Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive193

Robert Spitzer (political scientist)
There is a TON of unsourced material in this article, and I need some help to sort through it. The article is certainly salvageable, but it needs a lot of work, and I don't really want to just hack away at it. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I am very concerned about the direction this article suddenly took. I will comment in more detail there. Lightbreather (talk) 03:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Please, can some uninvolved editors take a look at this article? A half-day's worth of work has been reverted. Lightbreather (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I will try to keep an eye on this article. All editors should bear in mind, in addition to basic BLP policies, the need to avoid undue weight on any aspect of the subject's work and career. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added it to my Watchlist and I'll take a look for any sourcing issues. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think I've ever heard of this person before, but I don't see any obvious BLP issues with the article. There's an overreliance on primary sources and some unsourced content, but nothing major.  On a side note, I don't think it's necessary list out 19 different TV shows/newspapers he's been on/in.  Just pick 2 or 3 examples. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Newyorkbrad and A Quest For Knowledge. My main concern is not about the subject's editing, but that of one of our editor who insists that the subject - a living scholar/academic - is a gun control advocate or activist. Would you like me to give diffs for specific instances? Others have discussed this with her on the subject's talk page (most recently here) but she keeps putting this stuff back (most recently here and here). Thanks again. Lightbreather (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a POV effort to portray the subject of the article as neutral on Gun Control, when his own words show his political leaning. There are hundreds of examples. I do not understand this. There is also an effort to push the idea that being in favor of gun control is somehow a bad thing. This is something I do not appreciate. I am not trying to "pin a label" on anyone, particulary one of my favorite authors, but we need to be intellectually honest. It is easy enough to quote him as examples of his advocacy. As I said, I do not understand the resistance to this, especially when it should be a given. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * THIS is the only one of only two secondary sources that has been found so far, and it describes him as an advocate. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * IMO, there is a POV effort to prove that the subject, a political scientist, is a gun control advocate, and to categorize him as such. That could negatively effect his reputation. After five days searching, one source - a 14year-old book by a criminologist - calls the subject an advocate. No current high-quality, reliable, verifiable sources. Mainstream newspapers call him a political scientist. Lightbreather (talk) 03:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

HERE is a second independent source which describes him as a "prominent gun control advocate". That makes a grand total of only two secondary sources, and both describe him the same way. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

There are now THREE independent third party sources. This one describes Mr. Spitzer as a "strong proponent of Gun Control" --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Robert J. Spitzer is a political scientist. One of his fields of research is the politics of gun control in America. He is known for his balanced research and writing on gun control. See . He is not a gun control advocate. Sue, who admires him, does not understand the difference between political science research and advocacy.


 * Let me repeat what I said to Sue on the article talk page.
 * All three sources used for the lead are not reliable sources:
 * The google books url leads to Shots in the Dark: The Policy, Politics, and Symbolism of Gun Control by William J. Vizzard. Vizzard is a supporter of Gary Kleck's research. Spitzer has harshly criticized Kleck's research methodology and Vizzard is a critic of Spitzer and not an unbiased writer in this case.


 * https://sites.google.com/site/guncontrolpol101/weapons-in-general/to-control is a anti-gun control blog with no stated author and appears to be a self-published source.


 * http://cornellsun.com/blog/2008/04/23/foreign-countries-divergent-in-strictness-of-gun-control/?ModPagespeed=noscript is a student newspaper.


 * Now she is proposing as a "reliable, verifiable" source one of the strangest self-published blogs I have seen, http://www.volokh.com/2003_05_04_volokh_archive.html.


 * In any case, they only describe Spitzer as a gun control advocate, they do not provide any actual evidence. To demonstrate that he is an advocate requires sources that analyze Spitzer's work and politics and come to the conclusion that he is an advocate. Sue is pushing her point of view here without adequate sources. She has demonstrated her inability to find real sources about academic people. She is has demonstrated on the talk page of the article her lack of understanding of academic research, biographies of living persons, and what constitutes reliable and verifiable sources. The material describing Spitzer as a gun control advocate needs to be removed. StarryGrandma (talk) 07:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I am not vouching for the quality of these three sources. They are far from steel-clad. But they are the ONLY secondary sources available. The entirety of the remaining sources in the article are primary sources. We need sources that are untouched by the subject. Interviews, etc. will not do, as the hosts generally introduce guests by whatever title they want. There has been no biography. These few sources are the only independent ones that have been found to date. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 08:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP states "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced." The material in question is "gun control advocate." The sources are one book and a student newspaper article (and a blog, and a blog, and a blog, and a blog). The contentious is confirmed by the contention here, and the fact that the subject has protested -. This is a no-brainer. Hipocrite (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As well as the Syracuse Post-Standard of course. In context; there are only three mainstream RS refs at the article that are not written directly by the BLP subject himself. All refer to the subject as an "advocate", hardly a contentious formulation. The fact that the blogs agree with RS is neither surprising nor relevant.Capitalismojo (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Which does not refer to him as a "gun control advocate." The three sources are an advocacy book by an ex-ATF agent now law professor gun-control writer, a student newspaper, and the headline of an opinion blog that doesn't call him a gun-control advocate. That's some shitty sourcing for a contentious claim. Hipocrite (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * READ THIS it's pretty clear. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * LOUD NOISES. No it's not. It doesn't call him a "gun control advocate." Provide quotes. Hipocrite (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Pawel Maciwoda
Pawel Maciwoda has a son. His name is Roman, he is 2 1/2 years old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annonymous12 (talk • contribs) 09:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable source for that? Otherwise we'd prefer not to include that type of personal information in articles. § FreeRangeFrog croak 17:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Even if verified I don't care for such information. What's important to the subject is often not important to the reader. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

María Luisa Piraquive
Need eyes, especially Spanish-speaking eyes (si!) on this article. There's a controversy, apparently, and I am not convinced of the sourcing (let alone of the wording in the article). I removed it, and was reverted by the original contributor, and I reverted them, invoking BLP. Drmies (talk) 03:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * See also Carlos Alberto Baena. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, the sources do support the information, but the edits are certainly waaay too undue. Referring to this diff, the first paragraph aggrandizes something that happened 8 years ago, merely because it is referenced briefly in the articles about the videos. Then there's some synthesis related to referencing the videos themselves in YouTube (not to mention lack of reliability), although this source is a good secondary for that. The last article is a bunch of original research supported by primary sources, and seems like an attempt to associate Baena with the whole thing. In general, there does seem to be something of a controversy there related to Piraquive, but it would definitely have to be less dramatic and wordy if it were to be included. The rest of the sources do seem reliable to me. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Jonathan King
A clever campaign to denigrate King's (rather limited) achievements has been supported by various Wikipedia editors, removing positive comment and proven facts and adding negative comment as well as achieving deletion of his works - example, his film Vile Pervert: The Musical, just deleted. I have an interest being a huge Genesis fan (he discovered, named and produced them) but this cunning smearing of anything connected with him is the kind of vandalism Wikipedia should stamp out. I have no wish to defend him and neither should this site. Clear information without deliberate and malicious distortion of the facts.Progrockerfan (talk) 09:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The question of whether King received an Ivor Novello Award for Paloma Blanca has been discussed twice at Talk:Jonathan King. The jury is still out on this one, but the consensus is that there is not enough reliable sourcing for inclusion at the moment. There was a decision after a debate to merge Vile Pervert: The Musical to Jonathan King.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 13:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

No editor was trying denigrate Kings achievements, but there were many many claims in the article that just werent true and not sourced (because they werent true!). I simply wanted it to tell the truth and be a good article. The article is much better now, with all credits recorded and sourced, no wild unfounded claims etc. It reads very well and shows all achievements and mistakes the man made. If JK is honest, he knows he likes to blow his own trumpet and over-egg what was achieved. Example: saying his book was going to be listed for the Booker prize when it never was etc! This article still reads like someone who did well for quite a few years and then fell from grace. Dave006 (talk) 13:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

What is quite funny is the fact that admins on here really think its a worse crime to want an article to simply state the truth than anything JK did! Find me one thing wrong with the article now? There isnt any. But you would think that wanting it to be the truth, that I was raging a one man attack on the subject. The really get upset if you think you have the right to ask that it be changed to the truth, and if there are 30+ lies on the article (there were) then they get even more annoyed that you ask for every lie to be removed! And as for empathy and sympathy, well you can forget that, they are the admins and they know best. The rudest people on here are the people that are supposed to police it. lol. Dave006 (talk) 14:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * One of the stumbling blocks here is that the Ivor Novello Awards are for songwriting and composing. Jonathan King did not write the music or the lyrics of the song Paloma Blanca, George Baker (musician) did, and King recorded a cover version. This is still being looked into.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 14:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Using "expert" critical SPS blogs in BLPs
This issue in Robert P. Murphy was brought here a couple months ago but ignored by uninvolved editors. Now at Reliable Sources Noticeboards and hotly debated. Feel free to come over and discuss here: RSN. FYI. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

corneliu vadim tudor
The intoxications used here about Corneliu Vadim Tudor are outrageous. CVT IS still the founder and, more so, the president of PRM (in every official document). He is NOT an extremist, etc. - just a patriot fighting for his country. The only extremists are those who are practicing an undeclared genocide against the romanian people, over the last 25 years, almost. All these criminals, together with their external suppliers, describe CVT as THEY themselves are, inventing and feeding crap to those who are uncapable of thinking with their own heads. CVT expressed his disgust to thieves, liars, corrupt, etc. regardless of their nationality or provenience. Wikipedia is supposed to be a source of culture, documentation and truth, not a fountain of lies. It's a real shame that SOME users choose denigration, in spite of TRUE facts and evidence. This only proves their purpose, which is anything but the truth, because they don't benefit from the truth. Period.

List of members of the AVN Hall of Fame
I removed a load of unsourced people from List of members of the AVN Hall of Fame and an editor has reverted me here. I have discussed BLP with him at the porn wiki project and he contributed this there so he or she seem to be aware of BLP and just wanting to ignore it, calling my enforcement of it shameful and suggesting tagging is enough when it comes to dealing with living people who wikipedia is alleging without reliable source work in the porn industry, ie the material is contentious enough♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sourcing for all of the removed content is available, but Squeak refuses to acknowledge it, or better yet, look it up first before deleting the content he claims is in BLP violation. Furthermore, the user has stated their bias against the subject as justification for the content removal. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Scalhotirod's approach to editing is plainly inconsistent with WP:BLP policy and principles. Sourcing is required for such claims. Sourcing must be provided when the statements are included in articles. Moreover, every linked article must be verified to assure that the subject of the article is actually the person (more often, the pseudonym) recognized by the porn industry. Wikipedia editors have a long and sorry tradition of misidentifying notable individuals with erotica industry figures, and publishing large amounts of unverifiable kayfabe about them, and if Scalhotrod continues to be unwilling to edit responsibly and conform to BLP requirements, he should be placed under an appropriate topic ban. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Squeak is correct. Sourcing must be provided. If they are in this hall of fame, then it should be quite easy to verify. No need to be difficult. Just source itTwo kinds of pork (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The problem is that what "SqueakBox" actually tried to do in his recent edits to the article in question here was to not only delete some names (which may or may not have absolutely needed to be in the article at all), but he also attempted to delete a list of links (at the end of the article) that could easily be used to provide inline citations for a large portion of the article, which is not what one should be doing on Wikipedia IMO. It's one thing to be aggressive when deleting red links (there's an entire Project developed to that sort of thing, where the principle most often used is will the red link in question have a real chance of ever having its own stand-alone article on Wikipedia), and it's another thing to attempt to gut an article of future, valid sourcing. Some of the Wiki-links deleted (Michael Carpenter (pornography), Scott Lyons (pornographic actor), Rick Masters (pornographic actor), Rick Savage (porn star), Jerry Steven Winkle (Internet Porn Broker), Barry Wood (pornographer), etc.) from the article in question here were also obviously, solely associated with pornography. The problem that I've seen with a fair amount of "SqueakBox's" recent edit is that he sometimes willfully deletes content that can very easily be properly sourced. He's also started a number of discussions on other talk pages, and then, when those discussions don't go his way, he attempts to direct users to this board here to solve all of the issues that he apparently refuses to discuss on the actual Wikipedia pages themselves.
 * Being in the AVN Hall of Fame is an important part of the recently revised PORNBIO inclusion standard. The article here needs those that are willing to help provide more valid sources, not more deletions. Guy1890 (talk) 00:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I would enquire as to why Squeak deleted those links. I assume they are reliable for the porn industry?Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly, from my initial investigation, all of those links were still completely valid weblinks, and they went to either still live websites or archived & reliable links of the organization (AVN) that gives out the awards that are documented on that page in the first place. To be completely honest, I was about to restore all of those links to the end of the article, but "Scalhotrod" basically reverted almost all of "SqueakBox"'s edits to the page in question here...so I just moved on. Guy1890 (talk) 02:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * hey if you disagree with my removal of the external links then do revert, Guy, that was a judgement of mine which I am happy to admit wa smisplaced if you disagree as a fellow editor, but that isnt a BLP issue and so discussing that shouldnt happen here. On the other hand if those links can be turned into inline citations then they should be turned into inline citations as I am more than happy to see anyone included or added with a reliable inline citation but nobody should be added or re-added without one. As long as people desist form reverting my deletion of BLP material I am happy, they can delete my other edits in the normal way♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 03:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As I've already stated, there's no reason to do a revert now, since basically all of your edits to the article in question here have been reverted at this point. It's pretty obvious what you were trying to pull by some of those edits, and if you're not willing to come clean here, then that's on you, not me. "On the other hand if those links can be turned into inline citations then they should be turned into inline citations"...by someone else of course, not you, since you've already clearly stated that you unfortunately have no interest in doing that whatsoever. Guy1890 (talk) 04:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Admin needed
Unfortunately you are right that unsourced info about living people was indeed restored again here by Scalhotrod, he had already reverted re'adding this material before here, a very bad move as BLP allows for their removal without discussion esp given both the fresh editors who commented here have fully supported my view that this info must be removed until sourced reliably with inline citations. Is there an admin or should this now be taken to AN/I as Scalhotrod seems determined to ignore BLPSOURCES and this noticeboard as well and restore unsourced info about living people, claiming they are porn stars, a contentious (in the BLP sense of the word) assertion♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 04:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If you'd like to bring in some admin. action, then I'd like to hear a very clear & honest answer as to why you, "SqueakBox", intentionally attempted to remove those external links when it was obvious that they could be used to provide many inline citations for the article in question here. Guy1890 (talk) 04:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * A random review of the people on that list, and simple google searches shows this information is indeed verifiable (though I haven't checked every one). I see no good reason to challenge this list, as all of the blue linked articles indeed mention the subject is involved with porn.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, they don't (or at least didn't until I intervened). See, for example, this edit . Virtually all of the porn lists haven't been properly verified . Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There are no inappropriate Wiki-links on the page in question here. I can't speak to the validity of all of the gay pornography-related Wikipedia pages, since I don't edit extensively in that area of Wikipedia. Guy1890 (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Randolph Mantooth
There has been some confusion as to this subject's year of birth, as evidenced on the talk page. A new user is adding familysearch.org as a reference for year of birth (see here). Question if this is a reliable source for a public record? Thank you. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there a reliable source for his birth name being "Randy Deroy Mantooth" to connect the public record unambiguously to him? If not, the use of this record is OR at best. Collect (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, there is no source at all that this is absolutely his birth name, and while I have read before that his birth name is "Randy" and that he uses "Randolph" for a stage name, it is completely WP:OR as well. I would certainly propose to leave off DOB altogether for this to avoid any more confusion. ♫ Cricket02  (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If the maiden name can be verified, then I'd say it could be appropriate. – Connormah (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I may be falling behind the times, but am unaware that guys have maiden names.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No maiden name. Surname is Mantooth.  Possibility that birth first name "Randy" and stage first name "Randolph" but that is unsourced.  Main question is if familysearch.org is a reliable source for birth information, if connected unambiguously?  ♫ Cricket02  (talk) 13:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Charles Denham
The living person biography of Charles Denham has been involved in an edit war since 9 January 2014. This is apparently related to a U.S. Department of Justice press release about a $40.1 million payment by the medical products company CareFusion to the government to settle claims that the company violated the False Claims Act and stating that "CareFusion paid $11.6 million in kickbacks to Dr. Charles Denham while Denham served as the co-chair of the Safe Practices Committee at the National Quality Forum, a non-profit organization that reviews, endorses and recommends standardized health care performance measures and practices.  The government contends that the purpose of those payments was to induce Denham to recommend, promote and arrange for the purchase of ChloraPrep by health care providers."

Since 9 January there have been 5 edits inserting this statement or a reference to it. In each case the edits have been re-edited to remove these details. Two of the 5 insertions are from wikipedia named users. None of the removal edits are from named users. The IP addresses of the removing edits are uninformative.

Edit history for Charles Denham as of 23:15 UTC 15 Jan 2014:

14:13, 12 January 2014‎ 70.114.157.229‎ (10,615 bytes) (-157)‎(Undid revision 590353735 by 71.185.164.77

12:28, 12 January 2014‎ 71.185.164.77 (10,772 bytes) (+157)‎(CareFusion settlement with state of New York does mention Dr. Denham by name)

21:24, 10 January 2014‎ 24.55.33.122 (10,615 bytes) (-170)‎ (undo)

21:16, 10 January 2014‎ 64.58.148.154 (10,785 bytes) (-437)‎ (undo)

21:13, 10 January 2014‎ 24.55.33.122 (11,222 bytes) (-428)‎ (→‎Corruption Scandals) (undo) (Tag: section blanking)

21:12, 10 January 2014‎ 24.55.33.122 (11,650 bytes) (+994)‎ (Undid revision 590130052 by 64.58.148.154) (Tag: possible BLP issue or vandalism)

21:10, 10 January 2014‎ 64.58.148.154 (10,656 bytes) (-994)‎ (Tag: reference list removal)

19:16, 10 January 2014‎ Crimestopper100 (11,650 bytes) (+2)‎

19:15, 10 January 2014‎ Crimestopper100 (11,648 bytes) (+713)‎ (Adds news articles and press releases mentioning Dr. Denham)

18:33, 10 January 2014‎ 132.189.76.43 (10,935 bytes) (+428)‎ (Tag: possible BLP issue or vandalism)

23:53, 9 January 2014‎ 64.58.148.154 (10,507 bytes) (-231)‎ (undo)

19:03, 9 January 2014‎ Mikeyoung1976 (10,738 bytes) (+523)‎ (Adds information about Denham that appears in a Department of Justice press release)

The edit war that is taking place exceeds 3RR although the reversions come from different IP addresses. The specific edits proposed are not defammatory or libelous and are based on primary sources with solid URL links.

