikipedian, I am far too anarchic for that - there's so many rules and side alleys in this  wikipedia system that it might actually be worse than Westminster (Imho)BUT if Wikipedia is about NPOV and all those other VIP acronynms - then the rules seem clear enough - onus on the one editing IN to provide burden of proof, who should not be an avowed rival of the subject. I am not editing in, but I am concerned that wikipedia presents as fact that Atzmon is a "Jew against Judaism", in fact claims he defines himself thus, when it is blatantly clear that Atzmon has gone to great pains to say exactly the opposite. And so despite all the rules and the NPOV ,Wikipedia by allowing this sentence to stand, allows itself to become a tool in the dispute and damned be the truth. This is why I think direct action gets the goods.....- I am not really willing to spend hours of my life doing it your way when you disrespect the truth so much.(Roy Bard (talk) 17:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC))
 * 'I am not really willing to spend hours of my life doing it your way when you disrespect the truth so much.' — A reasonably accurate paraphrase of what most said to you when leaving Indymedia it seems. But that is a topic for another day. Frizzmaz (talk) 20:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no idea who Frizmazz is, but I do know that Frizmazz inadvertantly revealed itself as a WP:COI by pretending this is about me, and not about the claim that weasel words are being used by an Arch-rival of Atzmon in order to wilfully misrepresent him as a self-defined "Jew against Judaism" when he is nothing of the sort, and that immediately on publication of the hostile article in Yediot Aharonot which s/he says is a WP:RS, and which I say is a Zionist rag he made clear that he does not define himself as much and says it is a translation problem. I had hoped that a Wikipedian who didn't have a 'conflict of interest' and who valued the stated core values of Wikipedia would resolve the matter, but the weasel words are still up there. In the talk section of Gilad Atzmon's page WP:Talk:Gilad_AtzmonUser:Carolmooredc wrote: "Like I always say, I do believe that Wikipedia eventually could face a class action lawsuit charging Wikipedia Foundation malfeasance if some creepy-assed lawyers ever decided to put one together with 30 or 40 aggrieved subjects of bios. All they have to do is search throughout the BLP policy, BLPN and its header, ANI and other relevant pages and they could do a real big case based on copious written evidence." Wikipedians should ask themselves why she would write this. If anyone is interested in the 'Truth' of the matter about my relationship with Atzmon, this whole issue finally motivated to write an article in which I offer a frank account of my relationship with Atzmon and his work. (Roy Bard (talk) 01:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC))
 * Ray Bard, you self-describe as anarchic, "with no controlling rules or principles to give order", but you want us to follow your interpretation of our rules and what you think is a Reliable Source; even though you can't be bothered to read all our rules about what makes a source reliable? Then, you hint at using the legal system to enforce your edits. Sounds like a lot of giving orders based on some sort of self-guiding principles to me. I saw you were a new editor, left you a kind hello and an easy to navigate guide about our rules; and you replied with unkind words. I'm sorry Wikipedia isn't everything you want it to be, but trying to get complete strangers like myself to help you out on the biography of a person I didn't know existed until today, doesn't start with unkind words for the project I commit a considerable amount of my free time contributing to. This post isn't about hurt feelings, I don't know you enough for your words to hurt. I'm trying to help you understand why you might not be getting the support from Wikipedia editors you seem to think you are entitled to. D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 06:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Louisville teen sexual assault case
The names of the two 16-year-olds convicted in this case have been suppressed by the Kentucky court. An IP has just inserted them into the article. Does en.Wikipedia have a policy or normal practice when it comes to identifying juvenile offenders in general, or in cases where the name has been suppressed by a court order in particular? With some exceptions, news sources don't seem to be reporting the names, though they're all over the net, and the victim tweeted them. I've reverted the edit for now, as a precaution. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * For those coming fresh to this discussion: It appears from comments below that in Kentucky it is routine for the names of juvenile offenders to be protected from publication by law. The suppression by the court I refer to was an order for the victim not to mention their names. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * More like protected from release. Once the media finds out the name, its another matter entirely. Monty  845  23:43, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That is curious. The victim's name is public but those convicted of sexual assault's identities and privacy are protected? Strange court decision. Liz  Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 18:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The names of the assailants are key to the article. If the assault is newsworthy/worth of a Wikipedia article it is because the victim was brave enough to out herself to name the assailants, (redacted). If you do not know of a specific rule the names violate then they should not be suppressed. Save that for someone that is aware of a specific rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.72.34 (talk) 18:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have multiple reliable sources that specifically name the subjects then you may insert their names into the article. Until then, no. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * How valid is the word of the victim? She identified them...and they were convicted of assaulting her, so her identification was seen as valid by the courts. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 19:39, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The victim is a primary source, and therefore whatever she says about the perpetrators is not considered acceptable for verifiability purposes. Coverage about what she says may be, but it depends on the source and whether or not the material would violate WP:BLP in some way. § FreeRangeFrog croak 20:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * First, I knew the word of the victim would be rejected. Secondly, I understood that primary sources aren't forbidden, they are just not preferred sources. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 20:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

It is more than a question of sources. I raised this here because it is a BLP issue. While a BLP issue is being discussed, we leave the information in question out of the article until consensus forms. I've just read the BLP policy again.
 * WP:BLPNAME says, "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context."
 * Biographies of living persons says, "When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first..." --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, that's what the policy says. There are cases where the names of convicted perpetrators of a crime have been widely disseminated by the media, at which point we normally allow that information to be added to the relevant article (e.g., Murder of James Bulger). My point is that this is more a WP:V issue than anything else - if the suspects have been named (and it seems they have), has that been reported by multiple, reliable sources? If not then we should not include them in the article, period. § FreeRangeFrog croak 20:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The article is not about the victim, the article is about the sexual assault, the crime. I think omitting the names of the criminals is a "significant loss of context". If this was a shooting and not a sexual assault, there would be no question that the criminals names should be included in an article about the crime.
 * The question to me is not whether it should be included but a) are there reliable sources for this information and b) does this state court's gag order cover the multinational Wikipedia. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 20:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I just read the original Tweet that is circulating about this and apparently, the gag order covers the victim, not other people. So while there are other concerns, that is not an issue with publishing their names on WP. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 20:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * There are two different issues: (a) the legal one (and yes, Wikipedia is bound by US law - individuals are also bound by whatever laws apply to them individually, depending on their location), and (b) the WP:BLP policy one. Even if we can legally name the individuals, we can chose not to do so - and there is certainly a case to be made that we shouldn't name minors in such circumstances. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * First, I'm discovering this whole business about the victim Tweeting the names of her rapists occurred in July 2012 so I'm surprised it wasn't discussed last summer. Second, AndyTheGrump, as I said, would you still think WP should protect a minor's identity if they had been convicted of a shooting?
 * Reading the comments from the boys' lawyer after the victim mentioned their names last summer just makes me sick. He claimed that she, the victim of their assault, "had ruined their lives" but "somehow, they will overcome these obstacles." What gall! Here's a tip for him: His clients wouldn't have these obstacles if they hadn't assaulted a woman and shared photographs of the assualt. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 21:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * We must obey the law. This is not optional. As for what we should do, we have policies - one of which is that we protect the privacy of individuals. As to whether that policy applies here, I'm open to persuasion if it can be shown that the individuals have been named in mainstream media. And no, irrelevant crap from their lawyers isn't, um, relevant... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * As I said in my comments in this thread, the gag order was issued to the victim. Plenty of other people are talking about it. So, the "law" isn't an issue. WP:Crime victims and perpetrators would seem to apply here. As for protecting "the privacy of the individual", that concern doesn't seem extended to the victim, just to those who were convicted of assaulting her and distributing photos of the assault. #Ironic Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 22:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The law is an issue here until we have evidence that it isn't. And no, there was no 'gagging order' issued to the victim specifically - "juvenile proceedings in Kentucky are confidential". AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

If the Wikipedia article is not naming the assailants because of their age then the Wikipedia article should not name the victim either. This article should be named "Sexual assault of [Redacted]" On the other hand, if the issue is sources for content in the article, the article references the victim's tweets, and the victim's tweets have been reported nationally. The reason this sexual assault has national attention is the tweets, but Wikipedia does not even contain the content of the tweets. Which, as mentioned, have been published nationally. See: <-REDACTED - if this is added again, I will call for the person responsible to be blocked for editing - this is NOT a reliable source for such matters -> People ask for sources for content to be added to the article, but then redact the sources when they are provided? Glamour and Cosmopolitan are "NOT" reliable sources? Since when? As a guy I can see why women say Wikipedia has a women problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.72.34 (talk) 21:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