How can this be resolved? There is no user to report to the Edit Wars page. Can the page be noticed as disputed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard I. Cook, MD (talk • contribs)


 * I took a quick look. The phrase is sourced to a government notice that does actually mention Dr. Denham by name and does state that he recieved a kickback.  The government source is reliable, the sentance in question only says what the government document says, without synthesis  or OR, so I'd say it should stay in.  KoshVorlon.  We are all Kosh  17:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Could this page be semiprotected for a week or so? Can I request that here, or should I go to the admin board? The problem is with IP editors who do not want to talk. If they slowed down and talked to others then I think there would be fewer problems. Thanks.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   12:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

roger ailes
The current bio page for Roger Ailes states, under the "Personal Life" heading, that he married "his lover Rush Limbaugh" in 1980. No fan of either gentlemen but pretty sure that is not true!

Richard Geddes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.148.95 (talk) 17:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * This was vandalism and has been removed.-- Auric  talk  13:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Antonio Petrus Kalil
Two years ago, this article was stubbifyed as it was considered to be extremely innacurate with several problems in its sources. I personally believe that that sole contributor to the entry has something personal against the subject, as he does not show a neutral point of view. Once again he has rewritten his attacks to Antonio Petrus Kalil and not only are his sources poor, but he actually invents things that are supposedly sourced from his head. As a family member of the subject, I can say that I have been personally affected by the lies posted by user DonCalo in a very negative way. I would like to request that the article would be sent back to the stub and that this used should be banned from editing this entry as he clearly does not have NPOV. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.73.193.83 (talk) 05:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * While I agree the article is a mess and the sourcing is confusing at best, I will note that the BLP policy does not require removing all negative information about a subject. That said, I think that the policy on criminal acts applies: "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person."  I will therefore redirect this article to Jogo do Bicho.  --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I should not have said that before reading the talk page. I see that has been working with, , and  to address these sourcing concerns.  I suggest that you continue the conversation with DonCalo on the article talk page, and I wll see what I contribute there. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * 186.73.193.83 asked me to comment on this. First, I want to clarify that I'm not working on it. There have been repeated claims that the article is a BLP violation, apparently from the subject's family. The sources are in Portuguese and some are behind paywalls. I stubified it in January 2011, after a complaint on RfPP, but it's back. The equivalent article on the Portuguese WP doesn't make the claims that this one does, so I really have no idea what to do with it. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems to me this should be moved to Operation Hurricane (Brazil) and the emphasis on the subject minimized. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

If it can't be verified, then chuck it.Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It would have been appropriate if the main contributor to this article would have been notified that there is a complaint about the article. All information in the article is verifiable through multiple sources, both in English and Portuguese. Most relevant sections from Portuguese sources have been copied in the notes and have been translated into English, both by me as by other users who judges the sources they checked reliable. As far as I can check, all sources are now accessible. I restored the dead links. The fact that the Portuguese article doesn't make the claims that the English version does is no reason to disqualify the article. There are many articles in Portuguese on Portuguese and Brazilian issues that do not have an equivalent to the English ones. That is no reason to start curtailing the English versions, or is it? Every effort has been made to verify the information, and when there is a difference of opinion on the information provided, this can obviously be discussed. That has happened in the past as well. The problem is that User 186.73.193.83 (talk) is deleting complete sections that have been properly referenced. That user has an obvious COI being a member of the Kalil family. - DonCalo (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * DonCalo, in order to save everyone's time as this topic has been overly discussed several years ago, I will just give a brief example of your lack of NPOV. On the first paragraph of one of your most recent edits you mention the following statement… "On March 13, 2012, he was sentenced to 48 years in prison and a fine of BRL 11 million (about USD 6 million) for formation of armed gangs, money laundering, smuggling and corruption.[5]". I have asked you a couple of times on the talk page where or how could you possibly get this kind of information from the reference posted but you decided to ignore my questioning. Maybe this noticeboard might have a better chance then the one I had earlier.
 * Regarding being a family member of Kalil, I don't believe this affects my credibility, since I am not writing any of the things that I know in first hand just because I do not have the proper news references for it. If anyone seems to have something personal agains Mr. Kalil, it seem to be yourself with your constant personal attacks over the past years. 186.73.193.83 (talk) 14:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * On your request this has been changed into: "On March 13, 2012, he was sentenced to 48 years in prison and a fine of BRL 11 million (about USD 6 million) for conspiracy and corruption". The original was based on a AFP article that mentioned "formation de bande armée, blanchiment d'argent, contrebande et corruption". However, apparently not all these crimes could be linked to Kalil, so this has been corrected. Regarding your relation with the Kalil family it is true you don't write anything on the subject, for obvious reasons, but you try to delete everything that is not in the family's interests, despite the numerous reliable sources. I am not involved in any personal attacks, I just inform people on a quite well-known person in Rio de Janeiro/Niteroi linked to its famous carnival and rather infamous but very popular illegal lottery, who happens to be convicted twice for his involvement with the illegal game. - DonCalo (talk) 15:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Once again your argument just shows how your bad intentions are. For starters, this was not the article you credited as a source for the statement, besides, nowhere in this article it states that that Kalil was convicted or even accused of those crimes. It mentioned an event that included other 24 people. If you personally think that Kalil was involved in this sort of crimes but "could not be linked to them", it is a free country and you are entitled to your own opinion at any bar conversation, but fortunately a wikipedia entry is not based on opinions. The original source you mentioned http://oglobo.globo.com/rio/os-23-condenados-na-operacao-hurricane-seus-crimes-penas-4301901 is quite clear on what the sentences are for each of the accused so I still do not understand why and how could you get this information somewhere else, unless you have any other personal motive. Also, regarding the sentence, as you are so interested in the case and Brazilian legislation, I am sure you are aware that no one is considered guilty in this country until there is a proof and final decision by a higher court. Kalil is currently appealing to the sentence in liberty and has the same rights of any free man or woman, just like you. 186.73.193.83 (talk) 16:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * This has already been ressolved. - DonCalo (talk) 13:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

DonCalo, Moving forward with your biased content an still keeping on the first paragraph alone: Can you please point out on the references where did these statements come from " In April 2007, he was charged again for involvement with the illegal lottery, as well as bingo parlours and the distribution of slot machines.[4]"? on the two references you present, for this statement, one is from 1993 and does not even mention Kalil, the other one only mentions he was arrested on an event that included 23 other men, but nowhere mentions why and what he was charged for. Why are you making up so much stuff? You clearly do not have any moral grounds to write about this man. 186.73.193.83 (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Both sources are from April 2007 and both concern the same event. One does not mention Kalil, the other does. In combination they provide reliable information. I will add more Portugues sources, for your convenience. - DonCalo (talk) 13:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * DonCalo, the problem is that we can't easily check the article, because there appear to be no English-language sources, and some of the Portuguese ones are behind a paywall. With a BLP that makes serious allegations, that is a very big problem. Perhaps you could create this instead on the Portuguese Wikipedia, where other editors can check it, and where the subject has more notability. Then, if it's deemed by the Portuguese WP to be okay, perhaps it could be translated back here. I'm pinging, who I believe is fluent in Portuguese, in case he has any advice about the content. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Which articles are behind a paywall? I cannot find any, but maybe I am overlooking one. I don't see why it has to be published on the Portuguese Wikipedia first. Can you point out the rationale for your suggestion in the Wikipedia policies? Relevant sections of the sources are translated in English. - DonCalo (talk) 13:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * There is no policy that says it should be posted first on the Portuguese Wikipedia, but that makes the most sense, because there is no notability in English-language sources. It would be like posting Death of Ian Tomlinson on the Portuguese Wikipedia, but not here. If it's on the Portuguese Wikipedia, there are people there who can easily check the Portuguese sources, and who will know how high-quality they are.


 * As for paywalls, when I wrote that the first footnote said "subscription required." SlimVirgin (talk) 17:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Slim, the problem is that the personal attacks happen even when the sources are in english, where he takes things completely out of context, the example I gave of " In April 2007, he was charged again for involvement with the illegal lottery, as well as bingo parlours and the distribution of slot machines.[4]" both have english sources, but neither mention any of the alegations made by DonCalo186.73.193.83 (talk) 00:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The AP source clearly says: "24 people arrested for alleged involvement with illegal numbers games, bingo parlors and the distribution of slot machines, police said in a statement." The other source says that Kalil was among them, but as I said above, I will also provide sources in Portuguese. For your convenience I now changed the sentence in: In April 2007, he was among 24 people charged for involvement with the illegal lottery, as well as bingo parlours and the distribution of slot machines. - DonCalo (talk) 13:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * This is getting ridiculous. It looks like were on another trial and DonCalo feels he is a Supreme Court judge who knows above all. For starters Im glad you had at least the decency in adding an article that resembles to your statement, but you changing the context of an article making someone the topic for a whole event. Are you going to write 24 entries for each of the persons charged? As much as you like to generalize and take things out of context, I would suggest that if you are so interested in writing about operation hurricane, you should write about the event itself with proper references and not generalizing. Please refrain from the personal attacks, you are clearly showing bad faith against this man as you have been for the past two years. This is not a question of convenience Don, no one here wants to waste their time in this discussion that is not adding anything productive anywhere. You act as if you own an encyclopedia entry about a living man! You do not care at all about the consequences that your lies affect to the lives of his family, real people in the real world. This man was acquitted from all accusations while appealing on the 90's and is still appealing IN LIBERTY to the sentence from 2012. If Brazilian justice has not formed a definite opinion on the case, why do YOU feel like you can take this liberty?
 * On your entry you claim to him charges that were actually to other people (as per the example above), you asociate him to the death of 53 people! Mass murder is a serious crime in Brazil and in most countries in the world! How can a man not even get away with that? You claim his involvement on another murder in the 80s as well but then mention it is unresolved! How can YOU claim an supposedly unsresolved murder 30 years ago to someone? You mention he has a casino in Paraguay, what casino would that be? You mention that his sons inherited illegal gambling sites due to an alleged testament, how can they have inherited something if he is still alive? Why weren't they charged for it if it is illegal? These are just a few examples of how biased your entry has been throughout the past years. Filled with lies and attacks. It was stubbified two years ago exactly for this reason, and you pretty much rewrote the same article, the sole interested contributor as this man does not even have enough relevance in the english speaking world (None english of the articles were written about him, they only mention him in passing for participating in the event that took place, and not even all of them mention him).
 * If you personally do not like this man, it is your own right. If you have a bad opinion about him, you are entitled to your opionion. You are even free to open a blog and write about YOUR OWN opinions. Now you should not use the wikipedia to try to get credibility for YOUR PERSONAL OPINIONS AND ATTACKS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.73.193.83 (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I am sorry but everything in the article is backed by reliable and verifiable sources. I understand you feel angry about this, but he is convicted twice. The fact that he has appealed does not mean that the current conviction does not stand. If you have information from reliable and verifiable sources that proove otherwise, please provide them and I will be happy to include them in the article. I would also appreciate if you would keep this conversation as civil as possible and stop accusing me of personally attacking Mr. Kalil, although I understand that this affects you emotionally. Thank you. - DonCalo (talk) 16:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

DonCalo, could you post the source for each of the following, along with what the source says about the subject (in English), please?


 * 1) "In April 2007, he was among 24 people charged for involvement with the illegal lottery, as well as bingo parlours and the distribution of slot machines" (The first source doesn't mention him and says the group was arrested, not charged; the second source is a Chinese news agency (why?) and also says arrested).
 * 2) "According to the newspaper O Globo, 53 deaths could be attributed to the association" (and is O Globo the only source for this?).

Also, if any of the sources are tabloid newspapers, that material has to be removed or re-sourced. See WP:BLPSOURCES: "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism." I would also suggest removing the claims about the named sons. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Draft namespace suggestion
We have a new draft namespace (e.g. Draft:Antonio Petrus Kalil). It's there for people who want to work on drafts together, and the articles don't show up on Google searches. Perhaps a good compromise would be to move the article to the draft namespace, and for DonCalo and 186.73.193.83 to work together to make sure every sentence is sourced according to BLP. When it's finished, we can move it back.

If there are sticking points, we could look for a third party who speaks Portuguese and is familiar with the policies to act as a mediator. Would something like that work? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I can compromise with that just like I did two years ago when the entry was moved back to a stub due to several reasons like the ones we have again now. I just hope DonCalo will stop with his personal attacks as he did not do that after the past argument 2 years ago. 186.73.193.83 (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

WRONG INFORMATION ABOUT SOUMYA SETH
Please WIKIPEDIA Correct the born place written in the biography of Soumya seth, who is an indian television actress. The information of her born is wrong that she was born in Guwahti India, She was actually born in Banaras India. Please correct this informatiom about her. This is the URL link to her biography http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soumya_Seth Please correct her information. I will be grateful to you.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.119.222 (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I have removed both claimed birthplaces, as they are both unsourced and disputed. Please re-add the correct birthplace once you can provide a reliable source for it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Abhisit Vejjajiva
The following text is irrelevant to Abhisit's term as the Prime Minister

From 10 October to 19 November 2010, the worst floods in 50 years hit North and Northeast, Central, and then Southern Thailand.[75] More than 230 people were killed and more than 7 million people in 25,00 villages were affected by the flooding.

The flood actually took place during the Yingluck Shinawatra's term. The inclusion of this flood into Abhisit's biography is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.117.131.109 (talk) 07:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

People's Republic of Zhongtai
This article is not strictly a biography, but I am still concerned about it. It's about a purported micronation, which consists of a mall restaurant owned by a single person (the LP in BLP :-), who is mentioned by name. The sources are in Chinese, but it is still evident that several negative claims made in the article are unsourced: that the restaurant has had trouble with regard to health regulations (a business-killer for a restaurant) and the assertion that the whole of China is laughing about all this. I'm not too much concerned about the latter, but the health thing is worrysome. Although the article was at AfD, I tagged it as an attack page (G10) and it was initially deleted as such by, upon which I closed the AfD. Subsequently, Alexf undeleted the article and re-opened the AfD, saying that it needed more time. I disagree with that and still think it qualifies as a G10, but as Alexf seems to be absent for several days (see their talk page), I am posting here to see whether other editors agree with this or whether I am being to worried about this. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 12:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The poorly-translated and badly-sourced "Influence" section seemed to be the primary concern, with phrases stating the owner was "...playing the fool..." or stating the entire nation was "ridiculing" the owner. I have removed that section, which contained essentially all the actual BLP attacks, which should allow for the AfD to play out. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. In retrospect, I don't actually understand why I didn't do this myself... Usually I am bolder :-). --Randykitty (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Donald Trump inter alia
Actual residence addresses are being added by a user - is the use of actual addresses proper for BLPs? Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * At least w/rt Trump, Collect's concern appears to be that readers are able to learn that Donald Trump lives in Trump Tower. Hmm.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It is the inter alia addresses which are problematic. Or did you elide noticing them?  Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I looked at Trump, because that's what you indicated in the section heading. If you want people to look at other issues, give the links.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I made the mistake of assuming that people were able to look at the articles so edited without too much trouble. Clearly I was wrong and I apologise for making that assumption. Collect (talk) 17:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC).
 * Links? Dwpaul Talk   17:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * , are you concerned with the recent edits of ? I see residence fields being added by that editor to Stephen A. Schwarzman, David H. Koch, and Will Ferrell.  I'm not sure how much stating that person lives in a certain building on Park Avenue compromises BLP. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * IIRC, past practice has been that street addresses of notable people were not regarded as being of "encyclopedic value" and required actual strong secondary reliable sourcing that the address was common knowledge.    No such sourcing was given for any of the addresses that I saw (in fact I can not corroborate any of the addresses through Google at all - Donald Trump has a large number of properties, thus identifying Trump Tower as his "residence" without any sources so stating seemed odd), and thus I suggest that such is not acceptable practice now for any BLP.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BLP, "articles should not include postal addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons". A street address is contact information, and needs to be deleted, if not oversighted.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Stephen Schwartzman and David H. Koch edits reported to WP:RFO. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

You have the wrong Rosemary Rogers married to Robert Downey Sr
Check the NY Times article you cited for her marriage. Wrong. RR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.131.221.126 (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The article and infobox say that Robert Downey, Sr.'s spouse is named Rosemary Rogers, and he married her in 1998. So does the New York Times article. Rogers is not further identified in this article, so I'm not sure why you say we have "the wrong Rosemary Rogers". Dwpaul <font color="#000666">Talk   17:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the editor means that we have notable romance fiction writer Rosemary Rogers, on that article, listed as being married to Robert Downey, Sr., when that's not in the article. Downey may be married to some other Rosemary Rogers. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:66%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  18:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, different Rosemarys. I'll fix it. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:66%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  18:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Tyler Ward
Keeping this article clean is not very easy. There's an IP (now blocked temporarily) who keeps vandalizing, blanking, prodding it, and on the other side there's editors like, who are obviously fans of this (barely notable) artist. Now, I've done some cleanup, but Joetri keeps reverting me, with a blatant disregard for neutrality, reliable sourcing, etc. Some words from another editor, and perhaps some appropriate edits to the article, would be greatly appreciated lest this remain a fansite. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've had a quick word with the other editor, and will help keep an eye on this going forward. --John (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you John. I don't know how well your words were received; methinks brick walls are more likely to be affected by our efforts. Drmies (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I and other editors fought to keep this page up. Many other YouTube mainstream artists have pages that mostly span from their own YouTube activity with more bulk. One example being Boyce Avenue whom seems to have an immense amount of YouTube related information including collabing, Tours and Ep's. The only thing that makes BA more notable is their one album reaching No.7. But the page is up and all the information is relevant.
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and the page as such his article roughly outlines his previous past with Football, how he got into music, his albums, labels and his most famous video. Are we saying YouTube hits are not credible? The US in fact uses YouTube views directly in their top xx charts and YouTube is becoming a much bigger platform then previous. Stars such as Psy, Justin Bieber, Conor Maynard and others have all had/have information regarding their YouTube career. Nothing makes Tyler an exception unless the other pages are in the same violation.
 * There is no fandom on the page, nor "trivia". We, who have kept his page in shape, view him not just in a fan frame of mind but in the neutral state that we know what is relevant in his life and to the page. You are under the opinion that he has little point on Wikipedia, incredibility and lacks impact. That is simply your own opinion, a negative one as such. We had admin control the issue in the past and they were happy with how the page currently was in my revert (to my despair for the most part), I even recently deleted parts that I now feel embellish him. I request the page to remain under revert as it has been since it's savior. In reflection to other YouTube pages, there is nothing incorrect otherwise. Joetri10 (talk) 22:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The funny thing is, now self proclaimed "More important" editors swaning over from nowhere have changed the page to look even less credible for him to be on Wikipedia. I am going to do a constructive and thorough re-do and investigation of this page/Ward in the next recent weeks due to the amount of vandalism done by editors due to their own opinion. Joetri10 (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Unlike Bieber and others, your hero has no record contract, no hits, no appearances on SNL, no coverage in the media--not even in the gossip pages. Calling others' good-faith efforts "vandalism" is a kind of personal attack, of course, but is here more likely the result of lack of familiarity with Wikipedia's guidelines, i.e., ignorance. Drmies (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Wow. One hardly knows where to start. I guess one place would be with the observation that, no, in fact, YouTube hits are not considered credible evidence of notability. While YouTube artists have expanded into national or even international prominence, (Justin Bieber indeed is the prototype here), the obverse is not true. That is to say, YouTube notoriety does not guarantee general notability. This is the the difference between Tyler Ward and the other artists you list. They easily all are the subject of substantial coverage in reliable sources. The sources currently in the Tyler Ward article are not clearly of the same quality. Currently, these sources are: Most of these sources are not even worth discussing whether they are reliable sources or not. Of the others, the absolute best that can be said is that Ward is marginally notable under the WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC criteria #1. Give it time. If you truly believe in Ward, then you should have confidence that he will pass into incontestable notability (when, for example, he releases a second album on Sony (WP:NMUSIC #5)). At the present time, however, is right, and a lot of this has to go as non-reliably sourced. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) A Czech music web site of unknown reliability
 * 2) A student newspaper from a community college
 * 3) A Billboard article that doesn't actually mention Tyler Ward
 * 4) A ticket website
 * 5) Another billboard article that devotes a paragraph to Ward's making the "Uncharted" chart (getting a little meta here)
 * 6) The promotional website of the microphone company that Ward uses
 * 7) A concert venue's web site
 * 8) Another 1-paragraph mention of Ward on the Uncharted chart
 * 9) A local news story
 * 10) A now-removed video of possibly a Ward performance on an awards show
 * 11) An article in USA Today about a promotional stunt for the American Country Music awards show
 * 12) The  front page of the Chester Chronicle newspaper in England, which doesn't appear to mention Ward
 * 13) An apparently expired link on the web site of The Ellen Show to a video (Did he appear on Ellen? I can't tell)
 * 14) A video from Ward claiming he's signed to Sony
 * 15) A dead link to Sony Music
 * 16) A dead link to Sony Music
 * Eggishorn, I am impressed by your due diligence. Thank you. I hope that this will be received not just in the spirit in which it was sent, but also with the same knowledge of what's important here and what's not. But if the claim is made that YouTube views somehow figure into the calculation of chart positions, then I fear the worst. BTW, the AfD closed as keep, and you'll see that gave a list of sources, some of which may be helpful and good. Since you already put so much effort into this article, do you wanna have a look and see if you can make this into something decent? Joetri10 should appreciate it, even if they probably won't. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll see what I can do. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks like, , , , and have already taken care of nearly everything. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The concept of "charting" is expanding dramatically, to the point of making the charting item of nmusic a big issue (I would propose rewording it to indicate if that is the sole criteria the person meets, they definitely aren't notable). Youtube charts, the uncharted chart, heatseekers  chart. There is some article on my watchlist I can't find now, that's main point of notability is that they are a US band that "charted" on some middle-eastern chart, where their actual national charting system is based on an anonymous internet poll, hosted by a single radio station . Gaijin42 (talk) 00:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem here is Tyler Ward; being big in Germany, means that all the sources that are actually credible are all of German media and written in German. They are somewhat difficult to locate but that is most of where his recent activity has been.
 * Also Drmies, please fix that attitude towards me. What I think about him personally is irrelevant to me but you seem to think otherwise.
 * Eggishorn, Your bias and ignorant nature also needs fixing. The billboard chart link does in fact mention Ward, even though only once and although that Ellen link now does not host the video, the image shown clearly shows Ward as well as mentioning his name. I understand most links are now broken and others have been used in in-correct context which admittedly got away from me due to people adding these links in randomly. I admit these problems but you need to stop being so critical and ignorant. This is supposed to be a discussion, not a "Look you're wrong because:" showcase. Joetri10 (talk) 00:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you understand the simple fact that Wikipedia is not allowed to be used for advertising? What Wikipedia is not. Did you tried to read WP:NPOV? Hafspajen (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems the guy is actually notable, and probably even satisfies the GNG. Most of the links in the article were crap, but there are actually, contrary to expectation, enough high quality sources for much of the material.  I'm not expressing an opinion on 's editing practices, which are no doubt problematic, but he's covered enough by even e.g. The Denver Post that we're going to continue to have an article about him regardless.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, no doubt about it, he is notable, the problem is this edit Hafspajen (talk) 02:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, with enough eyes, all spam is reverted.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And also this edit. Yes, thank God, spam is gone. Hafspajen (talk) 02:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The funny thing is now with the new edit, anyone who actually knows who Tyler Ward can see that not only does the page miss simple information on him, it's also so condensed down that it's in fact wrong and or mis-understood. Wikipiedia also needs to grow up, YouTube means a lot more than it did 5 years ago. The page is actually more of a mess than before. You must know content of the subject before editing guys. Joetri10 (talk) 13:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Your logic is exactly backwards. Wikipedia would not work if everyone was required to be an expert on the topic. this is in fact the exact reason for WP:RS and WP:V everyone should be able to easily verify or cleanup information in the encyclopedia by looking at the reliable sources that back our content. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * But you miss the biggest picture by relying completely on reliable sources when you don't understand what it's actually referencing. Things are missing, chunks of relevant information. You have a very vague understanding on what it is that they are showing and proving. Yes, what we have now is reliably sourced but coming from someone that has followed him for 5 years to someone who edits Wikipedia based on loophole rules, I know that it's all slightly vague at best. It tells something, but not everything and gaps are missing. I'm not saying the page is wrong, I'm just saying it's vague at best and something's to me are just plainly missing.
 * Examples that are clear to me: He is not completely independent for a start. Before he was interested in music? He was always interested in music since he was very young. It tells us who ward opened up for, but when, Why? They were not the only ones he opened up for either. How did ward become popular? He had labels and producers helping him, people in his band ("Tyler Ward" is actually a band for the most part). His album(s) are released and went to No.1 in the iTunes. Is charting only relevant in mainstream charts? because I would rather argue Wikipedia's ethics than the page in that case. The album is also only released in 1 of 2 parts. He isn't just signed with Sony Germany. In "Instruments" he also plays the piano for his recorded music. His "genre's" are vague but missing other genre's that he actually does (Pop, Rap). He is a producer and has produced music for well known stars such as Jason Derulo and Cody Simpson. This is all relevant solid information if what is already written is also relevant and this is also just some things. I am aware I have not sourced any of this information but yes, I could with time. Joetri10 (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If the article is a biography of a living source, and it includes a fact not cited to a reliable source, then if someone challenges that fact you have to either source it or remove it. Wikipedia only includes information taken from other reliable sources. This is not up for negotiation. Mogism (talk) 20:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * When it is sourced, you can add it. Particularly on a WP:BLP ALL information must be reliably sourced. Watching youtube videos and doing WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH based on your opinions and interpretations of the content is strictly forbidden. Missing information on a marginally notable musician, of interest primarily to fans that probably already know the information, is frankly not a big deal to wikipedia. Putting in information that cannot be sourced however, is - both for this particular article, and the precedent it sets in other articles that expose wikipedia to legal and financial risk.  Gaijin42 (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you guys actually reading anything or still trying to just big-up the issue? I clearly stated I could locate reliable sources on all that I have mentioned. Ignoring my most recent edit on the page (Not entirely created by me), I am instead mentioning what is missing, written incorrectly and misunderstood. What isn't written may not be in the interest to Wikipedia but having misleading or blatant incorrect information surely must be. I wish you people would stop sticking rules in my face as well, its disgusting conduct. I never claimed this was from "Watching YouTube Videos" or doing own research, I just said it could be sourced. Joetri10 (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Vladimir Putin
Vladimir Putin

Third paragraph in, someone has put " Critics such as stalin describe him as a mcdonalds worker,[7] which Putin adamantly denies.". Vladimir Putin was born in 1952, Stalin died in 1953, so how can this possibly be true?
 * No. That was somebody joking around and for some reasons it hadn't been picked up. I have removed it. Thanks for notifying. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 11:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Abu Sakara CPP,.
The subject of this article should be discussed without reference to his predecssor. The article seeks to make a silent comparison with possible intent to denigrate. This is especially obvious when the factual account of his performance is given out of context of a general election in which six of the political parties got less than 1% of the popular vote (Ndoum included). The remaining 99% of the vote was shared between the two dominant political parties who ended in an election dispute that lasted 8 months and was decided by the supreme court. A very unusual election indeed. The CPP for information retrieved a parliamentary seat in Kumbungu by election with support of Abu Skara and are now only one of four political parties that have seats in parliament (NDC, NPP. CPP and PNC). PPP and others have no seat in parliament. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.251.224.47 (talk) 14:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

LulzSec
Article had a problem with a user adding the same line to the list of LulzSec members, including a real name and no source, despite warnings. User blocked, edits hidden. Another user has materialized to add the exact same thing. reverted this one but if history is any indication it'll just happen again. (Block evasion). --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  14:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have semi-protected the page indefinitely. -- John Reaves 14:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Peter Brabeck-Letmathe
I have concerns about the criticism section of the Peter Brabeck-Letmathe article. It is being claimed he denies water is a basic human right and wants to privatize water. A note on receiving a "Black Planet Award" from an obscure organization is listed as well, even though the source link is broken. The source for the water claim is a youtube video, not a primary source, and further is not in English, so I cannot even verify if the information is at all accurate. Further, he denies that he has made such claims in an article he wrote on Huffington Post. I deleted the section but someone keeps reverting my edits saying the information should stay. C0h3n (talk) 15:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Jump Chico Slamm
Jump Chico Slamm and Jump "Chico" Slamm are both Production aliases for Faustin Lenon With various record releases including producer projects (self named releases), production (for other recording artists) and remixes


 * I'm not sure what you're looking for here in terms of actions, fixes, etc. See the section on Sagat below for changes I made to that article. If you have other suggestions/requests let's just address them below rather than in parallel threads. --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  20:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I am deactivating the "adminhelp" template, as you have merely told us a fact, and given no indication what you want done. (In any case, it is rarely necessary to use "adminhelp on a noticeboard such as this one, as it is likely that an admin will see your post anyway: "adminhelp" is more useful on talk pages.) JamesBWatson (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Sagat (rapper)
I am the representative for this artist and there are quite a few problems with this article.

1. "He also ditched the eyepatch seen in the FUNK DAT music video. There are currently no confirmed updates on replacement accessories."

is defamatory and most unappreciated since the bio for Sagat is posted at discogs and Sagat (now Sagatmanchu) has not abandoned the eye patch. please remove this comment

2. Faustin Lenon never used the alias Chico Jump Slamm The proper Production entity names are Jump Chico Slamm and Jump "Chico" Slamm.

3. A full bio can be seen at: http://www.jumpchicoslamm.com/#/bio/4558886291 changed to A full bio can be seen at: http://www.jumpchicoslamm.com/bio

Can these entries please be corrected?

Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerumino (talk • contribs)


 * Thanks for bringing these to our attention. First off, I will tell you that you need not phrase your suggestions in such terms as "defamatory," which almost always has legal implications and would almost certainly be inapplicable here as it would be pretty difficult to demonstrate harm caused by the statement you quoted. Nonetheless, I removed that line as well as the line about the Capcom lawsuit previous, as any such claim about living persons requires reliable sources. Also fixed the name order and moved the link to the bottom, linking to the official site landing page rather than the bio page. See here for exact changes made. --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  20:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Wendy Davis (politician)
Some eyes on this please. It seems a quasi-expose came out in a local paper today and various editors are interested in adding minutiae such as who paid for her education (mentioned multiple times) and took care of the kids. I don't know if a male politician would get quite the same attention as to how he financed his education. -- Neil N  <sup style="color:blue;">talk to me  01:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I know Sara Palin would.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 02:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

More than just one local paper -- LATimes, WaPo, CNN, Detroit Free Press, UPI, CBSNews, New York Magazine,  and the New York Times. Collect (talk) 15:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Cartoon pornography
On Cartoon pornography an editor keeps reverting me restoring BLP material, ie the unsourced claim that various likely living people are involved as makers of cartoon pornography. I have tried my best to explain our BLP policies but the editor is getting more and more aggressive on the talk page and deliberately restores the BLP violating info, ie unsourced claims about living people. He has been directed to our policy page but seems to think "There is no need. (also: you know that you could find a reference within seconds, if you bothered to look for one" is an acceptable alternative to a ref♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What is absolutely required is a secondary source that specifically mentions the person doing this type of work. Looking up an Amazon author credit is not enough, and in fact it's original research. WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:GRAPEVINE are perfectly clear on the sourcing required for this type of thing. § FreeRangeFrog croak 22:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no need for any source, unless the statement is challenged or likely to be challenged (according to what it written in WP:BLP). The one and only reason that it was challenged by SqueakBox, was due to a pedantic enforcement of BLP, so it doesn't really count. He/she didn't challenge the truth of the statement, but merely insisted that such statements be sourced. That's not the kind of "challenge", that is being referred to, in the statement "challenged or likely to be challenged".
 * You mention WP:BLPSOURCES... The first thing mentioned there, is "Challenged or likely to be challenged". Thank you for supporting my argument. There is no need to clutter up articles with needless citations.
 * Furthermore, Amazon is a perfectly reliable source, to verify the mere existence of a work of cartoon pornography, and of the author of the work. Amazon isn't, generally, a reliable source, but basic information like that, it's perfectly fine. At least if WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is to be believed:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_104#iTunes_and_Amazon_for_television_series_verification
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_7#Amazon.com_as_a_RS_for_merchandise.3F
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_21#Is_Amazon.com_a_reliable_source.3F
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_114#Amazon.com
 * Need I go on?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Please dont dismiss my BLP challenge as not counting, or is there some policy which says MY challenges dont count? Or that "pedantic" challenges dont count? (with a clear idea of what pedantic means here). Challenging unsourced material is classic BLP enforcement, no? And where in BLP does it talk about needless citations for unsourced material about living people? ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 13:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Is being associated with cartoon porn contentious? I'd sure say so. But upon further review of Kevin J. Taylor (the P we are discussing) his own website seems to confirm his involvement with erotic art, so I don't think the subject would consider this contentious. There are also sites like comicvine which mention his erotic work, so no, this is not a contentious statement with respect to Mr. Taylor. Whether Mr. Taylor needs a mention in this article, I don't have an opinion.Two kinds of pork (talk) 13:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There was a dispute about Kevin J Taylor but that got resolved when Zarlan did finally source it after I pressured him or her to and I have accepted the inclusion of his name with the 2 current sources, I merely wasnt willing to here. This is the contentious edit, said Alazar is also likely a living person and the contention is that Zarlan cannot add info about Alazar or even their name without a reliable source. Zarlan clearly thinks a reliable source isnt necessary for Alazar and that my BLP challnege in favour of Alazar doesnt count but doesnt explain why except for using the word pedantic. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 13:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Removal of content is most definitely a "challenge" and counts as something that absolutely requires a reliable source inline citation before restoration, AND particularly so when BLP the basis! --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  00:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no need for any source, unless the statement is challenged or likely to be challenged. This clearly refers to challenges to the truth of the statement. SqueakBox never challenged the truth of the statement that any of those people are creators of cartoon pornography, but purely challenged their adherence to Wikipedia policy.
 * That is not the same thing.
 * Hence it doesn't count. It may count, if you look at purely at the letter of the policy, but doing so goes against the rules and principles of Wikipedia (see The rules are principles, WP:COMMONSENSE, WP:Wikilawyering and WP:What_Wikipedia_is_not).--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 14:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You appear to have no grasp of our BLP policy, Zarlan,a nd that is worrying. Given I knew nothing about cartoon pornography your claim that I knew this to be true is not so but even if it were so that doesnt mean I cant challenge ANY unsourced material about living people, or is there some policy I havent seen that allows you to ignore BLP whenever you choose?♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 14:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "You appear to have no grasp of our BLP policy"
 * That statement is pointless and without meaning, unless you explain what aspect I am not grasping, and in what way. You're just claiming that I am ignorant of it. Anyone can do that. It doesn't prove anything. (note: Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement. You need to stay at the top three levels of it)
 * "Given I knew nothing about cartoon pornography your claim that I knew this to be true is not so"
 * What are you talking about? When/where have I ever made such a claim?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey when ANY other editor says "reliable source needed" for ANY reason regarding a contentious claim in a BLP, then that is by definition a legitimate challenge, and the onus is on YOU to provide the reliable source. Is that clear? So I am saying right now that I expect you to provide reliable sources 100% of the time for any claims that any living person is involved with cartoon pornography. There are no exceptions to this requirement, so please comply going forward, or refrain from introducing such content. Thank you for your adherence to BLP policy.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328   Let's discuss it  06:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "when ANY other editor says "reliable source needed" for ANY reason regarding a contentious claim in a BLP, then that is by definition a legitimate challenge"
 * Why? Also: Is it really a contentious claim?
 * "Is that clear?"
 * Given that you have made claims, but not given any actual explanations: No. Not at all.
 * "So I am saying right now that I expect you to provide reliable sources 100% of the time for any claims that any living person is involved with cartoon pornography."
 * You expect that of me, do you?
 * Why should I care? If it is expected by Wikipedia policy, then I shall bow to those rules, but I fail to see why I should care what you, personally, expect.
 * "Thank you for your adherence to BLP policy."
 * Given that you are implying that I have not adhered to BLP, that sentence is nonsense.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * In addition to all that, it looks like at least two of the people being discussed lack articles on wikipedia. In the absence of such articles to demonstrate notability of these people, it would be even more important to include reliable secondary sources mentioning them since BLP issues aside, there's no reason to mention non notable people who's involvement in the field isn't mentioned in such sources as their involvement is of little significance to the reader. Nil Einne (talk) 13:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah. Notability (or, more accurately "due weight"). I'd say that the standards should be lower here, as it is more of a niche market, but some mention should probably be needed ...though that doesn't really address BLP issues, and is thus not really relevant to this noticeboard.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not directly relevant to this noticeboard, however if we have reasons to exclude the people which don't relate to BLP, then BLP issues become irrelevant. In other words, without reliable secondary sourcing or at least an article on the person, we can automatically presume the person does not belong in the list and removing them is fine. And there's no point arguing back and forth about whether the people should be excluded for BLP reasons when we have no reason to mention them in the first place.
 * I'm fine with lower standards, but niche market or not, we still need some evidence that these people are in some way significant to the field. (It's not like the market is so niche that there's only 4 people involved.) This evidence will need to come from reliable secondary sources or at least implied significance from primary sources (by which I mean an award or similar). If the market is so niche that we only have random editors opinions of significance, then we can assume that this info is not particularly useful to readers as no one else thought it was.
 * Nil Einne (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd agree with that.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