To the scope of Judge McDonald's "gag" order and applicability to Wikipedia, I have been looking for it but this<http://www.juryverdicts.net/SavannahDietrichJuvenileFilesPartThree.pdf> is as close as I have gotten (a memorandum filing with the Court requesting a hearing on her contempt charge). Since I cannot be 100% sure of its authenticity, this is not a source for publication, merely to inform the editors discussing this issue here. Dwpaul (talk) 21:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Yup - we certainly can't rely on primary-source documents like that to determine the legal position. And until that is clear, any further discussion as to what WP:BLP policy allows is rather pointless. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Savannah Dietrich outs her rapists article indicates that the gag order was placed on the victim, not to the media or the general public. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 22:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It indicates nothing of the sort. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * According to the memo filing linked above, the judge refused to lift the "gag order" (in response to a petition by both the local paper and Ms. Dietrich) on the basis that no such order was ever imposed. See p. 32 of the PDF. Dwpaul (talk) 22:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does - because there never was any need for a specific order - as it goes on to say "all juvenile court records of any nature... shall be deemed confidential...". And until someone can show that this doesn't apply to Wikipedia, we have to assume it does. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * OK. Kentucky courts have no jurisdiction in Florida (where the servers are, IIRC).  See Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1878).  I can go through all sorts of other reasons too.  Was Wikipedia served with an order of the court?  If not, no contempt or other violation.  Finally, has anyone even seen the purported gag order?  The court records may be confidential, but nothing in Kentucky law stated that the facts of the assault, the identities of the assailants, etc., were protected.  If there are sufficient sources, such as, ,   ,  and .  You've got two from local media, and two from nationally circulated magazines.   GregJackP   Boomer!   22:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Both Glamour and Cosmopolitan have provided the full quotes of Savannah Dietrich's tweets, which are what make this crime newsworthy, including the names of the assailants. I would be happy to provide the Glamour and Cosmopolitan sources, but someone keeps redacting them.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.72.34 (talk) 22:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hold on a second. I think the burden is on the one arguing a law prohibits us form doing X to show that the law does actually prohibit us from doing that. A vague reference to confidentiality rules, or a potential gag order against one person, definitely falls short in that regard. Generally, such laws at most apply to those who had special access to the pertinent information. Once it gets out, the only recourse is to find out who let it out, not go after republishes. Until someone can explain what law our inclusion of the names would break, as far as I'm concerned, we should get back to discussing the information in light of Wikipedia policy and editorial judgement. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  22:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There never was "a potential gag order against one person" - it is routine for the names of juvenile offenders to be protected by law, and it was those laws that were under consideration. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:43, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It is perhaps routine for court personnel and the lawyers involved to be subject to confidentiality rules. It is extremely rare for a law to purport to limit the publication of information acquired by a third party, such as a newspaper, or Wikipedia. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  22:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * We can't rely on what one Editor believes is "routine", especially when evidence is shown to the contrary. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 02:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Mainstream media WDRB link with attacker's names [//www.wdrb.com/story/19545645/savannah-dietrichich] NE Ent 23:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Another report stating that the court released the files to the public, here, after the controversy began. GregJackP  Boomer!   23:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Huffington Post have published the names, too. In many civilised societies, we don't publish the names of juvenile offenders for ethical reasons. Because we accept that developing juveniles are more susceptible to bad influences and more likely to make moral errors, and that people usually improve with age, we don't think their adolescent misdeeds should follow them into adulthood. I agree with this policy, and don't think, as a rule, that we should be publishing the names of juvenile offenders regardless of the local legal situation. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Both the rapists and the victim were 16 years old. I have a problem with immortalizing the names of any of them on Wikipedia. The victim doesn't apparently qualify for Category:Rape victims even regardless of her age, so I support striking all their names from the Wikipedia article. Some idiotic jurisdiction in Outer Mongolia may insist on publicizing all names of rape victims, but that doesn't mean we have to do that. I don't see any indication that the victim wants to be publicly known as a rape victim for the rest of her life. If wikipedia were in the business of punshment, then I could support using the attackers' names, but do we want Wikipedia to be in the business of punishing teenagers? Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia only recognizes US Federal law and Florida state law as having jurisdiction over its content. (Though, Kentucky does have jurisdiction over the behavior of editors in Kentucky). This same debate regularly comes up with Canadian minors involved with crime, in that they have the same censorship laws on names of minors. And some Canadian will now and then trie to enforce it on Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not engage in censorship becasue of arguments like this: "Because of such-and-such law, Wikipedia must do so-and-so".
 * The two minors convicted of the crime have no protection from publication of their names on Wikipedia as long as it is properly sourced. Also, we do not engage in censorship based on how it makes editors feel. Now, WP:AVOIDVICTIM may apply to the victim, however, as far as I can tell, she broke anonymity herself which means we publish her name, even if we the editors have "a problem with immortalizing the names". If you feel this policy wrong, the proper venue would be to take it up with Wikilegal. Trying to achieve it through consensus here would not stand, even if achieve. D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 04:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand Wikipedia policy, and the role of editorial judgment. We are under no obligation to republish everything about this case that has already been published elsewhere.  For example, we may choose to state that the victim's vagina was only penetrated digitally, and not by anything else such as a penis.  But we don't have to say that.  We may choose to say that the prosecutor went to the same high school as the attackers.  But we don't have to say that. Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy, so we have considerable discretion, and perhaps even a duty to omit stuff that we are legally allowed to include.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * How exactly am I the one misunderstanding Wikipedia policy when consensus has been reach multiple times on the inclusion of names of minors based on the same policy? (See Amanda Knox Elizabeth Smart or any number of young victims of notable sexual assaults). As for understanding Wikipedia policy, isn't your argument a bit of a WP:Other stuff exists argument? Given that you are comparing vaginal penetration facts to given names. Using given names has a clear and undeniable search and find advantage for articles. Including facts about vaginal penetration would need their own valid reason for inclusion, but would not be censured if such a reason was present. You're the one arguing against the grain of past consensus on this. If you have an argument why this case is different, let's hear it, otherwise if you are against the inclusion policy in general, this isn't the place to seek consensus on that D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 06:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Knox was an adult (not a child) when she allegedly committed murder, and you're referencing other Wikipedia articles, not me. The present article is about an incident, not a person, so I don't see a need to name names of children. This opinion is not based upon similarities across the project, and I don't know which side of the argument would be assisted if we took into account similarities across the project.
 * In this case, it's important to look at why the names became public in the first place. What happened is that the judge told everyone that Kentucky law requires confidentiality.  The victim got pissed off at the leniency of the judge, and therefore broke the confidentiality in a successful attempt to get harsher treatment of her attackers by the court.  Confidentiality was not waived because anyone involved wanted more notoriety.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Per a comment above by Anthonyhcole, "While a BLP issue is being discussed, we leave the information in question out of the article until consensus forms." Accordingly, I have moved the article to "Louisville teen sexual assault case".Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The move was inappropriate, there is clear consensus to include the victim's name (who released it herself) and the rapists' names (which were covered by multiple reliable sources). Please revert it instead of re-victimizing Dietrich.   GregJackP   Boomer!   11:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "Re-victimizing Dietrich"? That's wildly inaccurate.  I suggest that people look at the facts, and wait until this BLPN discussion is completed before further jeopardizing the privacy of children.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is dead-on accurate. Savannah stated in a Courier-Journal interview how the attorney for one of the defendants tried to paint her in a bad light, mischaracterizing penetration as "touching" and generally speaking out about how she was ruining the assailant's life.  She has repeatedly stated how shutting her up and covering up what happened made her regret reporting it in the first place.  Re-victimizing is exactly what is happening here.   GregJackP   Boomer!   12:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's absurd. What's going on here is making sure via reliable source that she's okay with being very publicly known this way as an adult.  That she went public as a child, in order to obtain stiffer penalties for her attackers, does not necessarily mean that she wanted forever to remain public as an adult, even after having achieved stiffer sentences for her attackers.  In any event, the point is now moot, since I found a reliable source indicating that she's okay with continuing to be a public activist on this issue as an adult.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Elizabeth Smart (mentioned above), she has a dedicated wikipedia article, and has become a famous activist and television commentator. In contrast, the victim here went public to obtain stronger sentences for her attackers, and has not become an activist or shown any desire to remain in the public eye, AFAIK. For many women, it's traumatic to go public against rapists, and it would be all the more so if Wikipedia increases the publicity. I would have no objection to using first names of both the child victim and the child attackers in our article, but I don't see any value in using full names, which can only diminish privacy. The attackers have definitely tried to keep their names private, most sources have respected that wish, and it would be very weird for us to exclude their full names while including the victim's. Incidentally, this essay Youth protection is interesting: "No editor (of any age) should post personal identifying information about a self-identified child....Without other information, a first name is not considered personal identifying information."Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * See below section. GregJackP   Boomer!   16:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Break / Louisville teen sexual assault case
As an aside, we seem to have two articles on this now: Louisville teen sexual assault case and Sexual assault of Savannah Dietrich. 217.36.84.105 (talk) 09:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, Anythingyouwant took bold action and renamed Sexual assault of Savannah Dietrich to Louisville teen sexual assault case plus removed the victim's name although there was no consensus yet that this should be done. I'm not sure whether all names should be omitted or included but the editing decision should not have been made at this point in the discussion. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 12:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * After the page move, the name of the assault victim still appears on the page, but only in the titles of the refs. How far do we need to go?  Should the name appearing in the titles be replaced with [Redacted]?
 * Correction: Victim also still listed by name in the Infobox. Dwpaul (talk) 12:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, this is more of a mess than I thought. Time to revert and go back to the version that was being debated? Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 12:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is time to revert.  GregJackP   Boomer!   12:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Revert due to lack of consensus on the move. Dwpaul (talk) 12:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - There is no need to have the 16-year-old victim's name plastered all over this Wikipedia article. I stand by the page move because BLPN discussion is continuing.  Since when do we include the name of a teen victim but not those of her attackers?Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note however that the change made did not have the effect of completely removing the victim's name from the article; there is more to be decided/changed. We are at a fork in the road, often the best place to go is the place from whence you came when this happens. Dwpaul (talk) 14:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The issue, Anythingyouwant, is that you went ahead with this renaming while the discussion about the page was still ongoing. No consensus had been reached on what names to include or not include. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 14:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Is it the norm at BLPN to remove controversial material which can be restored at the conclusion of discussion? There is no rush here, no deadline, to restore this stuff.  For the time being, privacy concerns outweigh other concerns.  Omitting the info is clearly 100% consistent with BLP, and the only issue is whether including the info is consistent with BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Since all of the preceding edits did not have the effect of removing the victim's name entirely, I carried to ultimate (if absurd) conclusion by redacting name from the titles of the cited refs. Dwpaul (talk) 14:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Per WP:Point, I recommend not making edits that you think are "absurd".Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think my edits are absurd; only completes the removal of the victim's name. Without this change, all of the others are superfluous since they do not have that effect. Where we are now is what's absurd. Dwpaul (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There are many things in the cited articles that are not repeated in our text, and I don't view that as absurd. I already gave an example above: we don't detail what penetrated the victim, whereas the cited sources do detail it.  Analogously, just because the cited sources use her name doesn't mean we have to.  I do think that you've edited the BLP contrary to WP:Point.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * By reproducing the name in the titles of the refs, we are publishing her name. Absurdity would be removing her name also from the URLs (breaking them, of course), but not having done so, her name still appears, just not in the visible text.  I am only taking your action boldly to the logical extreme, not being POINTy. Dwpaul (talk) 15:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Anythingyouwant, there was also no rush to remove the names. This crime occurred in 2011 and the court verdict was in 2012. This article wasn't just created this week, it has been on Wikipedia since January 2013. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 15:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * My edit was motivated by the comment above by Anthonyhcole, "While a BLP issue is being discussed, we leave the information in question out of the article until consensus forms".Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

(Outdent) I do not see a problem with including the name in the titles of footnoted articles. That is vastly less weight than plastering the name all over the article. Here is some pertinent policy: When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. If scholarly articles use the name, that's more relevant for us. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Then please revert me, if you think it's necessary to conform with policy. I was only completing the work you started, which in my mind was incomplete. Dwpaul (talk) 15:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, lets look at sources (keeping in mind that the victim published her own name, and is now 18): Note the last source, where the article explicitly states that the subject of the article wanted her name to be public. You don't get to out yourself and then claim that privacy is required. GregJackP  Boomer!   16:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * , names the victim, peer-reviewed.
 * , names the victim in four places.
 * , extended article on the victim, by name.
 * I just don't see what purpose it serves for us to use her full name, except in the footnotes. It strikes me as WP:Undue weight.  We don't say that the sexual assault consisted of fingering her vagina, and we don't say lots of other stuff.  The notability of the case arises from an alleged order to the victim to be silent, and her disregarding that order in order to protest leniency to the attackers.  All of that can be explained fine without putting her full name in the article title.  Kids do dumb things all the time, but we needn't take the attitude that they therefore deserve whatever they get.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that, since the victim has outed - and continues to out - herself, it is reasonable for us to use her name (See below). The juvenile offenders did not out themselves. I'm open to persuasion, but nothing above yet persuades me that it would be reasonable or ethical (and I'm not convinced it wouldn't be illegal - though that's a separate issue) for us to publish their names. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you please elaborate on "continues to out herself"? Outing herself as an adult could change my mind, but Google News indicates otherwise.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Not since 10 December last year, so I've struck that. You may be making sense, Anythingyouwant. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The most important thing about the case is specifically that the victim outed herself and her attackers. That's what all the coverage is about. It's not that a teen was raped in Louisville - though tragic, I suspect a dozen, if not a hundred, teens are raped in Louisville every year. That makes news, but not international news. It also makes the current title, Louisville teen sexual assault case, meangingless and ridiculous - no one refers to it by that name. I think that we need to follow the sources here; the main source is Newsweek, a highly respected news publication. It names Savanna Dietrich. It does not name the the attackers. Same for the Courier-Journal, a respected local paper. The Daily Mail, a less respected news publication, but one in another country, follows that pattern. --GRuban (talk) 18:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Notice that Newsweek does not put her name in its article title. Nor does USA Today.  USA Today discusses the fingering of her vagina; why do we exclude that from both the article title and the body of our article?  Because it's unnecessary, perhaps?  Why is it more necessary for us to include her name than her attackers'?Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If the most important thing about the case was exactly how she was raped, we'd need to write that. Since it isn't, it's a matter of editorial judgment. Here, the most important thing is that she outed herself, she published her name, she gave interviews giving her name. It's possible to write a story without mentioning exactly how she was raped. It's not possible to write a story without giving her name. Oh, here's a quote from the USA Today story you linked to, explaining the line that all the sources follow. "Dietrich and her parents gave permission to use her name. While the assailants' names have been made public in court records, The Courier-Journal has not identified them." If your objection is that Dietrich was a minor, so didn't have the right to release her name, here are her legal guardians backing that up. --GRuban (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The controversy that erupted was not about her outing herself, but rather her outing her assailants.  In any event, I have no objection to having her name appear in the footnoted article titles.  It's mainly a matter of WP:Undue weight.  Putting her name in the article title seems grossly excessive to me.  Additionally, the reason she went public was very limited: to protest leniency.  I see no indication that she wants to remain famous as a child victim of sexual assault.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Our sources have demonstrated that it's perfectly possible to write about the case without naming the assailants, and have given the reasons why they name the subject and not the assailants. As to your second point, I don't think anyone has ever gotten up in the morning and decided - "I think I want to be famous as a victim of sexual assault". (Well, with the possible exception of Tawana Brawley. Let's just say that none of the actual victims we write about are there by choice.) However it's clear that she - and her parents, since the being-a-minor issue concerns you - have weighed the price of the fame or notoriety against their goals, and have decided it worthwhile. They have decided there is no way to achieve their goals without her name being known. Therefore, it's not for us to overrule them in a misguided attempt to protect them. We might make that decision for other reasons, but not for the "don't harm the subject" reasoning of WP:BLP. The subject has made the decision, and the sources we use have followed it. We might decide we aren't going to write about the case at all; but we can't write about the case without giving her name. "Louisville teen" just doesn't suffice.--GRuban (talk) 18:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