emma kenny
I constructed a wikipedia page for Emma Kenny who is an amazing woman who helps people. She has all relevant qualifications for her roles on TV etc but a few different users have gone onto the page and taken everything that a put up. When i first constructed it i had some help from some really nice people on here who helped sort it out properly. All of the stuff they placed onto her page was highly liable and complete lies. they have removed all of her qualification and biog as-well as making ridiculous blog links for her refs and external links. please can someone help me get this sorted as her page is now been completely destroyed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petesmith2013 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The reason why editors have removed various material from the article is that it was not properly sourced. Wikipedia articles, especially if they are about living people, must be verifiable by means of citations to reliable sources. -- Alarics (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Todd Michaels needs major rework
Normally I would take this on myself, however I will be logging off shortly and won't be around for the next couple of days. This article is packed with an absurd amount of puffery and unsourced material that is completely inappropriate and serves solely to promote the guy (although I'm unsure how "Todd appeared as a contestant on The Price Is Right in February 2005. He won $1,000 spinning the big wheel in the Showcase Showdown, then went on to overbid and lose" is supposed to help his career). Could someone pull their pruning sheers/weed-whacker/chainsaw/tool of choice from the shed and somehow craft this into a BLP-compliant article of sorts? --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 23:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I prodded the article, there isn't much salvageable there. Borderline A7, fails all the guidelines and will take it to AFD if the prod is somehow removed. Secret account 04:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Russ Tice
What appears to be a BLP violation has been made three times, with the last one just moments ago here by Bdell555. I am not well-versed in this area, and am short on time, but this seems a non-neutral use of the source, as well as creating undue weight with placement in the first paragraph, wording, and with the wikilinked psychotic paranoia. Any help would be most appreciated. (It wouldn't seem Russ Tice has not been discredited... as the present version of the page would have us believe. At least, he made an appearance on PBS Newshour this summer to speak on the NSA leaks.)  <font color="#B3B3B3">petrarchan47 t  c   04:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The article currently ends by citing to the dailypaul and, immediately before that, a story in theblaze with the blaring headline "BUSH-ERA NSA WHISTLEBLOWER MAKES MOST EXPLOSIVE ALLEGATIONS YET ABOUT EXTENT OF GOV’T SURVEILLANCE — AND YOU WON’T BELIEVE WHO HE SAYS THEY SPIED ON". Now why wasn't his "bombshell" allegation that the NSA spied on no less than Barack Obama in 2004 been picked up by more serious media?  If true this would be notable, would it not?  And how many sources have carried Tice's allegations concerning "the wiretapping of Feinstein’s offices, homes, and family"?  Spying on the Chairman of the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee and her home and family would be rather remarkable, would it not?  My colleague here would like to remove the Slate story titled "The Professional Paranoid" even though the point of that piece is to argue that Tice should be considered reliable.  That sympathetic Slate piece still concedes that the saga starts with his accusing "an Asian-American woman he was working with" of being a Chinese spy back in 2001.  Note that the Slate piece acknowledges that "Tice's departure from the agency had nothing to do with the misgivings about domestic eavesdropping that he now professes."  My colleague's preferred reading creates the impression that Tice's departure has EVERYTHING to do with his "whistleblowing" about domestic eavesdropping because it suggests that Tice was fired in retaliation for his "urging Congress to pass stronger protections for federal intelligence agency whistleblowers" just days earlier.  This reading ignores the background completely and kicks off the history after Tice has already been dismissed (the article is currently chronologically ordered such that material pertaining to prior to 2005 should be given first).  The bottom line is that the article is incomplete without adding the material I do.  Does the article now say he's paranoid?  No, it doesn't, it says someone working for the U.S. government thought so, and it includes Tice's statement that he believes this conclusion about his mental state to be unfair.  Readers can draw their own conclusions about what to believe.  Absent this material, readers are being railroaded into concluding this person has been unjustly persecuted by the U.S. government.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've since changed the end of the article to allow Mr Tice to raise what he apparently believes is a key question: has the intelligence community blackmailed U.S. officials to get what the intelligence community wants? "Is the intelligence community running this country"?  Inquiring people want to know.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I have not made an edit to this article prior to reverting Bdell555's work over the past few days. Due to time constraints, I have not have taken the time to read it thoroughly, but on first glance, the article has some problems: it doesn't talk about the person at all, but begins with Tice being fired and then lists important tidbits from his career. Usually an article will speak about the beginnings of a person's life, their family, etc. Now the most controversial aspect is covered in the very first paragraph, with this 'no big deal' accusation by a government official highlighted by a completely unnecessary wikilink. This same brand of enthusiasm from Bdell555 has been aimed at the Edward Snowden article, which a quick glance at the talk page will show. Accusations of edit warring at Snowden are found at his own talk page. You can get an idea of this enthusiasm here, in an(other) OR tangent.


 * The coverage of Russel Tice's firing and psych eval can be done in a much more respectful, neutral and accurate way. First, I found this CBS news article that basically makes fun of the evaluation as a transparent attempt to discredit Tice. Even the article Bdell555 added speaks to this same fact, though the statements from Sibel Edmonds weren't included in Bdell555's additions.


 * Bdell555 asks why Tice's claims weren't picked up by respectable media. Sibel Edmonds writes:
 * MSNBC Censors NSA Whistleblower Russ Tice Minutes Before Interview
 * They have appeared in media, however:
 * NSA Whistleblower: NSA Spying On – and Blackmailing – Top Government Officials and Military Officers
 * ORIGINAL NSA WHISTLEBLOWER: I Saw The Order To Wiretap Barack Obama In 2004
 * Russ Tice, Bush-Era Whistleblower, Claims NSA Ordered Wiretap Of Barack Obama In 2004  <font color="#B3B3B3">petrarchan47 t  c   23:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd say "MSNBC Censors NSA Whistleblower Russ Tice Minutes Before Interview" proves my point. MSNBC didn't want to air Tice's allegations in full because MSNBC's suits didn't think they were credible.  But Sibel Edmonds says that MSNBC didn't want to air them because there's a conspiracy to suppress them!  Petrarchan47, yet again, finds the conspiracy theory the most appealing explanation.  I suppose it all depends on perspective now, doesn't it?  I remain of the view that the Tice article is far more accurate and neutral with my edits than without.  As for "respect", NPOV is a "non-negotiable" "core" policy.  Whitewashing a bio to delete anything that might question the accuracy of the subject's claims is not.  By the way, how is that you don't have time to fix an article you say is flawed but you do have the time to revert everything I do?  Looks more like a problem of priorities to me.  re my so-called "enthusiasm," I could make an issue out of your well documented fawning "enthusiasm" for one Edward Snowden, but the issue is article, not the editor, is it not?--Brian Dell (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It takes seconds to revert, hours to deal with a noticeboard like this, and a day to do proper work on a novel article (at least, for me). I am involved in a project and do not have space to take on another article, which is why I'm asking someone here to look at this. You have now suddenly visited the project and weighed in against it. This could be called hounding. Look, drop the OR and the smear campaign against whistle-blowers, whom you call "conspiracy theorists".


 * The details about Tice's firing do not belong in the first sentence of his article no matter what sort of diatribe you have to offer in your defense. The story is simple, if you're willing to be at least as NPOV as ABC news: "The NSA revoked Tice's security clearance in May of [2005] based on what it called psychological concerns and later dismissed him. Tice calls that bunk and says that's the way the NSA deals with troublemakers and whistleblowers. Today the NSA said it had "no information to provide."  <font color="#B3B3B3">petrarchan47  t  c   01:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Now Bdell555 has gone on to make substantial edits to the Snowden article in what looks like a flurry of revenge editing. I am sorry to the other editors here that I can't take care of this myself. If you could offer some advice, or help look into these edits that would be most appreciated. I am throwing up my hands out of necessity.  <font color="#B3B3B3">petrarchan47 t  c   04:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "revenge editing"? Against you?  Because you "own" that other article?  You believe the documented diagnosis of paranoia in the subject of this BLP is bogus, with the U.S. government conspiring to falsely diagnosis this employee, but a diagnosis of a revenge complex in myself would be well founded, is that right?  How about we just stick to the sources, which means ceasing to follow my editing around.  I responded on this page because, as you'll see at the top of the page, "generally" this page is for "cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material".  When you accuse another editor of defamation or libel that assertion may be contested.  That's not "hounding."  To get back to the substance, statements from Sibel Edmonds weren't included because Edmonds is not credible.  According to Edmonds, "Both mainstream and quasi alternative media outlets refused to publish or air Mr. Tice’s revelations" because of "censorship".  There is, in fact, absolutely no evidence of censorship as opposed to declining to broadcast Tice's allegations because they are not credible.--Brian Dell (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I've left comments and more sourcing to prove Bdell555's assertions incorrect at the Tice talk page here. Until someone can get around to making the present coverage more neutral, I would suggest reverting to the pre-Bdell555 version of the article. A simple blurb like the one from ABC news above can be used in the meantime to quell Bdell555's worry that the story of how Tice lost his job isn't covered in the article. However, it should not be placed in the very first sentence and paragraph.  <font color="#B3B3B3">petrarchan47 t  c   22:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Brian Dell seems to be making the better argument on this page. Perhaps you could bring your arguments that "prove" your case from other pages to here. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

James Delingpole part 3
is the edit in question.

The source is  Feminist Media Studies  which is not a biographical article about the subject of the BLP.

The edit which I find supportable by the actual article would be
 * Delingpole described himself "as a member of probably the most discriminated-against subsection in the whole of British society—the white, middle-aged, public-school-and-Oxbridge educated middle-class male" and followed with "The function of satire is not only to make us laugh, but also, with luck, to draw our attention to the things that are wrong with the world and help mock them into extinction

rather than the edit warred version of
 * Delingpole adheres to a version of identity politics that identifies the middle classes as experiencing injury and oppression, describing himself "as a member of probably the most discriminated-against subsection in the whole of British society—the white, middle-aged, public-school-and-Oxbridge educated middle-class male". In an article entitled "A conspiracy against chavs? Count me in", he describes chavs as "repellent" and follows with "The function of satire is not only to make us laugh, but also, with luck, to draw our attention to the things that are wrong with the world and help mock them into extinction which is called a "paraphrase" by the editor proposing it.

The actual article abstract is:
 * In the last three years a new vocabulary of social class has emerged in Britain. The word “chav,” alongside its various synonyms and regional variations, has become a ubiquitous term of abuse for the white poor. This article explores the emergence of the grotesque and comic figure of the chav within a range of contemporary British media focusing on the role played by disgust reactions in the generation and circulation of the chav figure through popular media. Concentrating on the figure of the female chav, and the vilification of young white working-class mothers, this article argues that the “chav mum” is produced through disgust reactions as an intensely affective figure that embodies historically familiar and contemporary anxieties about female sexuality, reproduction, fertility, and “racial mixing.”''

The article is not biographical, stated to be biographical, intended to be biographical of any person, and is not a reliable source for SYNTH biographical claims. IMO. .

I fear the "insisted upon edit" is 1. not a "paraphrase" as it makes combinations of claims not in the source 2. makes claims in Wikipedia's voice about a living person which are not made by the source 3. Introduces "chavs" without explaining precisely what the usage of the term is, and the basis for the article in Feminist Media Studies which is not intended in any way as a biographical article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Other editors are encouraged to have a look at the talk page, which gives the relevant quote from the source. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I would note I already cited the entire source above.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You linked to the source/article, which many people would have to pay for to get access. On the talk page, I provide the relevant quote from that source.  Again, I suggest other editors look at the talk page to evaluate things properly.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Normal procedure is to link to the full source, so that editors may verify for themselves what the full context of any source is. And I would note that looking at the talk page is certainly a good idea which most denizens here do automatically.  Including a claim that "not really contestable" is given as a reason for SYNTH. BTW, the source is "free access" for this article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, I support linking to the full source. I only wanted to link to the talk page discussion as well.  I hope that's not a problem for you.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Having read the full original ref, I agree that it does not support the "adheres to" formulation in this BLP. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Paul Hartal
Could some kind soul please take pity on the article on, it is an absolute mess. We have an email ticket from him. I don't mind passing on your email address if you want to mail me. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 21:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I have trimmed out most of the obvious cruft to expose the bones of the article. What remains isn't great, and parts are very poorly sourced, but beyond that I'm not sure exactly what the problem is? I see there were huge arguments on the talk page years ago, but that seems to have passed.  Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Cruft and badly sourced, was precisely the problem. Thank you, that now looks much better. Guy (Help!) 23:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Chua Beng Huat
This person does not fulfill Wikipedia's guidelines for an encyclopedic article about him/her.

Further, many passages of the article are obviously monobiographic in nature and do not reach Wikipedia's editing standards.

Since this person is not deemed relevant according to Wikipedia's guidelines, I suggest removing the article altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.11.50.215 (talk) 08:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I suggest that you read WP:PROF - this individual prima facie meets those guidelines. The article may need cleaning up but I don't think you can argue against notability.--ukexpat (talk) 14:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

George Washington (trombonist)
Born in 1907, it seems quite unlikely that this man is still living. However, as I understand it, WP:BLP requires that anyone under 115 years of age be presumed living until confirmed deceased. This case seems to be something of an anomaly, as the page, when created in 2008, began: "George Washington was...", seemingly indicating that he was already deceased. Internet searches have yielded me next to nothing. I did find one article stating that he was alive, aged 106, but it seemed to be based on our own article. Any extra eyes would be appreciated. Meanwhile, should I observe the letter of WP:BLP, and change the lede to indicate that he is living? Joefromrandb (talk) 00:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Which is the source that says he was born in 1907? The Allmusic source gives 1910.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 00:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * But note the picture of "him" at Allmusic, which hardly inspires confidence in their reliability :-) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Allmusic bios are generally considered RSes, which makes Washington's "picture" all the more baffling. But anyway, what's the source saying he was born in 1907? I haven't found one.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 04:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I found a group photo on a website that may or may not be reliable, but it states that the photo was taken in 1920, and he looks older than 13. I guess the bottom line is that we don't know for sure when he was born and whether he has died, but if he's alive, he's awfully old.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  06:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The portrait on Allmusic must be the bassist who played with John Lee Hooker. Bassists and trombonists often look indistinguishable without their instruments. But if they wanted to indicate he was old, that's the portrait to do it. But more seriously, I don't think it's settled that the George Washington playing trombone with Buddie Petit in Lousiana in the group shot should necessarily be considered the same George Washington that played trombone from Jacksonville. (Although I wouldn't say he couldn't be thirteen in that picture, being the smallest man in it, and considering he started playing at ten, and being that thirteen isn't a "look".) The George Washington in this photo is taken in the city he was supposed to be in at the time, at least. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:66%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  14:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I clicked on the allmusic page for the first time and now everyone at work is looking at me funny for laughing so much. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 23:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There are a bunch of George Washingtons in Findagrave.com born in 1907 and in 1910, but without having a solid source for the birthdate, it's not much to go on. I'm also unable to locate a New York Times obituary.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 23:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Allegations linking suicide to living person
I am having second (and third) thoughts about whether including this is appropriate. I am not seeing in any of the major news papers coverage of this angle and in fact The Times is running a story about the large box office take and no mention of impact of the purported protests. .
 * Yevadu

Given the seriousness of the accusations, the gossip entertainment nature of the sources covering it, and the apparent lack of impact, I don't think it reaches the level needed to be included - yes? no?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  03:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It is pure speculation, and may be harmful in a BLP. Collect (talk) 04:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Harry Styles
The first sentence of the article linked above describes Harry Styles as the lead vocalist of the group One Direction, this information is false and easily disproved. I demand that this statement be removed from the article as it not only de-emphasizes the contribution of the other members of the group but it will also improve the validity of the article.