This Courier-Journal article specifically states: "Dietrich has already consented to being named and having her case opened." D kriegls ( talk to me! ) 18:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No one disputes that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds pretty definitive to me. Suppose it depends on whether she was an adult when she did so. Dwpaul (talk) 18:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * She wasn't. But her parents agreed to it, as linked to above. --GRuban (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * A basic principle to be considered here is that you can't un-famous yourself. You can sue if someone libels you (subject to the standards that apply to those who are famous), but you can't remove yourself from the corpus of public visibility just because you accomplished your goal in becoming known. Dwpaul (talk) 19:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Dietrich did not "out" herself, she publicly came out as a sexual assault survivor. She's done interviews on Nightline, CNN and other TV shows and has a quite public facebook page and twitter account. Naming the article some euphemistic "Louisville assault" nonsense isn't respectful of her decision, it's condescending; substituting our judgement for that of her / her parents. Article show be restored to prior name and her name resinserted into the text. NE Ent 03:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * She turned 18 in January, and subsequently gave a number of interviews, supported legislation that would prohibit gag orders on victims, etc. Telling her that Wikipedia knows "better" than her is just re-victimizing her, as I stated above.  She has publicly stated that if she knew she was going to be silenced, she would not have reported the sexual assault.  I'm also sure that the relative wealth plays into this article, both rapists come from wealthy families (each in a home of over $600K), private school, lacrosse players, etc.  We certainly can't report what reliable sources have already reported - why it might affect which Ivy League school they can go to, and effect their chances to medical school!   GregJackP   Boomer!   11:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Public testimony in March 2013
I found a news article behind a pay wall about her testifying publicly in March before the Kentucky legislature. I have added this to the Wikipedia article. Therefore, since she has very publicly (and courageously) indicated being an activist now as an adult, rather than someone who expects her privacy back, I favor more prominently including her full name in the Wikipedia article. That does not extend to the males who were minors at the time of the attack.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So ... ? As you were the one who removed the name, and moved the article, and the only one defending it, are you going to undo your actions? Or does someone else have to do it? --GRuban (talk) 14:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll be glad to do it, either now or when the BLPN discussion is resolved. I absolutely stand by my actions, because no one produced any evidence that --- as an adult --- she was willing to remain publicly connected with this incident, rather than wanting to recover her privacy..Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Since a number of us have castigated Anythingyouwant for performing the page move without consensus, we should probably wait until we have re/gained consensus on moving it back before the move is undone. The challenge will be sorting out the multiple ongoing discussions here to achieve consensus.  RfC anyone? Dwpaul (talk) 14:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you Anythingyouwant. Dwpaul: Not RfC, RfM, rather, and even that only because we need an admin to move the page back over the redirect. We've got unanimity, you can't get a better consensus than that, even the original mover has changed his mind. Since we need an admin to move it back over the redirect, so I'm requesting it at Talk:Louisville teen sexual assault case, and referring back to this discussion. The "should the article name the assailants" issue is ongoing, but shouldn't affect the article being moved back to the stable name. --GRuban (talk) 18:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, defer to your better knowledge of the appropriate procedure in this situation. Dwpaul (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Louisville case: Should the article name the juvenile offenders?
Just to separate it from the victim naming issue. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, well cited public knowledge. D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 20:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, well cited knowledge and information. GregJackP   Boomer!   21:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you point to the Reliable sources that give that knowledge and information? The main newspaper stories about the case seem to work hard not to. --GRuban (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This Daily Beast article states: "The court records were unsealed at the request of Dietrich’s team" (pg 3).-- D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 21:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Four sources, all mentioning the offenders' names, including two that are national magazines., ,   ,  and .   GregJackP   Boomer!   21:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, consistent with other Wikipedia articles on youth crime, e.g. Steubenville High School rape case and Columbine High School massacre. 67.162.72.34 (talk) 00:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No. None of the children juvenile offenders involved in the incident need to be named in the Wikipedia article title or in the main body of the article.  We can just say that the attackers have been named by a small minority of reliable sources, and provide links in the footnotes.  The reason this article was not deleted is because it was an interesting situation in which a child victim publicly named her child attackers in order to protest the leniency of the judge, and was then reprimanded for breaching confidentiality.  All of that is easy enough to explain without giving WP:Undue weight to the full names of the minors involved.  There's just no need, and the potential harm is great for both the victim and the attackers .  I am assuming that we could name them all.  Could is not the same as should.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * By my math, none of the involved parties are "Children" anymore. D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 22:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "Most legislatures have made provisions for disposing of a juvenile's legal or social record.". The idea is that people should have a second chance, and the mistakes they made, the mishaps, the misfortunes of childhood should not necessarily haunt them for the rest of their lives.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * We are not in the business of rehabilitation, we are in the encyclopedia business. We report what reliable sources report.  The story is also unique in the connection between the prosecutor and the school, and the Z. family and the school.  One of the families was more concerned about a possible scholarship than the victim in this case, which is why the names of the rapists were published.   GregJackP   Boomer!   23:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * We are in the business of protecting peoples's privacy, per WP:BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not what WP:BLP says. It does say, however, that we should avoid prolonging, or in this case, re-victimizing the victim.   GregJackP   Boomer!   14:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "Biographies of living persons ('BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy".Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * No. The individuals involved in the case were juveniles at the time of the incident, relatively unknown and certainly not public figures.  We can still convey 99% of the relevant and pertinent information for encyclopedic coverage without having to name them outright in the body of the article.  As another editor suggested, we can say that the defendants were named in some reliable sources and provide links in the footnotes for those readers who wish to pursue their identities.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * No. Unlike, apparently, the assault victim, neither of the boys involved have voluntarily given up their right to anonymity under the Kentucky juvenile statutes. Additionally, their actions, while the reason for the case, are not the reason for its notability.  The record here will get along just fine without their names, which are available in the refs if anyone cares to look for them. Not so the name of the victim and the publicity they generated, which I think we have agreed is key to the existence of the article here in the first place. Dwpaul (talk) 00:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * None of the sources indicate that Kentucky law gives criminals under 18 a right to anonymity. The sources only refer to Kentucky law at least sometimes keeping court records sealed.  That is a significant difference.  I would argue that the assailants choose not to be anonymous by committing sexual assault, while the victim was forced out of anonymity to obtain justice.67.162.72.34 (talk) 00:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * KRS 610.340(1)(a), 610.320(3) and 610.070 make all "juvenile court records of any nature" confidential except to those engaged in the case unless a court orders otherwise. See page 33 in this PDF (not suitable for citation). This is what I meant by right to anonymity. Perhaps confidentiality is a more accurate word, but in this case confidentiality would imply anonymity. Dwpaul (talk) 01:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The court unsealed their names, this law doesn't apply. If they wanted to remain anonymous, they shouldn't have filmed themselves raping a girl and then shared said footage. They lost anonymity when they shared the footage. D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 01:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * No until they are actually convicted and sentenced. If they are proven innocent, including the names is harmful, but if the court convicts them, that's a different story. --M ASEM (t) 00:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * They've been convicted. They plead guilty. They were children at the time of the assault. Should we publish their names? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * FYI, at the web site of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press the attackers' names are redacted.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes -- not being in Kentucky, I don't give a fig for Kentucky law or Kentucky judges, and Wikipedia certainly should not care about it. The idea that they were "children" derives entirely from ignorance about the peculiar American notion of childhood and can safely be set aside here. What drives me nuts about arguments like this is that most participants have no idea what sort of assumptions are going into their arguments; as a matter of (American) law the perpetrators were minors, but they certainly were not children and don't deserve special consideration as such.  It's fine to follow normal Wikipedia conventions here in regard to RS, V, etc.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Legal opinion. Though I think the main issue here is an ethical one, there are also some concerns about the legal position, so I've asked for advice at the talk page of the WMF's legal liaison. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Philippe's not a lawyer.  GregJackP   Boomer!   13:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've asked him, as liaison, to "pass this on to somebody qualified to offer that advice." --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Just a note to indicate that I have received the request and have passed it on within the Office of the General Counsel. Because I'm currently on limited availability due to travel, I'm asking James, from my team, to monitor this situation.  Please note that James is not an attorney (nor am I) and that WMF's attorneys represent the Wikimedia Foundation, not the individual editors, and as such can not give specific legal advice to community members, though they can frequently discuss broader principles.  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * In a way, this may have the effect of complicating things, since conventional wisdom is that once you contact your (in this case the Foundation's) attorney for advice, you are ill-advised to act until you receive it. But I think this discussion pertains specifically to naming the convicted assailants, not the victim/activist, and I assume that is the question on which we are seeking advice. Should not delay action on the question of reverting the page move and naming the latter. Dwpaul (talk) 16:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've only asked for advice on publishing the names of juvenile offenders. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * At this point, there clearly is no consensus to include the names of the juvenile offenders, so the legal question may not make any difference.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * See First amendment, and similar court case [//www.sacbee.com/2013/05/18/5430214/court-backs-redding-paper-in-privacy.html]. No opinion including names or not, but it's obvious to me it's legal. (include not a lawyer yada yada disclaimer here) NE Ent 22:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your question, Anthony. I apologize, but, as a budding attorney, I must first start with the following disclaimers before addressing your question:

{|


 * Publishing the names of juvenile offenders is not, by itself, unlawful. Liability will turn on whether the names are obtained lawfully. Some states have laws that specifically shield the identities of juveniles convicted of crimes from public disclosure. However, a number of states are moving away from this practice. Even where such laws exist, if a journalist obtains the identity of a juvenile offender by legal means, the Supreme Court has held that the journalist’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights take precedence over the interest in protecting the privacy of the minor, thus allowing for the information to be published. Conversely, where identities are obtained by unlawful means (trespass, secret surveillance, misrepresentation) journalists may be exposed to liability for invasion of privacy, intrusion upon seclusion, or similar privacy-related torts. Additionally, from an ethical standpoint, the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics maintains that journalists should “use special sensitivity when dealing with children.”


 * With the foregoing in mind, it is up to the community to decide whether a particular juvenile's name should be disclosed on Wikipedia. However, as an editor, you are ultimately responsible for your edits, and you may be subject to liability for the content of your posts. As with any subject written about a person, please be mindful of the BLP policy and of potential defamation or invasion of privacy claims. DRenaud (WMF) (talk) 23:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you, DRenaud, that was very helpful. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to have been of assistance! DRenaud (WMF) (talk) 21:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * People should also take note of this example: Jamie_Bulger_murder_case, where the final paragraph of this section makes useful and interesting reading. One breaks that injunction at one's own personal peril. Fiddle   Faddle  21:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * No, per WP:BLP policy, and by the norms of civilised society. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, the norm of civilized society is that sex offenders, including juveniles, have to register so that the community is aware that these sexual predators are loose in their neighborhoods. See 42 U.S.C. § 16911, juveniles over the age of 14 required to register as sex offenders.  Kentucky has not implemented this apparently.   GregJackP   Boomer!   01:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Suppose that Joe Perv is on the federal register of sex offenders. And suppose I put "Joe Perv" into the Google search box.  Will Google automatically look at the federal register of sex offenders, and tell me that Joe Perv is listed?  Or does someone actually have to go to the DOJ website and search for "Joe Perv" there?  I don't know the answers to these questions, but they seem pertinent.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand how it's relevant, but I'm almost certain that all such sites (certainly federal) exclude SE indexing bots so one would need to go to the specific site to initiate a search. (Or should.) Dwpaul (talk) 17:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Kentucky my not have implemented that law, but their courts did unseal and release the names of the rapist to the public...for the apparent goal of making the names public. Reliable sources agree their names are notable. Who are we to pass judgment on what Kentucky courts and some news sources deem "civilized society". We're writing an encyclopedia, not dictating the "norms of civilized society" based on our personal beliefs. WP:NOTCENSORED. D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 05:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "Reliable sources agree their names are notable". No they don't - the majority of sources commenting on the case have not named the offenders. And WP:NOTCENSORED doesn't override what WP:BLP policy states - as WP:NOTCENSORED itself makes entirely clear: "Content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, or that violates other Wikipedia policies (especially neutral point of view) or the laws of the U.S. state of Virginia where Wikipedia's main servers are hosted, will also be removed". AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * No. I think that in this case we should be conservative and follow the widely- (though not universally-) held principle that juveniles' breaches of the law should not be reported. (What are the American media on the whole doing? Are the Huffington Post and the few others cited here exceptions, or are all publishers and broadcasters reporting the boys' names? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Louisville case: Should the article name the victim/activist (implies reverting page move)?
To further differentiate the two questions and keep us moving on this separate issue. Brevity is a virtue. Dwpaul (talk) 16:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes - The article now details that, as an adult, she has become an activist on this issue, and is willing to continue to have her name associated with the issue. Moreover, a majority of reliable sources that discuss the incident use her name.  Note too that the article already uses her name in the footnotes, but it should use her name more prominently.  Another important factor is that the judge in the case has publicly used her name.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. The victim/activist has voluntarily given up her right to anonymity under the Kentucky juvenile statutes (and continued to seek attention for the issue and herself as an adult). The publicity generated by the victim/activist, including widespread publication of her name, is key to the existence of the article here in the first place. Dwpaul (talk) 16:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, we should quit re-victimizing her, follow her wishes, and move past this idea that somehow we have to protect her from her own wishes. GregJackP   Boomer!   18:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comparing other editors (like me) to the people who attacked her is grossly offensive and uncivil. If, as an adult, this person consistently desired her privacy back, rather than to be tagged for life as a child who was sexually assaulted, then it would be our obligation to not plaster her name all over the article.  Finding out the truth of the matter was all that I asked.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes - no one supports the opposite any more. --GRuban (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably true, but it doesn't hurt to document consensus (which otherwise would require reading the voluminous discussion above to confirm). Dwpaul (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes (again) NE Ent 23:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 05:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Kip McKean and International Christian Churches Pages
Godsedit is in violation of copyright laws by illegally using an image of kip's signature, which was taken from either www.caicc.net or www.usd21.org without our authorization. This flagarant violation displays bad faith and puts all other edits by this user into question.

Please remove all of this users edits from this page and the International Christian Churches page [] the Kip McKean page [] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronaldcharding (talk • contribs) 07:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * An assertion of a copyright violation by insertion of an image ( which belongs at WP:Copyright problems for which a procedure exists at, not here, and which if sustained by consensus would result in its removal from these articles) should not be used to discredit and remove all of an editor's contributions to an article. If there are reasons to consider other edits a violation of Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policies, please detail them here. Dwpaul (talk) 15:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I did leave a suggestion for the editor who uploaded and appears to claim personal copyright on the image at File_talk:KipMcKeans_sig.png. Dwpaul (talk) 16:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Copyright on signatures is an iffy topic at best, but there is precedent of removal of these images on privacy grounds (e.g., Stephen King). If you are requesting the removal of the image from the article out of privacy concerns, fine. The deletion of the image itself is better discussed at the Non-free content review board. Finally, please assume good faith on the part of other editors. If you have evidence of disruptive editing of any kind, report it to WP:ANI where administrators can evaluate it. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The image in question is no longer linked to the current version of these (or any) articles, due to action by other editors. But it does remain in the image database and Wikimedia Commons (has been since 3 July 2012). Thanks. Dwpaul (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Social Security Death Index
Editors are invited to comment on the use of this index as a source in BLP articles at WP:RSN.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

White Widow (terrorist)
The above was created at White Widow here. I do not believe she is a convicted terrorist and this should be deleted. The White Widow is a NPOV alternative at least until she is convicted or killed. Tommy Pinball (talk) 00:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no question that she is an alleged terrorist, the allegation having been by multiple law enforcement agencies. Perhaps all that is needed on that dab page is the addition of that word.  (Though I see the entry that included the term terrorist at White Widow has already been removed.) Dwpaul (talk) 01:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

mykel hawke
Mykel joined the US Army in 1982. He served on active duty for a total of 12 years; he also served in the Reserves and Guard for another 12 years. He was a Sergeant First Class (E-7) before he took a commission as an Officer, 18A. This is obviously a lie because you can't directly commission into Special Forces, even if you were prior enlisted Special Forces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.15.99.68 (talk) 03:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The place to bring this up is the article's talk page. If discussion there isn't productive, feel free to bring it to a noticeboard. I have reverted the commentary you placed in the article itself. Btw, a "lie" is a deliberate falsehood, and you might consider whether it's constructive to suggest such a thing in this instance. Rivertorch (talk) 05:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Deepak Chopra
Potentially Libelous wording in Deepak Chopra article. There is currently discussion in the lede of the article about wording of criticism of Chopra derived from a Time article.

Here are the 2 sentences from Time article "New Age Supersage" 14N08 : "Chopra's extravagant claims for Ayurveda and other traditional healing techniques can, some have argued, create false hope in genuinely ill people and dissuade them from seeking medical care and guidance. Chopra has weathered all such claims, either with smiling equanimity or, on occasion, a call from his lawyers." Time is careful to not say "critics accuse Chopra of creating false hope," which could be considered defamatory and libelous, but rather  says, some argue his claims can create false hope. The present line in Wikipedia states: "His critics accuse him of creating a false sense of hope in sick individuals which may keep them away from effective medical care.[12]" This  suggests critics are accusing Dr. Chopra of unethical medical practice keeping patients from effective medical care. This wording in Wikipedia should either convey the accurate meaning of the source or use the wording of the source itself. Vivekachudamani (talk) 23:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Please watch out that you do not violate WP:No legal threats, that you do not imply that you or Chopra will take legal action against Wikipedia. If you violate this guideline your account will be blocked.
 * Regarding the issue you bring up, I don't see it as very serious. The lead section should summarize the body of text, and it does so satisfactorily. Binksternet (talk) 01:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps revise the subject sentence to read "His critics accuse Chopra of creating, through his claims for Ayurveda and other traditional healing techniques, a false sense of hope in sick individuals which may keep them away from effective medical care." This makes it more clear that it is (per the cited source) Chopra's claims, not Chopra himself, that may inspire false hope.  Just a thought. Dwpaul (talk) 04:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see Binksternet has already contributed a similar (though much more concise) rephrasing, using "advice" in much the same way I was thinking. Dwpaul (talk) 04:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet's reedit reinserts the potentially libelous statement. " His critics say his advice may bring "false hope" to people who are sick." The article does not mention Dr. Chopra's medical advice. This reedit asserts critics are saying his medical advice may bring false hope, when no advice is mentioned in the article. In his 40+ years as a physician Dr. Chopra has never given medical advice that anyone has claimed led to a false sense of hope and thereby a poor outcome. I am not implying legal action, I am only pointing out that the statements are potentially libelous and defamatory.Vivekachudamani (talk) 05:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The more you mention legal consequences, the more likely it is that you will be blocked. Binksternet (talk) 05:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Attempting to suppress all criticism (even unfounded criticism) of the subject on the basis that the subject or his attorneys might be able to advance some claim of libel is also counter to Wikipedia policy, see WP:NOTCENSORED. As long as the statement is properly and reliably sourced, it can and probably should remain in some form. Dwpaul (talk) 12:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As an afterthought: The statement proposed by the editor raising the complaint here, "Chopra has weathered all such claims" in context to the above criticism, is not WP:NPOV and mostly meaningless. The fact that the subject has not chosen or been forced to address the criticism does not mean it is unfounded, which the statement seems to imply. See also MOS:OPED. (The citation is behind a pay wall so I cannot determine if it made any similar statement.) Dwpaul (talk) 15:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well said. The bit about "weathered" has no real substance; it does not say anything about the truth of the claims made. Binksternet (talk) 18:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Nor should the article, unless the citation (or another cited reliable source) does. Dwpaul (talk) 19:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE also applies WP:FRINGE/N cross-posted. It's worth noting with not a little understatement that the sources generally have a very low opinion of Dr Chopra's work. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, and in fact Wikipedia is being very restrained in its use of them. The passage from Time that sources this criticism is
 * It simply will no do to turn the lede into a criticism-free zone: that would strike at the heart of Wikipedia'a policies on neutrality. Alexbrn talk 20:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Chopra is a best-selling writer who naturally attracts both praise and criticism. It would be completely inappropriate to leave out commentary in such a serious source as Time magazine. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not just TIME though is it? The criticism section needs to be properly sourced to appropriate multiple sources. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes - there's a bunch of critical stuff in the body, and I think the lede was slightly under-representing it and so giving a non-neutral (i.e. overly-positive) impression of the reception of Chopra's wares. To rectify this, I have just slightly beefed it up. Alexbrn talk 05:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Alexbrn has declared a conflict of interest on this page and according to WP:COI should not make controversial edits himself. He can discuss them but should not make them. He can make general edits. This is the second time his COI editing has been mentioned, but his controversial editing persists, and even increased. It is disruptive and needs to end. Vivekachudamani (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything controversial in implementing WP:FRINGE properly. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Alexbrn doesn't modify his/her signature just for the Deepak Chopra Talk page. That link in Alexbrn's signature points to a section of their Talk page where they enumerate certain (currently one) pages for which they declare COI, but this doesn't happen to be one of them. You might have clicked on the link first. Unless you have some other evidence to offer for your COI claim about another editor, I recommend you retract it. WP:NPA Dwpaul (talk) 16:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The COI issue was first raised by Alex on Sept 2 when he suggested it might be a COI that Matthewbowker was helping the subject with some edits. (Through WM discussion it was unanimously determined Matthew wasn't.) I saw the COI at the end of Alex’s name, and I assumed he challenged the Help editor about a COI because of his own COI. I figured his own COI derived from this declaration on the Chopra talk page:

We don't give Chopra's views weight here but instead follow the guidance in WP:FRINGE and place them firmly in the context of the mainstream. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 05:28, 9 July 2013 (UTC) This goes beyond bias and asserts an agenda to frame the subject of a BLP according to WP:Fringe guidance instead of WP:BLP policy. I presumed Alex was owning up to that COI. Apparently I was mistaken. He has not, nor has he declared his violation of NPOV in these personal comments and opinions on the Talk page:

Chopra's fringe view are identified as such by juxtaposing them with real science. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 14:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC) Chopra's writings on quantum science are labelled by all experts on the topic as nonsense on toast;. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC) Chopra is a pseud according to mainstram sources. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI19:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC) Alex's strong prejudicial views about Chopra and his stated aims to edit according to them, seems to fit the basic idea of COI.

A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor. In fact, Chopra’s views on Complementary and Alternative Medicine as well as his views of Quantum Theory are well within the mainstream discussion in those areas. This is supported by the many books and articles he has co-authored with eminent scientists and physicians, as well as by sociological trends in medicine and research on quantum effects in biological systems over the past 30 years. Quantum effects in macroscopic biological systems is well-established now even if it is not yet fully understood. Alex Brown’s insistence that this BLP should be edited without regard to the subjects’ views and instead guided by WP:FRINGE could well be considered a conflict of interest. I could be mistaken, it might only be a violation of NPOV. I would appreciate a perspective outside the vocal editors on this page. Vivekachudamani (talk) 17:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * (Copied from the Chopra Talk page - since you seem to be posting the same thing in mutiple places). Thank you for quoting some of my past words on this topic: they showcase my scrupulously neutral, policy-based approach nicely. As to COI, I have plainly told you my position already. Sorry, but your raising it again looks to me like disruptive trolling. Alexbrn talk 17:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The multiple postings is a courtesy and policy requirement. You raised the COI issue with Matthewbowker at the WM Help site, and he didn't just assert he didn't have a COI, he put the matter before a group of impartial Wikimedia editors and after a couple of weeks they made a decision. That would seem to be the fair approach here as well.Goose:GanderVivekachudamani (talk) 16:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * This is a bit like reading a police report about a reckless driver wherein details are provided demonstrating the driver in question keeps his vehicle below the speed limit, uses caution, obeys all traffic laws, and shows courtesy to other drivers. vzaak (talk) 18:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Daniel Squadron
The current subject is running for office and it's obvious that someone is editorializing his page.

Secondly, some of the information is factually untrue. The article suggests that he lives off a trust fund referencing an article that was published in 2008. However, the subject lost all his money in the Bernie Madoff scandal which happened after that time.

Going further into the Bernie Madoff mention, the article references two articles that mention that the subject lost his money to the scandal, however the information they've put in to the Wikipedia entry actually suggests the exact opposite.


 * the above comment is unsigned. --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 19:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This article could use more eyes. Looks like some POV pushing going on there.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 19:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There's an IP there who seems determined to editorialize despite my efforts to create NPOV. --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 19:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * That liquor license stuff probably doesn't belong in the lead and could possibly be removed as undue.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I moved it to the body of the article but the IP is reverting all of my edits one by one. I'll let the community here decide what to do.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 20:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That IP is from http://www.linkedin.com/company/wenner-media so they may be paid COI edits. Admin may wish to ask them not to edit the article anymore.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