Regards TanaSpyce (talk) 13:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ GiantSnowman 13:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Max French
The subject has emailed with proposed changes, with his permission I have dropped them at Talk:Max French. I'd be grateful if someone could do a quick review and fix any inaccuracies in the article. Thanks Guy (Help!) 20:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Ted Nugent
I don't think things have crossed the line yet, but I would guess they will be shortly.the current accusation seems to be sourced, but also very fresh/unverified. Nugent stepped in it again, which will likely dredge up tons of the old issues that have been brought to this board before. Article/talk could probably use additional eyes for the next bit. Talk:Ted_Nugent&curid=627342&diff=591931514&oldid=587884515Gaijin42 (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The man's a real prince, isn't he? It leaves a bad taste in the mouth defending that kind of person. Guy (Help!) 23:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * He's utterly contemptible in my personal opinion, but that doesn't mean that we allow any BLP violations. I will put the article on my watch list and encourage others to do so.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  00:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Amanda Lindhout
As has been commented before on the Talk page, the article as it stands, is written in a highly inappropriate tone, and manages to avoid any mention whatsoever of the many criticisms that have been made against this public figure (well it did, until I through great effort and persistence managed to convince one editor to include a bland statement that "some reporters have criticized her", without offering any specifics.

I provide these links below, as two editors seem to object to any information from these sources being included in the article, on the grounds of "BLP".

http://au.news.yahoo.com/qld/a/18752373/naive-waitress-reveals-hostage-horror/ http://www2.canada.com/ottawacitizen/columnists/story.html?id=50fea71f-7c28-42e5-8bf5-04dd83147c8d&p=2 http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/09/20/chris-selley-amanda-lindhout-and-her-critics/ http://www.news.com.au/national/kidnap-victim-nigel-brennan-speaks-of-ordeal-anger-at-federal-government/story-fncynjr2-1226772297591 http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/09/06/escape-from-hell/ http://www.elle.com/life-love/society-career/amanda-lindhout-somalia-reflection http://malaysia-chronicle.com/index.php/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=154391:i-was-raped-beaten-starved-by-warlords-woman-journalist&Itemid=4&tmpl=component&print=1#.UuAbtbSxXIV

For those who can't be bothered reading, I'll summarize a few dot points of potential information to be included in the article:

- Lindhout worked for Iran's state-run outlet, Press TV. Which has been banned from satellite providers in the UK, EU, Latin America, and a number of Arab countries.

- In Iraq in January 2008, Lindhout was held hostage for several hours in Sadr City. Some reports say she paid off her captors, she denies this.

- Lindhout and Nigel Brennan, her Australian ex-boyfriend who she convinced to accompany her to Somalia, are captured on their third day in the country. He will also later write a book that received a lot of attention in Australia, but almost none in Canada or the US.

- Robert Draper, a journalist on assignment for National Geographic, describes Lindhout as "recklessly perky". He writes: "Within minutes, she was asking where all the bombings were taking place, because that’s where she wanted to be. That night I e-mailed my girlfriend: “She’s going to get herself or someone else killed.”" }} - Lindhout and Brennan no longer speak. In his book, Brennan writes that he overheard Lindhout speaking to her mother on the phone begging her mother to take the entire $500,000 that Brennan's family had raised, and use it to pay just for her release. Brennan writes: "I don't think I have ever felt so lonely and cheated in my life... I'm furious at myself for trusting her." The bank account for their ransom, it turns out, is held in Australia, her mother unable to access it.

- When Lindhout and Brennan were still speaking, before Brennan published his book, Lindhout attempted to stop him from doing so. InTheInterestOfObjectiveReporting (talk) 23:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Are you the editor,, who has repeatedly tried to add this gem of a sentence, "This led to some journalists to criticize her for her 'naivete' for parroting Iran's anti-Western state propaganda" to the article. If so, do you really believe that this complies with our neutral point of view policy?  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  05:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. This point was made across Canadian and Australian media, by at least half a dozen different journalists. Do you want me to quote them for you, or can you use Google? Do you have any idea of the nature of Press TV? Do you realize it is effectively banned across much of the globe? That it was banned in the UK for broadcasting an interview with a Newsweek journalist that was obtained through torture? InTheInterestOfObjectiveReporting (talk) 10:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * From reading the article's talk page, I understand that the editor believes that WP:BALANCE is being met and not WP:NPOV is achieved by making these statements. The question is whether the sources all carry the same weight and why this WP:SPA is editing this particular article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * How can I not be a "SPA" when I have only just joined? Surely everyone is a SPA when they're editing their first article? If I am allowed to continue to try and improve this article, I'll move onto others. InTheInterestOfObjectiveReporting (talk) 10:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Has anyone else noted the similarity between the edits of this editor and acknowledged IP edits, and those of indefinitely blocked serial puppeteer ? RolandR (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Erwiana Sulistyaningsih help needed.
I could really use some BLP experts to help with this article. It's a recent event that made international news and seems to have some notability to it but I'm not sure I've structured it in the best way. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Whatever happened to WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E?--ukexpat (talk) 15:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not just a minor case, it's risen to being addressed by both of the leaders of the countries and made international news. I was operating under the "Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic" guidelines which we do have a subheading found [] that deals with this but with the level of attention this case is recieving internationally it merits a stand alone. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

ESM
Hi, I am the subject of this page, and I wanted to update my name, which is now Erin Siegal McIntyre.

You can see this change reflected in the links, etc.

Thank you for your help

Erin


 * I've renamed the article to Erin Siegal McIntyre. Erin Siegal now redirects readers to Erin Siegal McIntyre. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Geraldine O' Rawe
The date of birth of Geraldine O'Rawe is 4th March 1971. The material relating to her date of birth currently is incorrect. It is causing concern with her work as an actress, is bing used in other publications as a true DOB and is damaging. A passport or birth certificate is available if needed. Please can the above be changed to DOB 4th March 1971. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.24.48 (talk) 10:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I assume the 31st December 1969 DOB came from ulsteractors.com or perhaps they copied it from Wikipedia. I've removed the DOB from the Wikipedia article for now given that there is an apparent mismatch. I don't think the DOB can be changed to 4th March 1971 based on a message on this noticeboard. Is there a reliable published source that contains the correct DOB ? If not, see WP:BLPSELF which includes a link with contact details for the Wikimedia Foundation. If you send an email to the address under "Questions related to Wikipedia", someone there should be able provide advice. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 15:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

david allen coe
In discussing the start of his career the story goes from his early days in Nashville getting signed to inde label, then new paragraph... when his house got seized by the IRS which I can only assume happened many years later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.55.182.80 (talk) 14:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Adam Mitchell DOB


Andy says he is this subject's father, and says the DOB is incorrect - it should be 18 October 1993 and not 2 December 1994. I have no reason to doubt him, but almost every source uses the latter date. Further help at the article talk page would be appreciated so we can resolve this. GiantSnowman 18:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

St Clair, New South Wales
Request revdel of these three edits, which (though possibly self-referencing and intended, I assume, to be humorous) are potentially defamatory to a person named in the edits. ,, <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:100;"><font color="#006633">Dwpaul <font color="#000666">Talk   19:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * If you want a revdel, you should either ask at ANI, or preferably ask an admin to do it directly - it is usually better not to draw attention to such material. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Revdelled and semi-protected to slow down reinsertion. Zerotalk 21:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Nancy Kates
apparently ended up missing a plane due to a bra wire setting off a metal detector. Clearly this is of surpassing significance and it's vital that we include it, establishing, as it does, her significance as an artist. Or, you know, not. I personally think we can do without this. So does she. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Ali Abunimah
This article has ballooned with minutiae in recent months, lots of it is completely inaccurate and relies on highly partisan primary sources.

Among the inaccuracies:


 * The subject has never been funded by the Dutch government.
 * The subject did not cause "a stir by posting a false Twitter tweet in February 2012 about supposed Israeli Likud party intentions to storm the Temple Mount/Al Aqsa Mosque and build a Third Temple."
 * The subject was not a participant in the flotilla to Gaza that included in the Mavi Marmara, but he reported on it. (This has been partially corrected by another editor.)
 * The subject did not initiate a statement condemning Gilad Atzmon.

The article is full of redundancies and minutiae:


 * The discussion of the subject's writing titled "We have no words left" appears twice in different sections of the article.
 * The subject has likely visited hundreds of places in dozens of countries in his lifetime, but there's no explanation why his visit to Maghazi Camp in Gaza is notable.
 * The subject's views of various other people such as Joshua Trevino, Greta Berlin and Gilad Atzmon are not contextualized to explain why they are notable enough to be mentioned in this article but not theirs.
 * There's a section for "criticism" of the subject, but the article is filled with criticism from primary sources in almost every section.
 * The subject has likely appeared on television to debate dozens of people hundreds of times, but minor appearances are described in great detail.
 * Most of the sources for content added in late November 2013 are highly partisan and may be primary sources.

It's hard to catalogue all the problems with this article. It is riddled with falsehoods and deserves review by editors who understand the policies of wikipedia with respect to the biographies of living people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.34.157.122 (talk) 02:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thomas Charles-Edwards (1943--)
I am the subject of the article. It should not say that I was a Bergin Fellow at the Dublin Institute of Advanced Studies. I was merely a Scholar (1967--9). The Bergin Fellowship had not yet been created.

Thomas Charles-Edwards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.156.34 (talk) 15:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Prof. Charles-Edwards. I've corrected it using the same terminology used in the cited source in the article (announcement of your appointment at Jesus). DeCausa (talk) 20:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

James Morgan (actor)
An OTRS ticket claims that is fake. All edits seem to be by single-purpose accounts, but there is an IMDB page (which of course is also potentially user-generated). Can someone please check this out? Guy (Help!) 09:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There seem to be multiple independent sources that support the subject's existence, at least. Not sure about actual notability though. What's the ticket number? § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * (EC) There seems to be lost of funny business going on there for a relatively low profile actor [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Morgan_%28actor%29&diff=544406382&oldid=535829501] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Morgan_%28actor%29&diff=410147305&oldid=407953176] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Morgan_%28actor%29&diff=410423370&oldid=410147305] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Morgan_%28actor%29&diff=591260785&oldid=591258188] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Morgan_%28actor%29&diff=591872766&oldid=591867189] including some deleted. However there are 3 working sources used in the article , the first one which looks to be a RS (and possibly the second) and the third a decent primary source so it sounds a lot like the actor exists and a some of the info is correct. The history suggests to me for some odd reason the subject is a target for trolling and the OTRS is unfortunately probably more of the same. It's also possible the person saw one of the vandalised versions, there were two recently although they were reverted within 60 mins. Nil Einne (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW, because of the continual vandalism/trolling, I requested page protection and it was granted. Nil Einne (talk) 13:08, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

James Balcer
All external links not pointing to TJCenter.org appear to be dead. ~E$ (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

BLP by novice editor needs eyes
needs some attention. It's sources range from a Duke University Press book which looks excellent to a letter held on the Stormfront site. Dougweller (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I looked at it. I am not sure the subject meets notability guidelines. Most of refs seem self-published. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I proposed it for deletion, along with another article created by the author. The Duke publication on this one looks good, though, but I'm not 100% convinced it's enough to sustain an article however.  He gets a paragraph in one other book I've found, which isn't really significant. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I have access to an e-copy of the academic source, Gods of the Blood. It does contain a substantial discussion of the subject of the article, about six pages.  Whether or not that is enough to sustain an article, I really don't know.  I am concerned about the use of so many primary sources in this article, that perhaps this lone academic source is being just to justify a lot of synth and OR.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 21:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The book is also available in preview through Google Books, but I'm also pretty wary of a BLP being sourced from one publication, and an unfriendly one at that. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I declined the prod. I don't know about his current activities, but he got a reasonable amount of coverage in the early 1990s for his involvement with Tom Metzger (white supremacist) and White Aryan Resistance after they lost the SPLC lawsuit for helping Metzger hide assets and then going to jail for contempt over it.  That much was widely covered in Oregon and San Diego papers and even in the NYT.  One could probably make a GNG claim on the basis of that alone, and then with the Gods of the Blood thing I feel that notability is covered.  The article's in dire shape, though, and is going to be a trouble magnet.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

mug shot in Khalil (singer)
This article will be getting many views, since its subject was recently in the news:. Someone has added a mug shot to the article. On Commons, I found another photo but it's also a mug shot. I looked for a freely-licenced photo on the Web but didn't find any. &mdash; rybec 01:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Eric tillman misinformation


Attack on Eric Tillman's wikipedia made by User: Hirolovesswords. Addition of misquotes, adding untrue information, taking some facts out of context. I personally contacted Eric Tillman who was distressed by this constant harassment made by this user: Hirolovesswords. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Computergenius1 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The most recent edit by User:Hirolovesswords notes that Tillman started his career in football with the Houston Oilers' PR department. This is backed up by a newspaper story source: "With a degree in journalism, in 1981 he joined the NFL's Houston Oilers to work in their public relations department." I'm not sure how that counts as a misquote.
 * With all due respect, User:Computergenius1, if you're editing at the request of Tillman, you have a conflict of interest and need to be especially careful that all your edits are backed up by reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 01:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Jimmy Henchman
We have people trying to restore content about criminality sourced to the New York Post, New York Daily News, rap lyrics and court documents. Eyes would be helpful. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  03:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

chris evert
needs editing-typos, double bagel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.86.254.21 (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * A double bagel in women's tennis refers to a straight-sets win where a player doesn't win a game. It refers to the two zeroes in the score 6-0, 6-0. Hack (talk) 03:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Ericka Huggins
To Whom It May Concern;

I am writing regarding an issue related to the Ericka Huggins Wikipedia page. There had been a number of defamatory and historically innacurate statements, particularly in a section titled New Haven Trial that I have been attempting to rectify. There is a user Pokey5945 who is undoing all attempts to remove the negative material. The user is not only not neutral but is disseminating disinformation and manipulating facts to paint Ericka Huggins as involved in torture which is neither true or verifiable.

Your policy on this matter is quite clear. A quick look at Pokey5945's talk history shows a history of bad behaviour in hijacking other pages as well to further their own agenda via an sustained campaign of disinformation. If you follow their edits up to the most recent you will notice an escalation in their defamation of Huggins. With regards to your own policy this should result in being blocked or suspended. Please let me know what can be done to make sure that your own policy is upheld in this case.

Please confirm receipt. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Politigrafica (talk • contribs) 05:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I now have the article on my watch list, have commented on the talk page, and encourage other editors to do so as well. Ericka Huggins was accused of serious crimes connected with a 1969 murder, but the jury voted 10-2 for acquittal and the judge dropped the charges in 1970. Under these circumstances, I believe that including lengthy and lurid details about the crime, and what other defendants were convicted of, is a violation of BLP policy.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  06:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Johnny Depp


Johnny Depp's rumored engagement should not be included on his Wikipedia Page. As widespread as the rumor may be, it's neither official nor it is backed up by any evidence. Wikipedia shouldn't be a gossip page. Johnny Depp's Wiki page reads that he's been engaged on "Christmas Eve" as if that was an official announcement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Golta (talk • contribs) 11:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Win Butler (Arcade Fire)


I can find no evidence in the articles cited that Win Buttler is a 'practising' Mormon. In one quote in the article Win is actually quoted as saying that he does not go to church. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.12.6 (talk) 13:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've removed the statement on the basis that it's contradicted by the Guardian source. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 13:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Jackie Evancho


A new editor recently began deleting content form this article claiming a close family relationship. The material being deleted was claimed to be compromising the privacy of the individual; I looked at the content and did not see anything problematical. I could be wrong there but that's easily corrected. Can I ask for eyes on the article to determine if the content should stay or go, in what quantity and what wording? As it stands, the content is removed from a good article due to some edit warring problems and I do not want to leave it in its present state, but am administratively involved. Thanks  Tide  rolls  16:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Peter Brabeck-Letmathe
I'm currently engaged in an edit war with another user in the Peter Brabeck-Letmathe article over contentious and poorly sourced claims. A diff is. The material includes a youtube video in a foreign language, which the subject of the page denies contains the material the wikipedia page claims, and a dystopian "award" from an obscure activist organization. You can see his denial here. If I am found to be in the wrong, I will of course relent. Quick actions is appreciated. C0h3n (talk) 18:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If the youtube link contains a clip from a documentary (as appears to be the case), then the reference can be changed so that it refers to the documentary. The "award" can only be included if there's a secondary source for it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've reworded the criticism to be more NPOV. Hopefully this satisfies the other party, but I have my doubts. C0h3n (talk) 03:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Nothing positive allowed in the Jenny McCarthy article
Check out the recent edit war at the Jenny McCarthy article. When a journalist as eminent as Barbara Walters showers Jenny McCarthy with praise, that's note worthy yet it seems the pro-vaccine advocacy groups are monitoring this article, making sure nothing positive gets reported because they want her to be a pariah. I'm as pro-vaccine as anyone, but I don't like wikipedia being used for smear campaigns and this kind of POV pushing and bullying. Wikipedia must meet the highest standards of journalistic integrity and that means giving equal weight to all notable content, not cherry picking to push an agenda. Historyhorror (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The addition being attempted does not belong in the lede of the article. We don't quote anyone else in the lede and there's no adequate explanation why Barbara Walters should be quoted in the lede. I have no opinion at the moment as to whether it might have a place elsewhere in the article, but it's not a BLP issue to insist on a well-written lede. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, based upon the editing history of you and User:Firstcomp, there is good reason to suspect that these are sockpuppet accounts - the editing history of User:Historyhorror contains a number of edits to an article about Michael Jackson's health and appearance and some of Firstcomp's first edits were to that very same article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * yes we're the same person. I couldn't find the password for historyhorror until this evening so I created Firstcomp.  Thank you for your feedback on the Jenny McCarthy article.   I will adapt my strategy accordingly. Historyhorror (talk) 01:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, you must be very careful when using different accounts. Make it clear in your discussions that you were Firstcomp, and stick to just one account on this article in the future. Otherwise you run a big risk of being viewed as deceptively using multiple accounts. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * yes you're absolutely right about the multiple accounts. It was a mistake Historyhorror (talk) 01:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say there's "nothing positive". She had (has) a very successful career, and the article reflects it. Try to see the forest, not the trees. North is right about the lead. Also, Wikipedia is not a newspaper and is held to no standard of journalism. We have our own, of course, and WP:NPOV is certainly one. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Jenny McCarthy. I can only spell her name because it's in the section header. But let me take a wild guess. Was Barbara Walters' apparently effusive praise anything to do with the fact McCarthy was in the same room and Walters was about to talk to her on the TV? Seriously, that would not count as praise worthy of inclusion in the lead of an article. Formerip (talk) 01:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I moved it from the lead to the view section. The praise is notable because (1) Walters is arguably the most admired and historic journalist in America (2) Walters is a journalist, not an entertainer, and thus her statements carry a lot of legitimacy and credibility, and (3) Walters backed up the praise by appointing to her to the panel on the view, essentially passing the torch to McCarthy as Walters prepares to retire. Historyhorror (talk) 02:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I really don't see any need or appropriateness in including it. It certainly doesn't belong in the controversy section, and it claims "record", but the source doesn't say that. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * why is it appropriate to include criticism but not praise? At least the person praising her (walters) is notable which is more than can be said about virtually anyone criticizing her.  I put it in the view section.  If the view is part of a controversy section, that just makes my point about the article being biased because there's not even supposed to be controversy sections in wikipedia.  And part of the controversy documented in the article was not just Barbara Walters hiring her, but endorsing her, thus the least we can do is is include one of those many many endorsements. Historyhorror (talk) 02:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Baba's praise isn't particularly interesting, plus she is a little too close to McCarthy to give her praise any serious weight. Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's like when Bob Eubanks handed The Newlywed Game over to the other guy. Bob looked straight into the camera and said he'd be funny and do a great job. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not to say the section isn't leaning towards demonizing her. It is. But two wrongs don't make a right, even if one of those wrongs is "positive". InedibleHulk (talk) 03:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand what you guys are saying, that Walters has a vested interest in praising because she hired her. But then if Walters didn't genuinely see her value, she never would have hired her in the first place, so all Walters is doing is providing an explanation.  But what people forget is that her critics also have a vested interest in attacking her.  If her anti-vaccine pseudoscience gains popularity, the medical establishment risks losing billions in lost vaccine sales not to mention law suits, so unless we remove all medical criticism, it's hypocritical to remove walters' praise.  If nothing else, it's worth documenting how she was introduced when she got the biggest job of her career.  I can't believe how hard I have to fight to just get a few positive words into an article that is 90% negative. Historyhorror (talk) 03:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If a popular show is looking for "value" in a host, they'll look for someone who can draw ratings, not someone who's nice or smart or funny (though some people are both). Apparently, her opinions on autism have become hotter among daytime TV viewers than her boobs were with men. On a show called "The View", opinions are important. Her opinions on things, people's opinions of her, and so on. But this is an encyclopedia. Facts are our bread and butter. Love/hate crap should be confined to a Reception/Controversy/Criticism/Whatever section. We should discuss her hosting career independently of all that.