· User at IP 96.246.162.18 continues to remove added information and to replace with inaccurate statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.168.250 (talk) 00:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Dimitris Melissanidis
Yesterday I did a thorough rewrite of the article with references etc, as the were missing almost completely or were misleading. An anonymous ip user undid all my changes. Could an administrator assess the situation and block ip users from editing if necessary? Kind regardsHurricate (talk) 08:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * What a mess. Your version fixes a lot of clumsy prose and grammatical errors and it does seem more comprehensive, but in both versions I'm seeing some pretty weak sourcing for negative content about the subject. Sources appear to include blogs, as well as various Greek-language sites whose content it's hard for non-speakers of the language to evaluate. Rivertorch (talk) 05:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Klaus Oeggl
This article is not automatically sighted (no autoconfirmation). I can't see why, Please help.Ventus55 (talk) 21:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Do you mean it hasn't been patrolled yet? If so, please give the new page patrollers a chance. I rarely do that task, but if I were to patrol this article I'd first want to confirm that the subject meets notability guidelines—in this case, Notability (academics). In looking over the article now, I'm not confident that the subject's notability has been established. Take a look at the guideline and then make sure there's an independent source to help it meet at least one of the criteria. Additional sourcing is required, as well; there are only three references at present, and they're all primary sources. Rivertorch (talk) 05:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for answering. What I mean is that an not loggedin user doesn't see the last version I see. I'm not a new user having edited more than 30000 articles, How can this problem be solved? Ventus55 (talk) 10:13, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Maybe I'm just being dense, but I don't know what the issue is. For me, the content is identical whether I'm logged in or not. Did you try clearing your browser cache? If you're still having this issue and no one else has replied here, you might try the Village Pump. This really doesn't have anything to do with applying WP:BLP, which is the topic of this noticeboard. (Btw, if you will find those sources I mentioned, I'll be glad to copyedit the article and mark it as patrolled. If I were to patrol it now, I'd be inclined to nominate it for deletion on notability grounds.) Rivertorch (talk) 17:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Everything is ok now. Thanks. Ventus55 (talk) 22:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Harok family murder
This article seems to jump to a lot of conclusions, and to portray the guilt of the accused as not in question. It also seems to be written almost entirely by one editor. I don't read Czech, which is what most of the references are in, so I know very little about it other than that, but I think this article could benefit with some additional eyes on it. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ]# &#9604; 09:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As a start, I think the section on Kevin Dahlgren should be deleted per BLP. He only has been accused, the selection of BLP information about Kevin Dahlgren in the article moves the reader for or against his guilt (which has not been decided), and there is no indication that these "facts" played a role in the investigation, prosecution, and/or conviction. Kevin Dahlgren is being investigated, he is not an investigation, and the article should reflect that. The murders happened in May 2013, so much of the Kevin Dahlgren information is more like news reporting. Also, Dahlgren is not "Harok family murder," so the article should be written from the perspective of the Harok family members (e.g., David received a text message, not X sent David a text message), the murder event, or the investigation. Given the notorious nature of the crime (family murdered) and its recency (May 2013), I think BLP needs to be applied somewhat stronger on this article for the time being. -- Jreferee (talk) 05:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Mr. Dahlgren is not being investigated, he has been charged. All the information I have put into the article was carefully written as to respect the presumption of innocence.
 * Also, I have chosen the name of the article in order not to adore the probable perpetrator, even though it is quite certain by now that, should he be extradited, most of its content will deal with Mr. Dahlgren's criminal court proceedings. I would agree with the notion of change of perspective if there was nobody formally charged, however that is not the case.
 * Further, I don't agree that the section about Mr. Dahlgren leads to conclusion of him being guilty. 1st paragraph deals with his background and how he got involved in the case, i.e. how he got to the Harok's house. Second paragraph describes the family ties between Mr. Dahlgren and the victims. 3rd goes into detail how and when he got to the house and what was he doing there, again not implying anything. Fourth basically shows that he decided to leave on the day of the killings, which is also his version of the story. Fifth - I can understand that this may be removed. Sixth - Mr. Dahlgren's positive description by friends and his reasoning why he fled on the day of the murders. If you see it necessary, feel free to rewrite it into more neutral tone, but the information is, in my opinion, necessary part of the article.
 * The article is based on Czech sources mostly because it is not very well covered in US. I understand that google translate can't cope well with the Czech language, however it should be good enough to verify that every single piece of information in the article is well sourced. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Bob Odenkirk
IP editor keeps inserting contentious and made up material about him. I revert it but he keeps adding it back. The changes: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bob_Odenkirk&diff=574910252&oldid=574894898

The citations are bogus. They mention no such information. http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/news/breaking-bad-q-a-lavell-crawford-comes-clean-on-huell-20130911 http://www.avclub.com/articles/david-cross-wears-a-red-polo-shirt-and-brown-shoes,100708/ --Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Procedural question
I have been working on this Alaska political corruption probe page for years. I had some time to clean up many problems with it so I recently set myself to the task.

I made a lot of additions to bring the page up to date. However, as I worked through it, I found that a poster, perhaps two (if the second wasn't a sockpuppet) had extensively inserted irrelevant material into the article that attacked, vilified and I believe libeled a number of living persons. Most of the calumnies were unsourced. They appeared to be expositions of personal grievances. When I began to ask for sources for the material the poster(s?) simply added cites that did not support those additions he/she/they had made.

My efforts to come to some agreement via the talk page on the article went for naught. I also have requested assistance from a long time editor, a Fairbanks resident, who is extremely familiar with the Alaskan political and social landscape. I have deferred to his knowledge of fairly arcane subjects on a number of occasions.

The editor or editors who have been responsible for this material have been identified only by two IPNs. The latest of these has only ever been used to post to one subject.

The most recent poster today accused former Governor Tony Knowles of being the recipient of illegal campaign contributions in the article itself. I assume this is a violation of BLP, though it's not on the Governor's page. He or she makes unfounded accusations and personal attacks against the character of a great many people in the TALK page of the article.

My edits and reverts have been based on violations of BLP, and have constituted removals of unsourced, non-factual and materials irrelevant to the page in question.

The poster has also made a number of nasty remarks about me, personally.

I'm afraid I don't know where to go from here. Should I post the above to a Noticeboard? Activist (talk) 09:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * What explanations of BLP policy have been offered/warnings issued to the two IPs, either (or both) on the article Talk page and/or on their respective Talk pages? Any response?  If not, this is generally where you should go. But see No personal attacks, a documented policy which I assume the "nasty remarks" about you violate. A procedure is documented there also. Dwpaul (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've left extensive explanations on the article's TALK page about the impropriety of posting non-factual material, removing legitimate requests for cites, attacks on living persons, and posting cites that do not nearly satisfy sourcing requirements, i.e., referring to home pages of PACER, the federal court (pay) site, the Alaska Department of Law, rather than referring to specific documents. It would be next to impossible to locate materials that ostensibly substantiate the claims and allegations the poster has inserted into the article. More importantly, perhaps, is that the perseverating poster(s?) seems to be on a vendetta against individuals and organizations that have literally nothing to do with the article in question, the AK probe. In my frustration I finally at one point referred to it as "graffiti." Responses to my efforts have been numerous reverts and personal attacks on myself and others including persons with whom I am not familiar. If you have a moment to look at the TALK page and tell me what you, as a dispassionate person, think should be done, I would greatly appreciate it. I should add that this weekend I reverted a brief comment, word salad really, on another, wholly unrelated page (regarding the estate of "H.C.", if you look at my contributions), because the poster obviously had serious mental problems. Activist (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I left comments at the article's Talk page citing WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:BURDEN. I also added Template:Controversial and gave the IP 98.168.175.209 a level 3 warning. Was there another IP who needs to receive the same information to be consistent?  I don't see one in the article's history (only one who seemed to be objecting to uncited claims). Dwpaul (talk) 23:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have removed a number of claims sourced only to primary sources such as court rulings and public documents, which are unacceptable sole sources for material about living persons. They may only be used to augment reliable secondary sources. In addition, one of the links to the Juneau Empire cited a letter to the editor, which is an unacceptable source for anything in any circumstance. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I also left a warning (uw-unsourced3) for IP 68.97.28.2‎ immediately after the editor added additional unsourced information to a paragraph now removed by NorthBySouthBaranof. Dwpaul (talk) 01:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Surprisingly, the article reads OK for a political probe article (due in part to Activist's efforts). The only two IPs that have significant recent contributions are 98.168.175.209 (39 edits in about one day) and 68.97.28.2 (14 edits over several months). Both have been warned. Activist's, if that does not slow things down, post a request at Requests for page protection, which can prevent the IPs from posting to the article while allowing you to continue editing it. -- Jreferee (talk) 06:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The BLP problems have not slowed down, despite the warnings and Activist's discussion efforts. I protected the page for a week using pending changes protection. -- Jreferee (talk) 10:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

IPAs
Do IPAs for living people need to be referenced? I say yes per WP:BLP and WP:V, says no. Article in question is  but it obviously has — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiantSnowman (talk • contribs) 10:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Above unsigned, but appears, based on edit summaries, to be approaching edit war with  concerning this issue. Both editors are encouraged to use the article's Talk page to discuss the issue rather than risk being temporarily blocked from editing under policy regarding EW. Dwpaul (talk) 16:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Neither of us is edit warring - and I've come here as this affects every BLP, not just one. Some actual input rather than silly warnings is what is needed. GiantSnowman 16:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You'll find some actual input on the Talk page mentioned above. [edit: But see WP:3RR, which explains why WP:EW was mentioned and was a strong possibility.] Dwpaul (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Also: This is a Noticeboard. If what you want to discuss is apparent lack of guidance on this question in BLP policy, rather than advice specific to this article, I'd assume that Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons would be the place to do that. Dwpaul (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Per WP:V, any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. That includes International Phonetic Alphabet pronunciations posted in the article lead. Per MoS IPA placement, several info boxes, such as many of the biography boxes, provide for a pronunciation entry. If an IPA in the biography lead receives a reasonable challenge, remove all of it to an infobox or a footnote (as suggested at MoS IPA placement). if there still is reasonable concern, remove it from the article and seek talk page consensus. Consensus (or at least present practice) is that IPA pronunciations are usually posted in the article lead. Unless there is a specific issue with "" (such as what is the basis for having a German pronunciation in an English Wikipedia article), the needs to remain in the Martin Pieckenhagen article lead. If you want to change that general approach to using IPAs in the article lead (and I personally think it should per WP:LEADCLUTTER), you can open an RfC. -- Jreferee (talk) 04:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Sanele Sano Ngcobo
Clinical Associate from South Africa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.121.206.62 (talk) 11:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Unclear on the nature of your question or concern. (Also, there is no Wikipedia article called Sanele Sano Ngcobo.) Dwpaul (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a reference to Sanele Sano Ngcobo at User:Sanosanele, where the 17 July 2013‎ edit summary notes "Sanele is a young Clinical Associate, from South Africa." The BLPN post might be an effort at posting a biography. Without more, there does not seem anything to do. -- Jreferee (talk) 04:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

scott burns
These are not from the Dallas Morning News as the reference used does not contain his bio: "Today, he ranks as one of the five most widely read personal finance writers in the country, according to The Dallas Morning News. He is best known for creating the "Couch Potato Portfolio" investment strategy, which advocates the use of index funds over managed funds or stock-picking.[1]

They are taken directly from Burn's Bio on his web page: http://assetbuilder.com/schwab/management_bios.pdf

I cannot find any mention of him being on the five finance writers anywhere in a google search except from his own webpage. As such, this should be taken down unless the writer can show a definite link.

I hope I have done this correctly. If not, please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nofway (talk • contribs) 15:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * @Nofway I've removed the "five claim" and replaced the Couch Potato source with a non-dead one. Thanks for bringing this up. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  18:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Dwpaul what do you mean by "by contributor of the challenged edit"? -- Neil N  <sup style="color:blue;">talk to me  16:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my mistake -- wasn't your edit at all that was challenged. Was based solely on the narrative here. Thanks.  Dwpaul (talk) 16:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Sheldon Richardson
(material redacted)
 * The information appears to come from the Official Athletic Site of the University of Missouri (see link). <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately we cannot introduce new or corrected information in Wikipedia articles based purely on information from an anonymous IP source and without citation of a reliable source for the new information. Even if your personal knowledge is correct, it is not independently verifiable without a secondary or tertiary source. See WP:PRIMARY and WP:BLPPRIMARY. (Note that copies of birth certificates and other legal documents are also primary sources and cannot be used alone.) Since the current information appears to be reliably sourced (see above comment by Sean.hoyland), it will remain until other reliable sources are identified that contradict it. Dwpaul (talk) 12:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Also there is a process using which the subject of the article can initiate a case to correct allegedly erroneous information about themselves. See WP:BIOSELF. Dwpaul (talk) 15:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I had a good look round on this one, all I can find is other reliable sources saying that Richardson's father is called Mike or Michael, for instance  . Black Kite (talk) 20:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you Black Kite and Dwpaul. Based on your research it looks pretty likely to me that the BLP article gives the info that the BLP subject wants to have out in public, so maybe we're being trolled here, so I deleted the original post and requested oversight. Herostratus (talk) 22:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

David Henrie
The last part of "Personal life" is spam. It states that "he is ugly, gross, old he likes selena gomez, bridget mendler, rihanna, raven sydney, his best friend is cory not jake t. austin" I'd suggest you take it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.229.226.9 (talk) 15:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Jorge Erdely Graham
This report is about a single editor, Ajaxfiore, inserting uncorroborated information about the Mexican theologian Jorge Erdely Graham across multiple pages.

Background: A man named Antonio Domingo Paniagua, the personal secretary of Jorge Erdely Graham, was arrested by INTERPOL for masterminding a child trafficking ring in Mexico (see: Casitas del Sur case). Ajaxfiore has inserted language, which claims that Erdely Graham is a wanted for being the "alleged mastermind" of the trafficking ring, fled Mexico and remains a fugitive. He inserted this information into at least three articles: Jorge Erdely Graham, Casitas del Sur case and La Luz del Mundo.

Because this is across three pages, I will speak to each independently:

Jorge Erdely Graham
An editor from the IP 162.211.179.99 removed the information originally. Ajaxfiore reverted the edit. I became involved, researched it and re-deleted the source. At that time, I posted the following on the talk page:



Ajaxfiore proceeded to revert my edits, reintroducing the language. Another editor reverted his deletion and restored my version of the page. Ajaxfiore then readded the exact same language. This is the third time he edited the page to reinsert the allegation. I have deleted the information again (my second edit on this). Currently the information is off the page.

Casitas del Sur case
An editor with the IP 46.37.161.249 removes very similar language from the Casita del Sur case. Ajaxfiore reverts. I delete the information and put this on the talk page:



Ajaxfiore reverts my edits, reinserting the information. Another editor comes behind him and restores my edits. He reverts the editor's edit (again, his third edit on the exact same thing). I delete the language again. Currently the information is off the page.

La Luz del Mundo
Ajaxfiore inserts information This is the clearest indication of vandalism, as the source Ajaxfiore used is from 2005; the Castias del Sur case didn't happen until 2009.

I would also like to point out that Ajaxfiore has previously been disciplined for edit warring and violation the 3 edit rule on the La Luz del Mundo page.

AbuRuud (talk) 23:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It appears User talk:Ajaxfiore was blocked for edit waring. D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 05:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Sinitta
Despite my clear edit summaries and note on the talk page, continues to edit war to restore a disputed and contentious birthdate to this article. The source they continue to include is an image of a birth certificate, which fails to meet WP:BLPPRIMARY

"Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses."

I would remove the BLP violating material and source again, however I'm heading out soon and believe the article really could use more eyes on it. Any feedback, here or on the talk page, would be appreciated.--<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 23:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Removed the image of the birth cert (!!) and the DOB from the article, left a message on User:Telegraph Totter's talk page inviting them to discuss here. § FreeRangeFrog croak 23:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Daniel Squadron POV issues
It's always important to get BLP's right, but this person is a NY politician currently running for office so it is particularly germane. There are some WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK issues on the article. For example: I cleaned up some of these items and others but my edits were undone by single purpose IP's who have made threats on my talk page and in their edit summaries. Now 2-3 IP accounts have been edit warring to the tune of about 80 edits in the past three days. Do we need some page protection for this page, so neutral editors can do a clean up? Any suggestions?--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 23:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Lead section says: Squadron campaigned on a platform of preventing residential development of Brooklyn Bridge Park. He negotiated a deal that did not fully eliminate housing in the park but reduced it in size and scope and has since been credited with reducing and delaying the amount of luxury housing and returning $11 million in capital funding that had been cut from the park's budget by the city. For his run for public advocate Squadron has received $65,000 from the park's development groups
 * Education section says: He is a graduate of Yale University and started a bar in New York called What, while still a junior. In addition to being underage, he and his partners were unaware of the city fire code when they opened their eventually successful establishment.
 * I pruned some of the irrelevant minutiae and weasel-y parts. I'm not sure that the bit about receiving money from interest groups is unimportant or undue, this is a politician after all. § FreeRangeFrog croak 00:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think mentioning campaign funding is OK if its notable per the sources. But at present the park stuff cited above only appears in the lead and not in the body so clearly POV/UNDUE. What I'd like to see is the bit in the current lead moved to the body and then a one sentence summary of that info added to the lead for proper weight. Something like that.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 00:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right, that doesn't belong there. I moved it to the 2008 election section. § FreeRangeFrog croak 01:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks but all of the POV items that you and I have been removing the past few days have been reinserted by the same IP (he/she has more than one IP) who has been putting warning notices on our talk pages. . I may need to take this issue to ANI.

Conchata Ferrel
The name of the husband in the text appears to be wrong from all I have been able to learn by reading other biographies. It even does not match the name in the upper right box in the same Wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.74.51 (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Removed. The one name that was sourced was referencing a dead link. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Art Spiegelman
Hi. I am trying to post some info about Art S. that he himself has referenced in his books MAUS and METAMAUS concerning our relationship of the late 1960s. I mentioned some stuff that is of historical value on the page. It always gets removed. Now the only thing wrong is a malformed reference. CAn someone fix this?

I assure you-- the references are IN HIS OWN BOOKS. Thanks Ladybelle Fiske — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladybelle Fiske (talk • contribs)


 * Is your relationship notable i.e. has it been covered in independent, reliable sources? GiantSnowman 17:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The COI edit was deleted and I left a msg on Ladybelle Fiske's talk page explaining why. D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 05:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Darlene Gray
You must update this bio (and it shouldnt be in "biographies of living persons" anymore) Our dear Darlene passed away a few days ago (check for her obituary in the web) RIP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.191.8.158 (talk) 19:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * We'll be happy to do so if you provide a source for that. I did a quick search and found nothing. § FreeRangeFrog croak 20:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I did a quick search for "Darlene Gray" and found this obit. It's dated September 17, 2013. However, I highly doubt that they are the same person, judging from the fact that the recently deceased Gray was born in 1957, and the one with an article played a stripper in a 1966 film.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 22:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

nicolas maduro
The reference number 3 about the place of birth of this person do not establishes what in written on this article. Please review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.210.21.79 (talk) 03:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC) -- D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 05:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Ananda Prasad
This article confuses two Ananda Prasads. The physician who discovered the link between zinc and dwarfism is Ananda S. Prasad who was not born in 1982. His finding of zinc deficiency in Egypt was published in 1961. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.201.76 (talk) 14:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've reverted to original state, someone decided to change it to about themself a couple of months back. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  14:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Seasick Steve
There has been much debate back and forth about Steve's age which culminated in a user being reprimanded by an admin for digging far too deeply into personal records and government databases/etc and breaking "Biography of a living person" guidelines. Anyways, since that time it doesn't seem that the user in question has been active on the page but there are still people that continue to change Steve's age back and forth, and the 'talk' page still contains a lot of speculative and potentially libelous information.

I have just cited a number of new recent and respectable sources that support the current age on the page and within a day somebody removed them with no explanation other than than posting my full name and relationship to Steve, though I can't understand what bearing that has on my adding some sources?

I was wondering if it was possible to put a temporary block on people making changes to the page, or at least the age/birthday section?

Any help you could provide would be much appreciated.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

All the best, Didrik

Ommony (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * There is not enough recent disruption to justify page protection, however I have added the article to my watchlist and will monitor the situation. I have also warned an IP editor for deleting referenced material. Also, if you are Steve's son, then please bear in mind WP:COI. GiantSnowman 15:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your assistance. Due to my personal and professioanl connections to Steve I try my best to stay out of the Wikipedia stuff altogether and let people work things out themselves. We've got equally enthusiastic supporters and detractors so it usually balances out. But this age thing just keeps resurfacing and is certainly very confusing for any random person that looks up 'Seasick Steve' on Wikipedia. To clarify, surely just adding more sources to information currently listed on the page isn't a conflict of interest (ie, not actually making any edits, just backing up information with more sources)? Thanks again for your time and consideration. All the best, Ommony (talk) 15:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * No, verifying your claims with reliable sources is entirely acceptable (indeed, encouraged!) and does not constitute WP:COI. I hope you have not interpreted my mentioning of COI as an accusation or somesuch, it was nothing of the sort, just a friendly reminder that we have guidelines on editing articles you have a personal or professional connection with. GiantSnowman 15:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * All good, I didn't take it as an accusation. I'm just not so clued up on all the policies/etc so wanted to make sure I understood correctly. Thanks again. 62.254.70.106 (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Narendra Modi
In the article about Narendra Modi, There is a section "Uttarakhand Controversy". This section has neither any verifiable authentic primary source nor citation about any authentic claim by the party concerned. It clearly violates the policy about BLP.

Policies about what articles should say Three main policies cover content:

1) neutral point of view (all articles must take a fair, balanced and neutral stance), 2) verifiability (facts in articles must be verifiable from reliable sources), and 3) original research (users' and editors' opinions and "popular knowledge" are not suitable for encyclopedia articles). A fourth core content policy on biographies of living persons states that biographical articles must be written to the highest standard using only high-quality sources, and provides for more drastic handling of errors or problems in such articles.

The Uttarakhand controversy is poorly sourced, includes unverified statements (unreliable sources of Times of India which mentions as "sources in BJP"; name of no big leader/ press statement cited), without any original reserach/investigation. This was even clarified by the newspaper later.

Hence this section needs to be deleted as it is in clear violation of Wikipedia policies(policy no 2, 3 and fourth core content policy) stated above.

The section is purely an act of vandalism.

And since the article is protected, one cannot edit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.144.141 (talk • contribs)

Craig Titus
I semi-protected Craig Titus earlier. Just wanted to get a few more eyes on the article. It seems to have several editors who are claiming to be in contact with the subject. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like a borderline BLP1E. Probably a good candidate for AFD. That conviction section is seriously undue weight. § FreeRangeFrog croak 05:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * He was a professional athlete. That is his primary notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Melissa Russell
I have stripped and stubbed the Melissa Russell article, based on BLP concerns. The primary source for the article was an unacceptable self-published blog from DigitalJournal and the other source links provided were either dead/unreachable or inconclusive as to whether they actually mentioned the subject. A cursory Google search has not turned up much of anything relevant, but it's a fairly common name so I might be missing some that are out there. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Good job but "is a person"? . Take it to AFD as a BLP1E? § FreeRangeFrog croak 16:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you should try AfDing it. I can't really see anything that would make this not a WP:BLP1E.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 17:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Raul Julia-Levy
(the subject of the article in question) has expressed concern on my talk page about some of the content in the article. He insists that it should be removed because the claims are legally false (or at least he has some problems with how the newspapers have reported them). He has deleted the reliably-sourced information several times, so I wanted to get a wider opinion on what should be done, if anything. ... disco spinster   talk  15:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * See also 2013100110005299. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The part about the "scandal" seemed badly sourced and in breach of WP:BLPCRIME at least, so I removed it. I reverted User:Chuy33's other removals as they probably have a COI and the information that was deleted was at first glance not BLP-critical but rather criticism or negative information that was correctly sourced. I did invite the user to comment here, or in the article's talk page. IMO the IP should have been blocked for legal threats as well. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a terrible biography, it reads like it was written by a PR firm. It's mostly about his famous father and famous friends, what a great guy he is, the charities he participates in, parties he was invited to (and the other celebrities who attended). Most of his acting credits are to films that are not notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. Controversy aside (whether he is, in fact, Raul Julia's son), he doesn't seem to be notable in what he has achieved in life and a person doesn't gain notability by being associated with famous people. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 21:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Additionally, the sentence where it was claimed that Levy was Raul Julia's son was removed from Julia's article in 2006. According to the Talk Page, Levy is not mentioned in Julia's biographies. I don't know whether he is or is not, just that this biographic fact doesn't seem to have a proper reference with a reliable source and Levy's article is centered on the fact that he is Julia's son. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 22:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Unsimulated sex
This page is a terrible magnet for BLP violations, due to personal "research", blogs, and fetishism over celebrity nudity. I am not an active Wikipedian anymore, so wanted to bring this to the attention of this noticeboard so hopefully others can watchlist this and monitor the situation. In August, User:Mamj16 added a number of entries to the article, claiming living people engaged in certain controversial activities. Some of the entries were not notable (redlinked films, redlinked actors). All of the sources were subpar, mostly from pornography blogs, where non-notable individuals were making claims about what they saw in movies. And some didn't even make the claims that Mamj16 made in the article. I reverted those changes, as this sort of thing happens frequently. However, today that bad content was restored by User:Lostinlodos. I am not an active Wikipedian, but was tempted to be drawn into an edit war over this, as this is a 100% clear cut case of negative information being said about living people, and being sourced to some random blogs on the internet. But instead, I am here. Thank you for your time and consideration.-Andrew c [talk] 00:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The page is a list; and that a list of mainstream films. Every film on that list has received wide distribution and fully integrates into the intention of the list. I see no reason so short out any film currently (or in the future) simply because one or more of the actors/actresses are still alive. Per Andrew C; As if that was the case, the entire list should be tossed. There is equally no case of BLP violations as no part of this list is directly a biography. Just a statement of fact that a specific mainstream film contains unsimulated sex.Lostinlodos (talk) 01:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I will however state that that the "notes" column may need to be edited down on the entire list. There's no reason to explicitly describe the sex acts beyond the statement of fact that they occurred. Lostinlodos (talk) 01:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Because you said the page isn't a biography, I feel you don't fully understand WP:BLP, so I will quote the nutshell. "Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research." As is, the content you added is not verifiable, per Wikpedia guidelines, and is clearly consists of original research on the part of those adding it, and the unreliable blogs you continue to cite. The issue here is one of sourcing. You wanted a compromise. If these movies belong on the list, then you should be able to easily find reliable sources to back up the claims. Thank you for taking the time to respond. And I apologize if I won't be around to reply much longer. Hopefully others can chime in. -Andrew c [talk] 02:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with Andrews c's comments about WP:BLP being applicable here. By my understanding, BLP is a Wikipedia policy that applies to any information about living people which attributes specific acts or assigns specific characteristics to them, as well as basic "biographical" information, regardless of the type of Wikipedia article in which it appears. Lists of criminals or lists of movies that claim that certain people engaged in unsimulated sex on-screen are both examples of potential containers of libelous/defamatory assertions if not properly sourced, which is one reason for the policy. Dwpaul (talk) 02:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. - If the article was "just a statement of fact that [specific mainstream films contain] unsimulated sex," WP:BLP would not apply. It is not. The article goes further and identifies specific people who allegedly directed those films and/or appeared in those scenes, thus attributing an act to them and bringing it within the scope of WP:BLP. Dwpaul (talk) 02:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In regard to Dwpaul. As per my second note; i agree.in part. the issue here is not the potential violations of policy regarding the article, rather that the article is over-detailed with extraneous information that brings this policy into issue.  Rather than simply dump the factual information ill edit the article this evening to bring the list within the accepted confines of the related policy. i request apx 24 hours in order to complete the edits and welcome a review of them. thank you for the input and patience. Lostinlodos (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * On further reflection I will also note that i recognize the potential for issues arising out of the common use in film of body doubles and on some cases, both with and without authorization, the insertion of clips from other pornographic films,into these films. stating a specific cast member did specific acts.without references violates blp. equally the existence of such acts being shown in the film allow the use of that film as the principal reference to the acts taking place regardless of who performed them. If we are in agreement on that much that will be my primary starting point for the edits.Lostinlodos (talk) 18:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with your latest analysis. Thanks. Dwpaul (talk) 18:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm all for improving the article, and encourage Lostinlodos to do that. I just want to be clear about one more thing. While outside of the scope of BLP, I hope you also address the sourcing issue, and we can all agree that it is never appropriate to cite as a source self-published blogs whose purpose is to allow unauthorized (pirated) downloads of pornographic (or celebrity nudity fetishist) content. Even if we remove the actors' names, it still wouldn't be appropriate to claim there is unsimulated X in film Y based solely on a screen cap, or what some random dude on the internet thinks (or based on what a poll of page visitors think). -Andrew c [talk] 00:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Finished. If there's further issue please use my user talk page under the Unsimulated Sex header. Thankyou for the time to do this. Sorry it took so long. Lostinlodos (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Rowan Atkinson
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rowan_Atkinson&diff=575401387&oldid=575400629