 * It's also not our job to influence or consider, one way or another, pharmaceutical business. Not on Wikipedia, at least. All part of the NPOV thing. Given that policy, I'd advise you spend your fight trimming the bias from the heavier side, rather than trying to counterweight it. That's FOX News' idea of "Fair and Balanced", not ours. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I will say the two sections which are critical of her are undue with respect to the rest of the article. They should be trimmed accordingly. Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Jordan Belfort and WP:BLPCAT


When I used to patrol this board more frequently, I often fought against inclusion of religious and sexual orientation labels per BLPCAT. Judaism was particularly problematic because of the cultural/religious dichotomy. Ironically, I find myself in a dispute on this article where I am the one arguing that the Jewish label should remain in the infobox. My interpretation is it's well-sourced that Belfort has identified as a Jew here as there's an amusing quote from him in the magazine article. One editor is so riled up he's reverting me while questioning whether my account has been "hacked" (see ), not a constructive question, particularly for an administrator. I assume the question stems from the editor's belief that the only way I could maintain this label is if I'm not really myself. Hyperbole is always fun.

I'll leave to others to sort this out, although regardless of whether the issue is resolved, I predict there will be more battles to come (although not by me).--Bbb23 (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The quote says he was praying to Jesus, so it's not a very clear instance of Jewish self-identification, at least in the religious sense (the infobox entry was for "religion" rather than ethnicity).Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * (ec) I am the "riled up editor" who had the audacity to question an administrator. First of all your strawman argument about my "belief" is the funniest thing I've read here today, so thanks for that. As for the underlying issue, this is my position: Not sure where in the linked article it states that Belfort "identified as a Jew." I hope its not where in the long article there is a half of sentence that says that he had a "Jewish mother on steroids" (whatever that means). I could be missing something though I think I covered the whole article. I would like the administrator proponent to show specifically on what grounds he is introducing the fact that Belfort's religion is Judaism and on what grounds he is introducing the fact that Belfort "remains Jewish" (again, what the heck does that even mean?) -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 21:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Your comments here are also unconstructive, so I probably won't be responding again. I have no problem with your questioning my edits. As I clearly stated, it's the "hacked" business that is inappropriate. The "remains Jewish" is awkwardly worded. I wanted to get across that he was raised in a Jewish household and, as an adult, still considers himself Jewish. I have no objection to that being reworded. As I also stated, the religion/cultural issue has always been an issue. I don't know how to sort that out because using the ethnicity parameter in the infobox instead of the religion parameter has its own set of problems. It implies that he doesn't identify with being Jewish but comes from a Jewish background, which, in this case, is not accurate.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Why not use the "religion parameter" and fill it with "nonobservant Jew"? Bus stop (talk) 22:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * An interesting idea, but we don't know, at least from that source, whether he be identifies as religiously Jewish. We know only that he identifies as Jewish. Perhaps it would be better to leave it out of the infobox because of the limitations of the parameters and use cats instead, which don't get into those nuances.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Non-observant Jew" isn't a religion. I think  is right to say we should leave it out of the infobox and keep the cats.  I can't find any sources that talk about his religion.  He himself, and I noted this on the article's talk page, says he is a Jew, though.  In the absence of specific information to the contrary we should assume this means ethnicity.  It's obviously relevant, though, because numerous sources discuss it and he talks about it all the time in his autobiography.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This is Belfort's full quote from the magazine article: "I’m lying on my back and see the ceiling has cracks in it. I’m like, Why are the Wasps not paying for their ceiling? What a troubling thought that they don’t fix the ceiling in this Wasp heaven — maybe they’re running out of money. I try to stand. I can’t stand! I curl myself into a little barrel and fucking roll myself down the steps. I do the prayer to Jesus. Even an old Jew. Jesus, please God, just get me home one last time."--Bbb23 (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If he refers to himself as a Jew, then it doesn't matter if he prays to Jesus and all the saints -- per BLPCAT we can (and in my view should) indicate in the infobox that he's a Jew. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As his "religion"?Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Anythingyouwant—you say "As his 'religion'?" For sure—as his religion. At the web site "Judaism 101" I find: " A Jew is any person whose mother was a Jew or any person who has gone through the formal process of conversion to Judaism. It is important to note that being a Jew has nothing to do with what you believe or what you do. A person born to non-Jewish parents who has not undergone the formal process of conversion but who believes everything that Orthodox Jews believe and observes every law and custom of Judaism is still a non-Jew, even in the eyes of the most liberal movements of Judaism, and a person born to a Jewish mother who is an atheist and never practices the Jewish religion is still a Jew, even in the eyes of the ultra-Orthodox. In this sense, Judaism is more like a nationality than like other religions, and being Jewish is like a citizenship." Bus stop (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Bus Stop, as you are very well aware (having had it pointed out previously when you tried to cite it), the "Judaism 101" website isn't even remotely a reliable source for anything but the opinions of the creator - a person who states that "I do not claim to be a rabbi or an expert on Judaism" ,and that it "is written predominantly from the Orthodox viewpoint". . And there is no way whatsoever that Wikipedia is ever going to define anyones religion on the basis that their mother was Jewish. That is not only contrary to policy, it is just plain stupid. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * AndyTheGrump—you say "And there is no way whatsoever that Wikipedia is ever going to define anyones 'religion' on the basis that their mother was Jewish. That is not only contrary to policy, it is just plain stupid." And there is no reason that Wikipedia would ever have to "define anyones 'religion' on the basis that their mother was Jewish." Please consider another source: "According to Reform Judaism, a person is a Jew if they were born to either a Jewish mother or a Jewish father." Bus stop (talk) 18:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not the slightest bit interested in getting involved in another of your facile and tendentious 'debates'. A person's religion is defined by what they themselves believe, not by what other people believe about them, and no source that suggests otherwise is of the slightest relevance to this discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * AndyTheGrump—let us consider what The Economist, a secular publication, has to say: "Gentiles might be surprised that for Jews by birth this traditional test makes no reference to faith or behaviour. Jews may be atheist (many are: apostasy is a venerable Jewish tradition) and still Jews." Bus stop (talk) 02:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * So not content with citing a ridiculously-unreliable source, you are now cherry-picking another one. One which makes entirely clear that there is no general agreement amongst competing groups within Judaism as to any definition of who is Jewish. Not that it is relevant anyway, since Wikipedia (like any sane encyclopaedia not pushing a particular ethnoreligious POV) defines religion as a belief system - self ascribed - and not something that can be ascribed by others. It simply doesn't matter what other people think someone's religion is, if they themselves don't subscribe to it. That isn't what 'religion' means - as the Economist article you cite makes clear when it says that "22% of American Jews described themselves as having no religion". AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * AndyTheGrump—you are seizing upon, from The Economist article, what I think is an inapplicable point, namely that "22% of American Jews described themselves as having no religion". Does Jordan Belfort describe himself that way? A wider quote from The Economist article would read "The responses confirm that Jewishness is not thought to consist mostly in belief: 22% of American Jews described themselves as having no religion (swap 'Christians' for 'Jews' and the statistic becomes nonsensical)." The Economist, in that quote, is I think suggesting that the parameters applicable to Judaism are different from the parameters applicable to Christianity. "A Jewish person is still Jewish whether or not he believes or practices Judaism.". You are not bringing any sources. If a person is Jewish as a result of birth or as a result of a valid conversion, that person does not become "not Jewish" as a consequence of not practicing the religion or as a consequence of not believing something considered essential to the religion. I think you are displaying a misunderstanding of Judaism. You are trusting your own opinions too strongly. And you are not bringing sources of your own. Bus stop (talk) 11:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If someone doesn't practice a religion, we cannot describe it as their religion because it isn't their religion, and only a complete imbecile or a clueless Jew-tagging troll with OCD would argue otherwise. Now toddle off to ANI because I've called you a clueless Jew-tagging troll - but expect to explain why you are yet again promoting your ridiculous agenda yet again, after being told multiple times that Wikipedia isn't a platform for Jew-tagging trolls to go around falsely tagging people as Jewish by religion when they aren't Jewish by religion. If you do raise this at ANI shall of course be calling for you to be topic banned on the basis that your Jew-tagging agenda is contrary to the objectives of Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * —is CNN incorrect in supplying for Henry Kissinger the information "Religion: Jewish"? I couldn't find a similar word formation for Jordan Belfort but I think they are both nonobservant Jews. Bus stop (talk) 11:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * —this thread wasn't initiated by me. It was initiated by . Though that editor has reversed their position, they said in their first post "Ironically, I find myself in a dispute on this article where I am the one arguing that the Jewish label should remain in the infobox. My interpretation is it's well-sourced that Belfort has identified as a Jew here as there's an amusing quote from him in the magazine article". Also says in this thread "If he refers to himself as a Jew, then it doesn't matter if he prays to Jesus and all the saints -- per BLPCAT we can (and in my view should) indicate in the infobox that he's a Jew." And finally  says in this thread "See the article from the Jewish Journal of LA discussed on the talk page of the actual article. It is a subject of interest because Belfort talks about the fact that he's Jewish extensively in his book and elsewhere and yet his character in the movie is not Jewish. This fact has been discussed fairly widely in the press, so it seems plausible that a reader might wonder whether or not he is Jewish. He is. He says it himself all the time." Bus stop (talk) 11:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * —I'm not easily offended but calling someone a "Jew-tagging troll" is simply unacceptable. Bus stop (talk) 05:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Only just noticed? Anyway, if you don't like it, stop advocating that contributors violate multiple Wikipedia policies by misrepresenting people as Jewish by faith when they aren't. We aren't going to lie to our readers just to satisfy your bizarre agenda. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * —your language (had enough of this Jew-tagging troll"'')is not conducive to a collaborative editing environment in which a premium is placed on collegiality. Bus stop (talk) 06:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in 'collaborating' with someone who wishes for Wikipedia to publish lies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * —this is a collaborative project whether you disagree or not with another editor or whether you feel another editor promotes "lies". You are nevertheless expected to conduct yourself in the manner expected at this project. We have policies that tell us that "Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear." This matters. You can't skirt these policies. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia." Bus stop (talk) 06:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in 'collaborating' with someone who engages in an ideological battle with the objective of persuading Wikipedia to publish lies. If you don't like my comments, toddle off to ANI, where I can call for you to be topic banned as promoting your own objectives relating to Judaism and Jewish ethnicity which are totally incompatible with the stated objectives of Wikipedia. Namely, that we should publish lies about the religion of living persons, contrary to WP:BLP policy, and to everything else that Wikipedia stands for. So put up, or shut up - this thread has served its purpose, and it has been made clear that we aren't going to describe Jordan Belfort as a follower of the Jewish faith, because he doesn't state that he is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "put up, or shut up"? We don't speak this way at Wikipedia. Bus stop (talk) 06:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I do. I just did. And I'll do so again. Put up, or shut up... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * @Bus stop: Please use some other page to record your dissatisfaction with Andy's remarks. This page should focus on the issue. If the above comment that "A Jew is any person whose mother was a Jew or..." is really used as a guide for article tagging, I can see why some intemperate language was used. Above all, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia where the primary concern is the development of good articles, and it would be absurd to suggest that some formula should mindlessly be applied to sprinkle articles with "X is a Jew". Johnuniq (talk) 09:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * —I've responded to you on your Talk page. Bus stop (talk) 15:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC) Bus stop (talk) 11:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Based on the comments above, I would propose that we leave Jewish out of the infobox altogether (the status quo) and add the material and source back to the body that says he still considers himself Jewish, but perhaps better worded than my awkward phrase. The article already has one Jewish cat, so that part is fine.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps use his own autobiography as a source, as it's less ambiguous? I put a cite template for it on the talk page.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I noticed - no reason why we shouldn't cite both. I'd put the autobiography first.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The revert of your edit removed the infobox, left the cat, and included the fact that he was "raised in a Jewish home." What exactly is the wording that you are proposing to add? Thanks. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 00:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it's time to move this conversation back to the article talk page so we're not having it in two places. There seem to be a lot of eyes on the article by now.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This has shades of Ed Miliband. I don't know what eventually happened there and it sounds like in this case we at least don't have any sources we he says he's not religious but still, I don't see any reason to label his religion as Jewish from the sources presented so far. The opinions of third parties, even RS, on what a term means are of course largely irrelevant, what matters is how this LP defines himself. Nil Einne (talk) 15:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Can anyone give a good reason why Belfort's ethnicity and/or religious beliefs (if any) are of any relevance to to the article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * AndyTheGrump—there isn't necessarily a concern here with a person's "ethnicity and/or religious beliefs". Furthermore a biography "entails more than basic facts like education, work, relationships, and death". Bus stop (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. See the article from the Jewish Journal of LA discussed on the talk page of the actual article.  It is a subject of interest because Belfort talks about the fact that he's Jewish extensively in his book and elsewhere and yet his character in the movie is not Jewish.  This fact has been discussed fairly widely in the press, so it seems plausible that a reader might wonder whether or not he is Jewish.  He is.  He says it himself all the time.  I really wonder why this discussion is still going on at this noticeboard given that, contrary to all reasonable expectations, the issue has already been resolved on the article's talk page and the questioned sentence is now stable.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know and to be honest don't really care that much about any sentence. I'm more concerned about the infobox which from my experience akin to Bbb23's, is along with categories, usually the biggest problem (since we have room to expand on what people actually say in the article but in categories and infoboxes are very simplified so run a strong risk of convey something not supported by what the person said above). The suggestions made in this discussion about the infobox by Bus stop are IMO rather flawed so I felt it necessary to reenforce AndyTheGrump, Bbb23 and your view that the information presented here does not support listing the religion as Jewish, non observant Jew or anything of that sort in the infobox. I also thought it helpful to mention the Ed Miliband case, as a somewhat related case where this was discussed extensively (and in which I believe Bus stop was involved). The infobox and categories were also what brought this issue to the noticeboard, not the article text. And this discussion was started less than 24 hours ago when I replied, Bus stop's responses were about 15 hours old. So I don't see how or why I can or should have assumed it's settled. The fact that Bus stop has continued to reply here after I responded (albeit not to me) supports my view that it's not clear the infobox issue was settled, however settled the article text is. While I appeciate that split discussions can be confusing, I find very little discussion about religion in the infobox in the article talk page, and a lot here, most of it not coming from me (and as I've said, some of it coming after me). Nil Einne (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll add my voice here, too, and say we should include his religion in the infobox. It's so common-sense and we wouldn't be having this problem if it were not for some editors fearing the association. Without going into discussions of who is a Jew, Belfort is definitely Jewish.
 * Cheers, <font size="2.5" color="blue">&Lambda; u  α  (Operibus anteire) 19:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If we had a source for Belfort's religion (self-ascribed, per WP:BLPCAT), it might be 'common sense' to include it. We don't. That Belfont self-identifies as Jewish is indisputable, but as anyone remotely familiar with the subject should be aware, 'Being Jewish' can mean all sorts of things - including being Jewish by descent and culture, but being atheist or Christian or a multitude of other things by faith. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * People generally don't talk that way. They say "I'm a Christian" or "I'm a Muslim" or "I'm Jewish".  To expect someone to say "My religion is Judaism" is to impose an expectation regarding Jews that you wouldn't impose regarding members of other religions.  (Or, if you did impose it, requiring people to say "My religion is Islam", you'd be ridiculous.)  As is common in this situation, the problem is simply that many people have a poor understanding of what it means to be Jewish even in a religious sense.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * At this web site, which I think may be associated with Harvard University, we see eleven Jewish political representatives with biographical information presented in what seems to me to be "Infobox-style". Notice that they all say "Religion: Jewish". Or this table. In my opinion, common terminology, whether observant or nonobservant or in-between (semi-observant), is Religion: Jewish. I would like to see someone opposing such terminology to bring sources supporting a different position on this question. Bus stop (talk) 20:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * AndyTheGrump's demand does seem a bit unreasonable. The point that someone can be Jewish without actually being religiously Jewish is well-taken (and I should know), but the fact remains that we have no reason whatsoever to question Belfort's self-declared religion. To do so would require a bit OR and SYN on our part. I say we take what he says at face value and have it in the infobox and move on.
 * Cheers, <font size="2.5" color="blue">&Lambda; u  α  (Operibus anteire) 23:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * My 'demand' is that this article comply with WP:BLPCAT. No more and no less. And Belfort hasn't declared that he is Jewish by religion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's SYN on your part. But here is a compromise, I guess to prevent confusion, we should also state that his parents are Jewish as well in the article? Something maybe along the lines of "Belfort was born to Jewish parents and self-identifies as Jewish." In his book, we're even told that his mother at one point read Jewish prayers. This way we leave it to the reader to draw their own conclusions.
 * Cheers, <font size="2.5" color="blue">&Lambda; u  α  (Operibus anteire) 14:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Synthesis? Complete and utter nonsense. How can a statement that we don't have a source for something (which we don't) possibly be synthesis? As for the rest, can you explain why you think that adding statements about Belfort's mother's prayers is "leav[ing] it to the reader to draw their own conclusions", rather than leading readers to draw a specific conclusion that you evidently think they should reach - a conclusion we don't have evidence for? The article already states that "Belfort is Jewish", which is quite sufficient to establish the fact that he self-identifies as Jewish (and for that matter, that nobody disputes this), and that is all the article needs to state. Attempts to imply that Belfort holds beliefs for which we have no evidence are not only contrary to Wikipedia policy, but contrary to basic standards of human dignity. He should be allowed to express his own ideas on the subject - or not to, should he prefer. It isn't up to us to do it for him. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * @Andy -- how to "comply with BLPCAT" is a matter of discussion. You are applying a double standard when it comes to Jews.  You might note the escalation in my phrasing of the point, which of course you didn't respond to the first time around.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Nomoskedasticity, I find your assertion that I am "applying a double standard when it comes to Jews" grossly offensive - and it is an outright lie. I am applying exactly the same standard here as in any other case - that per WP:BLPCAT any statements about the beliefs of living individuals require self-identification with those beliefs. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * To be convincing in this respect, perhaps you could point to diffs where you insisted that "I'm a Christian" didn't satisfy you in connection with BLPCAT and instead you insisted that someone must say "My religion is Christianity". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That is a ridiculous argument. There is little room for ambiguity in the statement "I am Christian" - It is a statement about personal faith. As you are quite obviously aware, the statement "I am Jewish" is capable of several interpretations - it is entirely possible to consider oneself Jewish by descent and culture, without being a follower of the Judaic faith. And Wikipedia policy is clear in this regard - statements about personal faith need to be sourced to personal statements about faith. If you wish to argue that policy needs a 'Jewish exception', you are of course free to do so, in the appropriate place. Which isn't here. We go by existing policy, unless and until it changes - and assertions about an individual's personal beliefs are self-evidently covered by existing WP:BLP policy. Which requires that such statements be properly sourced. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah -- so you are applying a double standard -- it's just that you think you have good reasons to do so. Got it.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, thats right - applying the same policy everywhere is a 'double standard', cats lay eggs in trees, and the capital of Azerbaijan is Dusseldorf. Obviously... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * AndyTheGrump—policy is not necessarily problematic. It is your application of policy that is faulty. Judaism is not a religion that is heavily based on "beliefs". You don't seem inclined to accept this. Despite sources telling you this. Nor have you brought any sources of your own. Have you tried to find a source supportive of the notion that "beliefs" are heavily of importance to Judaism? Please present them if you find any. But it is unlikely that you will find any. Judaism is not a religion in which "belief" plays a large role. We can see this in for instance CNN's listing of Henry Kissinger as "Religion: Jewish". This is not a statement of religious "beliefs". CNN is fully aware of the relatively insignificant role of "belief" in Judaism. You are pounding away at a minor point as if it were a major point. Bus stop (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 'Judaism is not a religion that is heavily based on "beliefs"'? Do you realise just how absurd that statement is? As for Henry Kissinger, and what CNN has to say about him, it isn't under discussion here, though I'd point out that Wikipedia policy on several subjects undoubtedly differs from CNN's, and I've not seen anyone advocating that we revise it to follow theirs. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * AndyTheGrump—you say "Attempts to imply that Belfort holds beliefs for which we have no evidence are not only contrary to Wikipedia policy, but contrary to basic standards of human dignity." What "beliefs" are you referring to? You are failing to understand Judaism. We don't define one religion in terms of another religion. The Economist writes "Gentiles might be surprised that for Jews by birth this traditional test makes no reference to faith or behaviour." Judaism does not require "belief". I have shown you several sources articulating that "belief" is not essential to Judaism. Even if you find fault with one or two of those sources, they are corroborating one another. And you have yet to bring any sources of your own whatsoever. You are misrepresenting Judaism and you are providing no sources in support of that misrepresentation of Judaism. I am not accusing you of doing this deliberately. I have no idea why you are pounding away at a point in the absence of any sources to support that point. You say "And Belfort hasn't declared that he is Jewish by religion." Can you give me an example of someone who has "declared that he is Jewish by religion"? We have examples such as CNN listing Henry Kissinger as being of the Jewish religion. CNN is not implying anything about his level of religiosity. Bus stop (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Bus Stop, please stop spamming this noticeboard with irrelevances. Wikipedia policy is absolutely clear - we don't lie to our readers about an individual's personal beliefs (or lack of them) to suit the agenda of adherents of a particular faith. Any faith. Sources stating that other people consider someone Jewish by faith (which your sources appear not to do anyway) are of no relevance whatsoever to anything we say about an individuals own beliefs. Because they aren't sources about the person's beliefs - they are statements about other people's beliefs. Just how difficult is this elementary concept for you to grasp? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * AndyTheGrump—you say "Wikipedia policy is absolutely clear - we don't lie to our readers about an individual's personal beliefs (or lack of them) to suit the agenda of adherents of a particular faith." I don't know which "adherents of a particular faith" you are referring to. Is CNN lying to its readers about Henry Kissinger's "personal beliefs" when it says "Religion: Jewish". Henry Kissinger is not known as holding religious beliefs. Or is he? Bus stop (talk) 19:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No diffs for me, to put "double standards" to rest? Ah -- well, perhaps you're still working on it.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not need to produce diffs for arguments I have never made. And applying policy consistently is not a 'double standard'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Requiring "My religion is Judaism" for Jews and "I'm a Christian" for Christians (not "My religion is Christianity") is hardly consistent. In fact it's in consistent.  Or, to put it differently, a double standard.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not 'requiring' anything beyond proper sourcing. In any article. And repeating the same nonsense won't change the fact that it is nonsense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Come on Andy. Surely it's trivial for you to dig up a diff that demonstrates one of the many occasions you have treated Christians as an ethnoreligious group where the ambiguity of the statement "I'm a Christian" by a living person confused you to the extent that you were unsure which aspect of their identity they were referring to, their ethnicity or their religious beliefs, but because you know what it means to be Christian, even in a ethnic sense, you went ahead with Ethnicity=Christian in the infobox anyway. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 'Christian' is not an ethnicity. And the infobox field under discussion is 'religion'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * So, you haven't made any policy violating edits based on a conflation of ethnicity and religious beliefs or a misuse of reliably sourced information about one aspect of a person's identity, ethnicity, to draw policy violating conclusions about another aspect of their identity, religion. Thought not. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 19:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If you are going to accuse me of violating policy, at least have the common decency to provide evidence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