Really? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.165.10.84 (talk) 07:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Already deleted, but this is probably why. We'll see if it gets added again. Dougweller (talk) 07:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * One of the (non-RS) sources originally cited here (actually the same site linked in the previous comment) about Atkinson's supposed conversion is now issuing a retraction. which includes an email ostensibly from Atkinson's agent denying the rumor. Still can't cite, as still not RS. Dwpaul (talk) 00:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I submitted a request for semi-protection. Dwpaul (talk) 00:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * But if I'm reading the page log correctly, it's already semi-protected? Not sure why tons of IPs are able to edit if so:
 * 16:49, 13 June 2013 Favonian configured pending changes settings for Rowan Atkinson [Accept: require "autoconfirmed" permission] (Violations of the biographies of living persons policy)
 * - Dwpaul (talk) 00:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And is done:
 * 21:08, 2 October 2013 Mark Arsten changed protection level of Rowan Atkinson‎ ‎[edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 01:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC))‎[move=sysop] (indefinite) (disruptive editing)
 * - Dwpaul (talk) 01:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Jeffrey Sachs
There are concerns regarding the neutrality of the Criticisms section of the Jeffrey Sachs article. These concerns have been brought up in the talk page. Should the section remain or be removed until it can be improved?  Ajax F¡ore talk 03:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph of criticism is cited to a book written by the subject. In other words it's unsourced editorializing. Second paragraph is cited to a review of Sach's book. Such poor sourcing should not be allowed to stand after its been tagged as POV since 2012. I'll take a hatchet to the section and pare it down to reliably sourced criticism per WP:BLP.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 17:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 17:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Its now concise and well sourced.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 18:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That was quick. Thanks.  Ajax F¡ore talk 02:09, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 18:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Ross William Ulbricht
Article does not have one source.

Article presumes guilt and could be libelous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jestcause (talk • contribs) 11:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please be very careful when using terms like "libel" - see WP:No legal threats. GiantSnowman 11:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * First, the article has 33 reference sources and for that section in question, the sources are Reuters and The Guardian. That section lays out the criminal complaint against Ulbricht, it doesn't say he is guilty. When his representatives present a defense, those statements will be included as well.
 * But Editors more experienced with BLPs and crime accusations should weigh in. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 12:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * , Jestcause was actually referring to this article. GiantSnowman 12:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I see POV, UNDUE, COATRACK and BLP problems at Silk Road but I'm too burnt out from other articles to jump in there. Maybe other, fresher souls, would like to enter the discussion on the talk page. Please keep in mind WP:BLPCRIME says: A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured......... --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 17:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that the wikilink for Ross William Ulbricht has been redirected to the Seizure and Arrest section of the Silk Road article. Seems like someone is on a character assassination crusade here and RWU is the helpless WP victim.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 17:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, GiantSnowman, I was looking at Ross William Ulbricht which is where the page redirects the reader to, as <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> says. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 17:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I removed the subsection redirect so it goes directly to the article. There's other mentions of Ulbricht in the article, so I think directing the redirect to the arrest section doesn't mesh with WP:BLPCRIME. D kriegls ( talk to me! ) 00:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC) I also deleted alleged information about Ulbricht in the Seizure and arrest section and left only the single reference to his arrest. I did leave the alleged pseudonym but that should probably go too. D kriegls ( talk to me! ) 01:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Antireligion


— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.17.174 (talk) 11:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This is a noticeboard to discuss biographies of living persons, 88.104.17.174, I think you need to raise qustions on the Antireligions talk page. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 12:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Pls see article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.17.174 (talk) 13:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I did -- and still don't see any Biographies of living persons issue to be dealt with here. The editor makes a comment about the nature of a belief system and supports it with citation of a reliable source. Nothing about a specific person or persons. Dwpaul (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Please quote the part of the Zuckerman paper that supports the notion that antireligion is "a form of religion" on the Talk:Antireligion page. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 15:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It doesn't. Accordingly, I've removed the assertion that 'antireligion is a form of religion', along with the citation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Monique Lamoureux
This person does not go by Lamoureux-Kolls, nor is it the legal name of this individual. The full name is Monique Lamoureux. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leroy3anderson (talk • contribs) 03:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This was discussed last month when the same editor brought it up here.. Reliable sources could not be found to justify the move the editor seems to be requesting, as RS are split between the subject's married, hyphenated name and her maiden name. Suggest now (as then) that the article's Talk page be used to propose and discuss a page move. Dwpaul (talk) 12:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Maarja-Liis Ilus
In the article on the Estonian singer Maarja-Liis Ilus there are two supposed links to her song 'Homme', but they in fact take you to a place in Norway by the same name! I've no idea how to edit this, but it clearly needs to be changed. No sources, but click on the links and you can see for yourself - the only disambiguation is to the French word 'homme', which again is obviously incorrect).188.203.49.105 (talk) 13:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ GiantSnowman 13:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Kenneth Tse
Kenneth Tse IS NOT the first classical saxophonist to receive the Artist Diploma. James Cunningham is the first classical saxophonist to receive the Artist Diploma and did so in 1980 from the Peabody Conservatory of Music of the Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. At the time Cunningham was studying with Vito Cuscuna, Milton Babbitt, and Karel Husa. Cunningham studied at the Peabody Conservatory from 1979 to 1980; receiving the diploma in May 1980. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.207.213 (talk) 14:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Kenneth Tse IS NOT the first classical saxophonist to be awarded the Artist Diploma. Classical Saxophonist James Cunningham was awarded the Artist Diploma in 1980 from the Peabody Conservatory of the Johns Hopkins University, and was the first classical saxophonist to be awarded the venerable artist diploma. Reference the Saxophone Journal Vol. 15, No. 5-May/April 1991. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newsrider1690 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ I've removed the information because the sources didn't support the claim. Do you have a source that supports your claim? -- D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 06:25, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Pierre Thomas (American football)
Information is poorly formatted, largely unsourced, shows clear bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:D:4980:94D:380E:1E77:F081:C861 (talk) 16:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ - most of the info was copied directly from here so I have removed it. GiantSnowman 16:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

La Luz del Mundo
The article on La Luz del Mundo Church centered mostly on its two leaders, including a short biography for each and a controversy section surrounding the current leader. A lot has changed since then, but the article still includes a short biography of the current leader and a lengthy controversy section dealing mostly with the current leader. The article currently has the template BLP others, but since it contains so much information and controversy about a living person, I think the BLP template might be more appropriate. Also, please look at the Controversy section to make sure there are no violations of BLP.  Ajax F¡ore talk 02:26, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I added the template myself.  Ajax F¡ore talk 20:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

BBB information
I believe if you are going to mention the BBB as an F grade, you should probably fairly state the BBB has accredited and reviewed the business and gives it an A+ rating.

http://www.bbb.org/chicago/business-reviews/vitamins-and-food-supplements/mercola-health-resources-in-hoffman-estates-il-22002555 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.84.70 (talk) 18:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Can you clarify which Wikipedia article is the issue? Better Business Bureau seems not to be it? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah wait, I found it... one moment... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I've removed the disputed material from Joseph Mercola as being now out of date and not particularly relevant to his biography anyway. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Patrick Califia
Could someone please look at this, I think it accuses Califia of promoting some rather unorthodox sexual activities and may be trolling. Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Is that an accurate portrayal of the subject's writings? If it is then I wouldn't want to remove the comment under the guise of a BLP vio. If the characterization of the work is correct then the IP has a point, even if it's in a "OMG think of the children" way. § FreeRangeFrog croak 20:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I see no evidence that Califia endorses, promotes or writes about the sexual molesting of children and bestiality, et al. FWIW these are the traditional rhetoric of the Right-wing church to disparage LGBT people so thise seems like just a different form of the same argument - "see, they are recruiting and molesting children and want to have sex with dogs!" Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:51, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I searched and found nothing suggesting anything but Califia's BDSM writings which do not tend to focus on anything but rather mainstream adult sexual activity. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think calling it a "relentless promotion" is a personal attack, it's the characterization (perhaps mistaken) the IP makes of the subject's work. It's not trying to insert that into the article as a personal opinion. But I'll let other editors chime in here. § FreeRangeFrog croak 22:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Suggesting anyone is promoting sex with children and animals is a huge problem. If sources are presented that state there is something to this then the ideas can be entertained, otherwise it feels like trolling. I've removed the statement but I'm also open to other viewpoints. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A simple search will yield a sfgate article suggesting Califia supports NAMBLA, so I think the ip may be onto something.Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That article (seen here) makes it plain that like others, Califia endorsed Nambla's right to exist and have free speech, but not that he endorses their views on lowering or eliminating age of consent laws. This seems to be conflating BDSM with child molestation and bestiality. BDSM is a central focus of Califia's writing and the article already states that, child molestation and bestiality are not therefore have no place on this BLP. If he were known for these things I would support including well-sourced content that laid that out. Instead we have a source that in 1980 Califia supported Nambla and other groups on a free speech basis right to exist. Sportfan5000 (talk) 03:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't explored all the articles, but this doesn't give you the right to delete those comments. They were reasonable questions to raise, and on topic.  Instead of getting in a pissing match with you, as seems to be your wont, I reported you and will let an admin deal with your deletions.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The reasonable question might have been "I have found source A which states this BLP subject promotes sexual assault and bestiality, can we now add that to the article?" But no sources were presented and it's unlikely any exist. I'm glad the comments were removed again. Sportfan5000 (talk) 17:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Whoa. Sure there is a right to delete those comments if they are deemed unacceptable. There was no reasonable question (though a reasonable question could conceivably be asked), there was an accusation, one that blurred fiction and real life. Now, as it happens, I own a copy of Macho Sluts (unless Mrs. Drmies has thrown it out), and I don't remember stuff involving children; but mind you, the charge was that the author promoted actions by writing about them, and that's an entirely different matter. Well. Take that particular matter up with Mark Twain, with Anne Rice, with Nabokov, and a million other writers. I find that the claim that certain books by a certain author contained certain content and that therefore the author "relentlessly promoted" such actions as were described to be a BLP violation, and I will remove it from the history of the talk page. In other matters, the article as such is on the promotional side, and I will apply what I consider common sense: the trimming of book titles if such entries are not verified and the books not proven to be notable one way or another, since, in my opinion, such extended listings turn articles into resumes. Drmies (talk) 05:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ya, BLP calls for "wicked mad caution" (not a direct quote) when it comes to really dirty claims. Deletion from history is acceptable until solid sourcing can be presented and consensus built for adding it. No one is shutting down discussion. The source for the deleted claim did not support said claim. Does it support a variation of the claim? That can be debated, but delete it until there is consensus. D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 05:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Sportfan5000 (talk) 17:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Christine Bersola-Babao
A bit of edit warring here (courtesy of, now blocked) over the "controversy" section in the article (and the lack of "positive" stuff). Perhaps some of you can have a look; I trimmed that section considerably already (it really was written terribly POVy), and maybe some of you can find it in your heart and in your Google searches to improve the article--perhaps even making it look better for the subject, properly verified and all that of course. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've cut it back and removed the NPOV tag. A lot of attacking going on there over a somewhat minor incident ie social media backlash over a single article she wrote and apologized for. Also many of the sources cited to support this event are poor with several dead links. I almost question the notability of the subject.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 18:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Krishna Athal
There is a mild edit war over this text The source is in French (I believe) but a Google translated version says: WP:BLPCRIME says: NOTE: the subject has not yet been accused of any crime or been arrested. So the question is: should the above text be in the BLP?--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 17:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In September 2013, officials at the University of Mauritius accused Athal of falsifying his university degree.
 * Management of the University of Mauritius has complained to the police against the former president of the National Youth Council, Krisha Athal. He is accused of falsifying his degree.
 * A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured.
 * Generally, accusations by outside parties aren't included until there is a legal charge. However, these accusations are made by the governing body that issues such degrees. I would encourage caution about inclusion. However, I could see an argument for a single sentence simply stating the accusation, who made it, and that no charges have been brought (don't say "yet" because that would imply assumption they will). But, I'm restating my opinion that it should not be included.-- D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 19:49, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * If the subject of the article hasn't been charged and this is just accusations, then I don't think it should be in the article. The problem here was that an IP editor was removing the info but giving no reason to explain the removal. Had the IP explained the edit the first time content was removed, maybe this would have been avoided, but the IP didn't do this, he/she just kept removing the info over-and-over again with not as much as an edit summary. Also, the possible conflict of interest with one of the editors didn't help, because it gave the appearance that the subject was just removing content that was negative, which probably was not the case here, but it still took that editor two reverts for removing content without explaination before an edit summary was finally left explaining the removal. For future reference, if an editor truly believes sourced content is bias, please take your argument to talk page, or at the least, leave an edit summary explaining this. If you don't tell us why you're removing content, how are other editors going to know the reason? The answer is that we won't know, and if the content appears to be sourced, will likely be restored because of this. As stated above, I believe it would be best to leave this statement out of the article and that it should be removed if re-added. Cmr08 (talk) 02:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm also OK with leaving it out of the article. Thanks everyone for giving your views and contributing to this consensus.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 20:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Carole Feuerman
Carole Feuerman poorly sourced, overstatement directly from the subject's website, pretentious material — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.141.195 (talk) 01:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Anthony Hopkins
Re: Anthony Hopkins