How long are we going to be held hostage to one editor who, to this point, failed to produce anything to support their argument? Cheers, <font size="2.5" color="blue">&Lambda; u  α  (Operibus anteire) 19:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPCAT (and WP:BLP policy in general, and Wikipedia policy in general...) is all that is needed to support an argument that we shouldn't ascribe religious beliefs to an individual when we have no evidence that they hold such beliefs. Find the necessary source... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Anyway,, it's not just one editor. You've already brought this up and encountered dissent on the article talk page (where this discussion ought to be taking place).  There are at least two editors there exclusive of  who disagree with your position.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * AndyTheGrump—you say "And Belfort hasn't declared that he is Jewish by religion." Can you give me an example of someone who has "declared that he is Jewish by religion"? I asked this before. I don't think you responded to it. Bus stop (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Leopold Jessner -
 * Dennis Prager -
 * Yossi Klein Halevi -
 * and so on and on and on... &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Obviously I would be interested in seeing the sources supportive of the notion that these three people are "Jewish by religion". Can you please provide the source (including a brief excerpt from the source) that you feel is supportive of the person being "Jewish by religion"? Bus stop (talk) 20:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * At this point I have to assume that I actually didn't understand what you were talking about and I will withdraw from the conversation.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Alf.laylah.wa.laylah—it is said by AndyTheGrump that "Belfort hasn't declared that he is Jewish by religion." I agree that Belfort has not declared that he is Jewish by religion. I am asking the following question: Can you give me an example of someone who has declared that they are Jewish by religion? If you are going to give an example, please substantiate in some way that the individual has declared that he or she is Jewish by religion. Substantiation should take the form of a source. Please extract some wording from a source that you think would support the notion of that person being Jewish by religion. To keep it simple, why not just start with one example instead of three? Bus stop (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I have been watching this discussion with growing disbelief. To me it seems self-evident that Andy is right, and Bus Stop is wrong. Unless we have a source that states that a person's religion is Jewish, we cannot enter Jewish under the religion category in an infobox. No amount of special pleading can alter this.

I am Jewish. I have no religion. If anyone argued and edit-warred to include Jewish as my religion in an infobox, I would hit the roof. It is no one else's role to determine this for me, and the fact that their definition would include me is of no more relevance than is the fact that Mormons, I understand, retroactively convert the ancestors of converts to their religion. Would any editor insist that, because the Mormon church considered the deceased parent of a convert to be a Mormao, then this category should be included, as their religion, in an infobox?

In addition, it seems to me that Bus Stop is going beyond the common-sense understanding of the term "religion" in his application of the term. Indeed, going by his argument it would appear that Judaism is not a religion in the commonly accepted sens of the term; it is not a belief system or code of practice, merely an accident of birth. But, as has been repeatedly stressed above, what is at issue here is not a matter of "ethnicity"; it is a statement of religious affiliation. And the more this drags on, the more it seems to me that the category in the infobox serves no useful purpose, and should be removed altogether. Unless it can be shown that most people subscribe to some code of religious beliefs, then including this category is indeed asking for trouble. And it is quite frankly to insist that people be defined as practicing Jewish religion, regardless of their actual beliefs, practices or wishes. I fully support Andy's position in this discussion. RolandR (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Obviously, the overwhelming consensus here is that the BLP should not say his religion is Jewish without some evidence that it is, especially without self-identification with the Jewish religion. However the article can mention that his ethnicity is Jewish and he self-identifies as Jewish.  That's the overwhelming consensus, so maybe this thread can end now?????Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Indeed - and it evidently needs to be pointed out that WP:BLPCAT (part of the Biographies of living persons policy) makes it entirely clear that 'religion' refers to an individual's personal beliefs - as if it needed saying - and that such categorisation should not be applied at all except where it is specifically justified through sources: "Categories regarding religious beliefs... should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief... in question, and the subject's beliefs... are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources". Given the complete lack of any source for what if any religious beliefs Belfort holds, it is entirely untenable to suggest that they are 'relevant' to anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * AndyTheGrump—Infobox fields should not be completed by merely a consensus of editors, though wp:consensus obviously plays an important part in the decision-making process. If you can't show me examples of individuals who have declared that they are Jewish by religion then how can you differentiate such individuals from those who have not declared that they are Jewish by religion? You have said "Belfort hasn't declared that he is Jewish by religion." Bus stop (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia BLP policy is clear and unequivocal. It would violate policy to state that Belfort was Jewish by religion unless we had a source for him stating that he was so. Nothing more needs to be said. I suggest you find a website better suited to your obsessions elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * AndyTheGrump—all of the people here have an Infobox-style field for "Religion" which is followed by the term "Jewish". Is "harvard.edu" unaware that some of them might not be Jewish by religion? Wikipedia is virtually coining the condition that you are calling Jewish by religion. Support for the condition of being Jewish by religion and not Jewish by religion does not exist outside of Wikipedia. Bus stop (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia BLP policy is clear and unequivocal. It would violate policy to state that Belfort was Jewish by religion unless we had a source for him stating that he was so. Nothing more needs to be said. 00:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You are engaging in original research. You could be arguing that some Jews are observant and others are not observant. But instead you are concocting and foisting on us gibberish about people being "Jewish by religion" and "not Jewish by religion". You are transgressing basic Wikipedia policy such as our prohibition on WP:OR. Do you find the phase "Jewish by religion" or anything like it outside of Wikipedia? Please show me a source for that phrase. I think it is pure invention. You should be using standard terminology on a Talk page such as this, in dialogue with your fellow editors. We are all fully cognizant that some Jews are more religious and other Jews are less religious. But I doubt if any of us have ever heard the phrase "Jewish by religion". Please use standard language found outside of Wikipedia. Bus stop (talk) 00:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If you really think I'm engaging in WP:OR, raise it at WP:NORN, and see how well your tendentious Wikilawyering bollocks goes down there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. "Jewish by religion" as used by www.timesofisrael.com. An interesting article. I suggest you read it. You might learn something. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * AndyTheGrump—you say "And Belfort hasn't declared that he is Jewish by religion." Can you give me an example of someone who has "declared that he is Jewish by religion"? Bus stop (talk) 01:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPCAT is policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * AndyTheGrump—there is nothing wrong with WP:BLPCAT policy. The problem is that you have concocted inapplicable and unworkable criteria ("Jewish by religion") that you are unwilling to discuss. Bus stop (talk) 02:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No. The problem is that you are a tendentious Wikilawyering POV-pusher who refuses to accept that per policy, Wikipedia doesn't lie about people's religious beliefs. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * AndyTheGrump—"Comment on content, not on the contributor." Bus stop (talk) 04:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Unless there is a pressing BLP issue, please continue this discussion on the article's talk page.Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no pressing issue: policy is absolutely clear and unequivocal - and if it is violated in the Jordan Belfort article by any of the participants of this discussion, I will revert the edit - and very likely raise the violation of policy at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Craig J. N. de Paulo


The Craig J. N. de Paulo article appears to have a number of problematic issues. The principal editor of it, Augustinestudent (who is a suspected sockpuppet as investigated here), appears to be very closely associated with de Paulo and only edits on him and pages associated with him, such as his Collegium Augustinianum. There appear to be clear COI and user name issues as well as other possible issues. The de Paulo article and related ones appear to have been created for promotional purposes. I would appreciate some administrators and other experienced editors having a look at these articles and assessing the potential policy issues with them. Thanks, Afterwriting (talk) 04:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your concern, Afterwriting. I am a graduate student in philosophy, and I am very interested in these topics. But, there is an individual who continuously writes slanderous and biased remarks. I think the page should be watch closely! Augustinestudent (talk) 04:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It should also be closely watched for the kinds of issues I originally mentioned. Afterwriting (talk) 04:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Having taken a quick look at this article, there's nothing that seems overtly promotional about the biography, and I feel that it's fairly sensibly written. Could you be a little more specific about your objections?
 * I will note that the sourcing isn't great and relies heavily on primary sources linked to the subject, but there's nothing in it that would seem to violate WP:BLP. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * When the de Paulo article is considered with the articles related to him, especially the Collegium Augustinianum article, being edited by Augustinestudent, it is reasonable to suspect that a promotional agenda is being pursued by this editor. You should also check the sockpuppet investigation link I provided above.  Is there, perhaps, a better place for these issues to be discussed than on this BLP discussion page? Afterwriting (talk) 04:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If you feel like there is overly-promotional material in the article, feel free to remove or rewrite it. If you feel that the article is unsalvageable, you may nominate it for deletion. The best place to discuss specific issues with particular content in an article is the article's own talk page.
 * The only obvious BLP issue I can find in the page history was an unsourced insertion of negative allegations, which has been properly removed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * A little promotional (I removed a few items), but nothing that is concerning that can't be handled by the usual methods. I do question the notability, so perhaps deletion might be the way to go.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit questioning too, but there are a number of dead-tree publications he's responsible for that apparently would clear him through WP:PROF - that's according to DGG, who accepted the article. Whether it's sufficient to pass an AFD muster is another question. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I raised the question on the talk page to have a pre AfD discussion. No BLP issues exist IMO.Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I was asked for an opinion. I think de Paolo will pass AfD as a notable author, 2 of his books are in over 500 libraries, which tho not a formal standards, is an indication. I think the article is a little absurdly promotional, including every possible distinction, down to Honorary Kentucky Colonel, and it is rather vague about the exact nature of the "many professorial appointments "  There's no point using AfD unless it turns out the promotionalism can't be removed otherwise. My first impression about the university is rather similar: appropriate for an article, but in need of even more trimming than most university articles.  It's unfortunate that though we have a simple method of enforcing whether or not to have an article, we have no equally straightforward method of making enforceable decisions about quality. DGG ( talk ) 06:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Dear Afterwriting and other editors, if you notice there has been a great deal of slanderous remarks made on this page, calling the subject a convicted criminal and many subjective, biased comments that even come up today. Augustinestudent (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Antonio Petrus Kalil
Two years ago, this article was stubbifyed as it was considered to be extremely innacurate with several problems in its sources. I personally believe that that sole contributor to the entry has something personal against the subject, as he does not show a neutral point of view. Once again he has rewritten his attacks to Antonio Petrus Kalil and not only are his sources poor, but he actually invents things that are supposedly sourced from his head. As a family member of the subject, I can say that I have been personally affected by the lies posted by user DonCalo in a very negative way. I would like to request that the article would be sent back to the stub and that this used should be banned from editing this entry as he clearly does not have NPOV. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.73.193.83 (talk) 05:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * While I agree the article is a mess and the sourcing is confusing at best, I will note that the BLP policy does not require removing all negative information about a subject. That said, I think that the policy on criminal acts applies: "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person."  I will therefore redirect this article to Jogo do Bicho.  --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I should not have said that before reading the talk page. I see that has been working with, , and  to address these sourcing concerns.  I suggest that you continue the conversation with DonCalo on the article talk page, and I wll see what I contribute there. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * 186.73.193.83 asked me to comment on this. First, I want to clarify that I'm not working on it. There have been repeated claims that the article is a BLP violation, apparently from the subject's family. The sources are in Portuguese and some are behind paywalls. I stubified it in January 2011, after a complaint on RfPP, but it's back. The equivalent article on the Portuguese WP doesn't make the claims that this one does, so I really have no idea what to do with it. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems to me this should be moved to Operation Hurricane (Brazil) and the emphasis on the subject minimized. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