Biography

Anthony Hopkins has been classed as a 'composer' by many - including Dutch Chef d'Orchestre André Rieu and his Johann Strauss Orchestra - among countless others.

The waltz composed by Hopkins, entitled, 'And The Waltz Goes On' was performed by this orchestra in Maastricht, Netherlands in 2012 in their performance 'Under the Stars. Live in Maastricht 5.'

The edit I made - adding 'Composer' to the infobox was deleted by Binksternet stating that, 'of course he is a COMPOSER, but he is not famous as one.' So, WHY delete the FACT he IS a COMPOSER? - tell me!

Hopkins as an actor is already famous - yet, as a composer he is making his mark as well and his music is being played by full orchestras on world tours. To be a good composer, you do NOT need a slew of musical scores - you need only ONE. Any music aficionado can list you plenty of composers who are known for a SINGLE work.

I happen to be a music critique in Canada and have been heard on the radio - promoting careers all the way to Carnegie Hall. Hopkin's composition of 'And the Waltz Goes On' has been sold world-wide on a CD by André Rieu and this particular composition has been deemed worthy of Strauss himself! While his music is being applauded by thousands, Wikipedia is 'deaf.'

I know UTube is among the banned sites of Wikipedia - but PLEASE take a moment to go LISTEN to the performance of this composition by Hopkins by doing a search for:

André Rieu - And The Waltz Goes On (composed by: Anthony Hopkins)

...and then have the nerve to tell me Hopkins should not be labelled a 'Composer'!

Now, do I need to go on the radio and make my point for my voice to be heard on this world-wide and Wikipedia have some serious 'pie in the face' over this issue!?

I think that deleting the label 'Composer' out of the infobox for Anthony Hopkins is not doing justice to the enormous musical talent of the man as a composer and when he leaves this mortal world it will be a great shame not to have listed him here as such!

While Wikipedia lists composers on some period listings where many are 'little-known' and have only one piece, can you explain WHY Hopkins would be left out as a 'composer' even on his OWN biography page on this premise alone?! The work of Hopkins as a composer will likely surpass his work as an actor over time - it will be played for generations to come and many recognize this NOW!

I do not do edits on Wikipedia unless I am absolutely CERTAIN of what I am doing and this is one I am not ready to let go.

Three of my very good friends are multi-millionaires who have DONATED a lot of money to Wikipedia via MY encouragement. If Wikipedia is too stupid to see the light on issues like this and closes a 'blind eye' to what is appropriate here it is NOT PROMOTING KNOWLEDGE as it SHOULD and is 'censoring' things only based on the very personal 'bias' of its editors which is totally wrong and fails to enter FACTS when they should - it IS inappropriate to do in a case like this and I WILL tell them to STOP funding you - and trust me, on the basis of ETHICS, they WILL!

Please allow the word 'Composer' in the infobox to do justice to Hopkins! How could the world even put this man to rest someday without doing justice to his MERIT as a composer even during his lifetime! Good grief! What a SHAME!

Add to this: the fact that:

Prince Charles Philip Arthur George of Wales (born 1948)

...was also REMOVED off the list of British painters as well (which had been added by me). He IS FAMOUS for his watercolors and the massive amounts of money his art raises for charity! This one as well should have NOT been removed!

And I should NOT have been THREATENED to be removed as an editor for these two items!

I have good reason to be upset here! Important FACTS are NOT being allowed and this is TOTALLY ridiculous!

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoyalSnowbird (talk • contribs) 03:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I am pleased to learn that you have found employment as a "music critique" on the radio - where your evident lack of skills in written English are presumably not a problem. Sadly though, if you wish to bring about your proposed changes in the relevant articles, you will have to employ such skills as you have on the relevant article talk pages, rather than here - and please note that Wikipedia does not base decisions on supposed 'donations' from friends of "critiques", or on the number of exclamation marks used in a discussion, or indeed on the amount of text written in CAPITALS! Instead, Wikipedia requires evidence from published sources - I suggest that you find such evidence, and (perhaps with the assistance of a dictionary) present it for others to see. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Our prickly friend Andy is correct in that you should find published sources discussing Hopkins as a composer of some importance rather than as a composer of one work which is not widely known, or as an actor who dabbles in composition. The infobox is for the most important points, not for minor points. Wikipedia is written for the existing situation rather than for a notional future situation such as Hopkins being as famous or even more famous for his musical compositions than for his acting. Binksternet (talk) 03:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

While I am not familiar with all the response method here - my reply to you is this: This post is not meant to be 'letter perfect' as it serves to deal with complaints and issues among editors. I recognize my posting here was not perfect - it was not meant to be. However, there was no need to personally attack me and your manner in dealing with this speaks VOLUMES about you. I happen to be a published author, translator and copy editor and have earned my main living out from this for over 30 years now. This request to edit a single word is likely the one which will have cost you the most in Wikipedia lost funding history. All three of my friends have scrapped their Wikipedia budget and have decided to donate elsewhere based on: your biased attitude; lack of professionalism; failure to address the issue properly; failure to promote knowledge appropriately in dealing with facts; and, refraining to personally insult someone trying to contribute to your site. One of them happens to be a great admirer of Hopkins and a world-class philanthropist. He made a lot of money this year and was going to increase his donation to Wikipedia; however, the picture has now changed. . . He values my opinion and trusts my word and is now taking his money elsewhere to the tune of over 14 million dollars. Be proud of what you do - your biased ways are closing the door to great facts of knowledge based on your distorted opinions! In terms of 'references' - oft it is said a picture is worth a thousand words ...in today's cyber world, a video can act much the same. You failed to go watch the video of the performance I indicated to you where Anthony Hopkins was himself in attendance. Common knowledge and videography should have clearly suffices in this case - but again you are so blind and so imbued with the love of attacking someone and not addressing the issue fully and completely - properly - that you completely miss the boat! Great job! This 'attitude' of your speaks VOLUMES about you and how Wikipedia works. A piece of advice: do not go around insulting people - especially, when you know nothing about them nor whom you are dealing with - it may end up costing you some very REAL problems in the future (funding issue here). When Wikipedia goes on its funding campaigns to 'beg' the world for money, don't come stopping upon our doorstep because it is going elsewhere! André Rieu is Dutch and he knows all too well the history of my family as I am a descendant of the Princes of Gavere (Gavre) and the Counts van Egmont who are well-known in the Netherlands [among many others] - and - my word will have more respect with him when I raise this sad issue - you can count on it! Your public relations skills are more than dismal and your ethics are even worse!

Good day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoyalSnowbird (talk • contribs) 05:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia doesn't need lessons in 'ethics' from people who think that they can bribe us into making decisions regarding content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * RoyalSnowbird, please try to understand that there is an appropriate editorial process which requires evidence (e.g. "is this person or painter or composer?") and then consensus ("but are they a NOTABLE painter or composer?"). Do not confuse somebody being well-known with somebody being well-known for that particular activity. For example, Prince Charles is very well-known especially for his charitable work and substantial business interests. But are those listed in the infobox? No, because he is primarily well-known for being heir to the British throne, and everything else is secondary. Even an impressively long infobox such as that for Winston Churchill only makes a passing reference to him being a painter, author and historian. Specific fields (such as the arts, for example) have specific criteria for what makes them notable. I suggest that you review these and then construct your argument within that framework supported by evidence. Shritwod (talk) 07:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

NO one bribed ANYONE here! Money is not going to be donated - that is not a bribe but a decision any financial contributor can make of their own volition if they deem it so - that is FINAL! There is a HUGE difference ...just in case stupid people like you cannot understand. . . You do not even know what ethics are - just take a look at how you reply to a pure stranger in response to my original request! You lack social savvy and discernment in spades! How stupid can anyone get?! If this is the manner in which you act as a 'representative contributor' to Wikipedia, I have some serious concerns as to your mental stability. I am GLAD this money was withdrawn - you are proving more and more that the decision was a good one! I shall relay the message to them! Your attitude is childish. I am not engaging in a 'tit for tat' communication. Ohhhhh silence is indeed golden!

Shritwod - you complete FAIL to see my point. Now, you have Hildegard of Bingen (another distant relative of mine) [Hildegard von Bingen] in the list of Medieval composers when she did not compose much music. So why could Hopkins not be indicated as a composer in his infobox [because he actually is and has composed beautiful pieces which I HAVE indicated here WHERE to find the info - which is COMMON PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE - from a concert of his waltz performed by the Strauss orchestra of André Rieu where Hopkins is even seen in the video I pointed out at the performance and CLEARLY stated as being a 'composer'! THIS IS EVIDENCE! What is so hard to understand about that?]. My view is you are all being 'pig headed' about this and could not see a gift horse if it hit you in the face! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoyalSnowbird (talk • contribs) 07:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please stop shouting, and please bear in mind WP:TLDR. GiantSnowman 11:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Royal Snowbird is presumed to be an inexperienced user, so perhaps I shouldn't say this, but are you having a little joke with us, Royal Snowbird? Your multi-millionaire friends have stopped donating and it's all Andy's fault — he has already cost us, what, 14 million dollars? We should stop contradicting you because a picture is worth more than a thousand words and you're the descendant of princes and counts and related to Hildegard of Bingen? You have concerns about Shritwood's mental stability? Yes… yes… Well, if you're kidding, it's getting repetitious; if you're serious, you really need to stop now, because you're violating some of Wikipedia's core policies and hitting people in the face with a gift horse. To be serious: if you keep it up I'll block you from editing for making personal attacks. Bishonen &#124; talk 12:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC).


 * Ignoring the somewhat implausible claims of mystery benefactors waving cheques for $14 million, I've been searching online for anything resembling a credible review of Hopkin's waltz - but found nothing of any substance beyond the usual hyperbole that Amazon etc use to flog their wares. In reporting that André Rieu's orchestra premièred the piece, the BBC sadly omitted to give us any opinion as to its merits. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Postscript: evidently, I didn't search far enough - there are reviews of Hopkin's compositional work out there. Paul Kilbey, in a UK Huffpost Culture blog, under a headline that reads "Anthony Hopkins: Significantly Better at Acting Than Composing" opines that "There are definitely some worse composers out there than Anthony Hopkins. I mean, you probably could have guessed this even before listening to his new album Composer. It's statistically very probable, after all. But now I think it's basically fact: there are some worse composers out there than Anthony Hopkins. Some. Maybe about 20" . AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)