If it can't be verified, then chuck it.Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It would have been appropriate if the main contributor to this article would have been notified that there is a complaint about the article. All information in the article is verifiable through multiple sources, both in English and Portuguese. Most relevant sections from Portuguese sources have been copied in the notes and have been translated into English, both by me as by other users who judges the sources they checked reliable. As far as I can check, all sources are now accessible. I restored the dead links. The fact that the Portuguese article doesn't make the claims that the English version does is no reason to disqualify the article. There are many articles in Portuguese on Portuguese and Brazilian issues that do not have an equivalent to the English ones. That is no reason to start curtailing the English versions, or is it? Every effort has been made to verify the information, and when there is a difference of opinion on the information provided, this can obviously be discussed. That has happened in the past as well. The problem is that User 186.73.193.83 (talk) is deleting complete sections that have been properly referenced. That user has an obvious COI being a member of the Kalil family. - DonCalo (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * DonCalo, in order to save everyone's time as this topic has been overly discussed several years ago, I will just give a brief example of your lack of NPOV. On the first paragraph of one of your most recent edits you mention the following statement… "On March 13, 2012, he was sentenced to 48 years in prison and a fine of BRL 11 million (about USD 6 million) for formation of armed gangs, money laundering, smuggling and corruption.[5]". I have asked you a couple of times on the talk page where or how could you possibly get this kind of information from the reference posted but you decided to ignore my questioning. Maybe this noticeboard might have a better chance then the one I had earlier.
 * Regarding being a family member of Kalil, I don't believe this affects my credibility, since I am not writing any of the things that I know in first hand just because I do not have the proper news references for it. If anyone seems to have something personal agains Mr. Kalil, it seem to be yourself with your constant personal attacks over the past years. 186.73.193.83 (talk) 14:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * On your request this has been changed into: "On March 13, 2012, he was sentenced to 48 years in prison and a fine of BRL 11 million (about USD 6 million) for conspiracy and corruption". The original was based on a AFP article that mentioned "formation de bande armée, blanchiment d'argent, contrebande et corruption". However, apparently not all these crimes could be linked to Kalil, so this has been corrected. Regarding your relation with the Kalil family it is true you don't write anything on the subject, for obvious reasons, but you try to delete everything that is not in the family's interests, despite the numerous reliable sources. I am not involved in any personal attacks, I just inform people on a quite well-known person in Rio de Janeiro/Niteroi linked to its famous carnival and rather infamous but very popular illegal lottery, who happens to be convicted twice for his involvement with the illegal game. - DonCalo (talk) 15:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Once again your argument just shows how your bad intentions are. For starters, this was not the article you credited as a source for the statement, besides, nowhere in this article it states that that Kalil was convicted or even accused of those crimes. It mentioned an event that included other 24 people. If you personally think that Kalil was involved in this sort of crimes but "could not be linked to them", it is a free country and you are entitled to your own opinion at any bar conversation, but fortunately a wikipedia entry is not based on opinions. The original source you mentioned http://oglobo.globo.com/rio/os-23-condenados-na-operacao-hurricane-seus-crimes-penas-4301901 is quite clear on what the sentences are for each of the accused so I still do not understand why and how could you get this information somewhere else, unless you have any other personal motive. Also, regarding the sentence, as you are so interested in the case and Brazilian legislation, I am sure you are aware that no one is considered guilty in this country until there is a proof and final decision by a higher court. Kalil is currently appealing to the sentence in liberty and has the same rights of any free man or woman, just like you. 186.73.193.83 (talk) 16:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * This has already been ressolved. - DonCalo (talk) 13:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

DonCalo, Moving forward with your biased content an still keeping on the first paragraph alone: Can you please point out on the references where did these statements come from " In April 2007, he was charged again for involvement with the illegal lottery, as well as bingo parlours and the distribution of slot machines.[4]"? on the two references you present, for this statement, one is from 1993 and does not even mention Kalil, the other one only mentions he was arrested on an event that included 23 other men, but nowhere mentions why and what he was charged for. Why are you making up so much stuff? You clearly do not have any moral grounds to write about this man. 186.73.193.83 (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Both sources are from April 2007 and both concern the same event. One does not mention Kalil, the other does. In combination they provide reliable information. I will add more Portugues sources, for your convenience. - DonCalo (talk) 13:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * DonCalo, the problem is that we can't easily check the article, because there appear to be no English-language sources, and some of the Portuguese ones are behind a paywall. With a BLP that makes serious allegations, that is a very big problem. Perhaps you could create this instead on the Portuguese Wikipedia, where other editors can check it, and where the subject has more notability. Then, if it's deemed by the Portuguese WP to be okay, perhaps it could be translated back here. I'm pinging, who I believe is fluent in Portuguese, in case he has any advice about the content. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Which articles are behind a paywall? I cannot find any, but maybe I am overlooking one. I don't see why it has to be published on the Portuguese Wikipedia first. Can you point out the rationale for your suggestion in the Wikipedia policies? Relevant sections of the sources are translated in English. - DonCalo (talk) 13:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * There is no policy that says it should be posted first on the Portuguese Wikipedia, but that makes the most sense, because there is no notability in English-language sources. It would be like posting Death of Ian Tomlinson on the Portuguese Wikipedia, but not here. If it's on the Portuguese Wikipedia, there are people there who can easily check the Portuguese sources, and who will know how high-quality they are.


 * As for paywalls, when I wrote that the first footnote said "subscription required." SlimVirgin (talk) 17:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Slim, the problem is that the personal attacks happen even when the sources are in english, where he takes things completely out of context, the example I gave of " In April 2007, he was charged again for involvement with the illegal lottery, as well as bingo parlours and the distribution of slot machines.[4]" both have english sources, but neither mention any of the alegations made by DonCalo186.73.193.83 (talk) 00:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The AP source clearly says: "24 people arrested for alleged involvement with illegal numbers games, bingo parlors and the distribution of slot machines, police said in a statement." The other source says that Kalil was among them, but as I said above, I will also provide sources in Portuguese. For your convenience I now changed the sentence in: In April 2007, he was among 24 people charged for involvement with the illegal lottery, as well as bingo parlours and the distribution of slot machines. - DonCalo (talk) 13:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * This is getting ridiculous. It looks like were on another trial and DonCalo feels he is a Supreme Court judge who knows above all. For starters Im glad you had at least the decency in adding an article that resembles to your statement, but you changing the context of an article making someone the topic for a whole event. Are you going to write 24 entries for each of the persons charged? As much as you like to generalize and take things out of context, I would suggest that if you are so interested in writing about operation hurricane, you should write about the event itself with proper references and not generalizing. Please refrain from the personal attacks, you are clearly showing bad faith against this man as you have been for the past two years. This is not a question of convenience Don, no one here wants to waste their time in this discussion that is not adding anything productive anywhere. You act as if you own an encyclopedia entry about a living man! You do not care at all about the consequences that your lies affect to the lives of his family, real people in the real world. This man was acquitted from all accusations while appealing on the 90's and is still appealing IN LIBERTY to the sentence from 2012. If Brazilian justice has not formed a definite opinion on the case, why do YOU feel like you can take this liberty?
 * On your entry you claim to him charges that were actually to other people (as per the example above), you asociate him to the death of 53 people! Mass murder is a serious crime in Brazil and in most countries in the world! How can a man not even get away with that? You claim his involvement on another murder in the 80s as well but then mention it is unresolved! How can YOU claim an supposedly unsresolved murder 30 years ago to someone? You mention he has a casino in Paraguay, what casino would that be? You mention that his sons inherited illegal gambling sites due to an alleged testament, how can they have inherited something if he is still alive? Why weren't they charged for it if it is illegal? These are just a few examples of how biased your entry has been throughout the past years. Filled with lies and attacks. It was stubbified two years ago exactly for this reason, and you pretty much rewrote the same article, the sole interested contributor as this man does not even have enough relevance in the english speaking world (None english of the articles were written about him, they only mention him in passing for participating in the event that took place, and not even all of them mention him).
 * If you personally do not like this man, it is your own right. If you have a bad opinion about him, you are entitled to your opionion. You are even free to open a blog and write about YOUR OWN opinions. Now you should not use the wikipedia to try to get credibility for YOUR PERSONAL OPINIONS AND ATTACKS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.73.193.83 (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I am sorry but everything in the article is backed by reliable and verifiable sources. I understand you feel angry about this, but he is convicted twice. The fact that he has appealed does not mean that the current conviction does not stand. If you have information from reliable and verifiable sources that proove otherwise, please provide them and I will be happy to include them in the article. I would also appreciate if you would keep this conversation as civil as possible and stop accusing me of personally attacking Mr. Kalil, although I understand that this affects you emotionally. Thank you. - DonCalo (talk) 16:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

DonCalo, could you post the source for each of the following, along with what the source says about the subject (in English), please?


 * 1) "In April 2007, he was among 24 people charged for involvement with the illegal lottery, as well as bingo parlours and the distribution of slot machines" (The first source doesn't mention him and says the group was arrested, not charged; the second source is a Chinese news agency (why?) and also says arrested).
 * 2) "According to the newspaper O Globo, 53 deaths could be attributed to the association" (and is O Globo the only source for this?).

Also, if any of the sources are tabloid newspapers, that material has to be removed or re-sourced. See WP:BLPSOURCES: "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism." I would also suggest removing the claims about the named sons. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Draft namespace suggestion
We have a new draft namespace (e.g. Draft:Antonio Petrus Kalil). It's there for people who want to work on drafts together, and the articles don't show up on Google searches. Perhaps a good compromise would be to move the article to the draft namespace, and for DonCalo and 186.73.193.83 to work together to make sure every sentence is sourced according to BLP. When it's finished, we can move it back.

If there are sticking points, we could look for a third party who speaks Portuguese and is familiar with the policies to act as a mediator. Would something like that work? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I can compromise with that just like I did two years ago when the entry was moved back to a stub due to several reasons like the ones we have again now. I just hope DonCalo will stop with his personal attacks as he did not do that after the past argument 2 years ago. 186.73.193.83 (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I've retrieved this from the archive as it's still unresolved. Also noting that I've been pinged again about it, and have left a note for  asking him to respond here.  Also pinging, who nominated the article for deletion in 2009 because of BLP issues, and , the closing admin. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * While we're waiting for a resolution, I've removed some of the content about family members and one of the disputed claims. I can't comment on the accuracy, but I can't read the sources or judge their quality. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Lack of linguistic competence is a basis for editing an article? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Um -- I seem to have a problem following your logic. If a person can not readily verify the claims, and where the claims are intrinsically contentious, then the current sourcing does not meet the requirements of WP:BLP.   I am, moreover, pretty sure that claims that a person engages in illegal enterprises  fall under the "contentious claims" rules of WP:BLP.  Personally, 80% of the article should be simply stricken.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The subject's family has been complaining about this article since 2009, so I've taken it back to a stub and added indefinite full protection. I'd forgotten that moved the article in 2010 to Talk:Antonio Petrus Kalil/draft, so that's the best place for  and, the complainant, to work on it. I've left a note to that effect on DonCalo's talk page. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

hu.wikipedia

 * .jpg (left to right) Udo Kier, Weöres Sandor, Patricia Adriani, and Gábor Bódy - hu.wikipedia.org How would I add this image to Gábor Bódy and es:Patricia Adriani -- i.e.: add a hu. image to an en. page and an es. page. Can you wiki-link from an en. page to a es. page ? Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 23:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The image only exists in the Hungarian Wikipedia, not Commons, so you cannot link to it from any other project article space. Now, it seems to have an OTRS permission but I'm not entirely sure it could be moved to Commons on that basis, since I'm unsure about copyrights in Hungary or under what legal assumptions they work. Your best bet is to ask in the OTRS noticeboard and see if someone there can help you. In any case, you'll either have to move it to Commons, or upload it to any other project (es or en) where you wish to use it. Cross-project image linking doesn't work. § FreeRangeFrog croak 22:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Gerry Gable
I posted his correct date of birth - January 22, 1937 - together with a link to his birth certificate. Instead of being added, this information has been deleted.

Over the years I have published a lot of verifiable information about this man, including the libel action he lost to Morris Riley. A scan of the court order can be found on my website. Why is all this deleted automatically? Are you in his pocket or something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.101.178 (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The sources you describe are primary sources. Wikipedia is built in secondary sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Leah Vincent
This article and its talk page have been the centre of an editing dispute today between two IPs, concerning a range of aspects from this person's correct name to her sex life.

The current state of play is that the main article has been semi-protected, with contentious material removed; the talk page still contains material which is under dispute about this person's past. There are several sources but it now emerges that they might all be syndications of a single article; and also there's a claim that the person who added those comments published them to damage Leah Vincent's reputation, a common occurrence when one leaves the insular ultra-orthodox community.

Could someone with experience check this over? Also, even if disputed / poorly sourced material is removed from the talk page, it'll remain in both the talk and main pages' histories, so in some sense it's "still there".

Many thanks. Nick Levine (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, I've removed some posts from the talk page, and also her supposed surname and date of birth from the first sentence as I couldn't see them in the sources. If you think something should be revdeleted, it would help if you could specify which revisions need to be hidden. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I've revdeleted the article edits and talk-page posts from the IP you were reverting. If I've missed anything please give me a shout. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Many thanks! Nick Levine (talk) 06:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Arvind Kejriwal
The current chief minister of Delhi, Arvind Kejriwal, is described as an Anarchist on the basis of a news item. He used the phrase "Yes, I am an Anarchist" as a rhetoric, but he does not actually support the ideology of anarchism. I think the news item, if at all it should be mentioned, should be represented in a more responsible way. --Rahul (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Narendra Bhati
Narendra Bhati has been 3 times MLA from western UP. Currently he is minister and Agro chairman in Akhilesh Yadav's SP government and is well knows secular leader in western Utter Pradesh.

He was in news in 2013 when an IAS officer Nagpal was suspended over her decision to raze a boundary wall of a mosque in the month of Ramzan Prayers, Initially this mosque was built by Narendra Bhati. He is well known for being a secular and a firm believer of democracy. CM Akhilesh Yadav defended his government's decision to suspend Nagpal, claiming her action of demolishing the wall of a religious structure in Kadalpur village could have led to communal tensions and riots in Utter Pradesh.

Narendra Bhati is SP party candidate from Noida for the forthcoming Lok Sabha polls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garytab (talk • contribs) 19:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Tom DeLonge
All versions since this one on 9 January include what purports to be the subject's home residence address. Request revdel of all intervening versions, all of which were vandalism. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:100;"><font color="#006633">Dwpaul <font color="#000666">Talk   01:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, that's done. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Pete Seeger
There's been a couple of updates today saying that Pete Seeger has died, the first unsourced, the second claiming "date of death per Hudson Valley Reporter feed" in an edit summary, but without a link. I couldn't connect to the "Hudson Valley Reporter". I've reverted both, suggesting we await more mainstream sourcing. HiLo48 (talk) 06:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow. He's been a great performer and cultural icon.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * His death has now been confirmed by the NYT: . AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah. I'll accept that. HiLo48 (talk) 06:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Lukas Jutkiewicz
Lukas Jutkiewicz

Not a violation but the infobox on this page is showing as code. I would fix this but do not know how. I thought i would bring it to your attention.

Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.207.193.227 (talk) 11:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this to our attention, I have fixed it. GiantSnowman 11:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Matt Schultz
Silly season starts early due to cold weather? In any case, we even have one editor calling the Iowa Secretary of State's official website "Schultz's website" etc. along with pretty blatant campaign rhetoric. Eyes on this "silly season" BLP are welcomed. Collect (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have a cold due the cold, but I'll be watching that :) § FreeRangeFrog croak 22:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Cathy McMorris Rodgers
The biography of Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Republican representative from Washington who is delivering the response to President Obama's state of the union, has been amended to portray her in a negative light. I will highlight the following examples:

1. Example 1: "According to The Chronicle of Higher Education, Pensacola Christian College is "one of the strictest" schools in the country and since its founding was unaccredited until it changed policies and in 2013 received national accreditation from Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools.[4][5] "  ... This is a very negative, unbalanced way to describe the college that she attended and completely unrelated to Rep Rodgers. One could just as easily have found another citation saying what a great college Pensacola College is. I suggest that this be deleted.

2. Example 2: " While a young legislator, she made news for bills ending "art funding for new schools and prisons"[9] and cutting "about $70 million a year set aside to buy the wildlife habitat of endangered species."[10] In addition, she supported a bill "that would restore the right to own guns to people who have committed crimes that include stalking a stranger, threatening a loved one and repeat drunken driving."[11]"  Again, this is a complete distortion of the purpose of the legislation that she sponsored. It may be fair to say that she voted to protect the right to own guns, but to say that it was for people who have committed crimes and threatened loved ones is not balanced.

3. Example 3: "In March 2013, McMorris Rodgers did not support the continuation of the 1994 Violence Against Women Act, but "was prime sponsor of a watered-down GOP alternative to the strengthened, Senate-passed legislation."[26][27] Ultimately, her bill failed and House adopted the Senate version of the bill.[26] In late 2013, she wrote a letter blasting Democrats and accusing them of being "openly hostile to American values and the Constitution" and citing the Affordable Care Act and immigration as evidence that President Obama "rule[s] by decree."[28] In her position as Chair, she blamed the Affordable Care Act for causing unemployment and when FactCheck.org reported studies that proved the opposite and asked her office for evidence to support her claims, "McMorris Rodgers’ office got back to us not with an answer, but with a question."[29]" Another very biased statement about her political views. There are two sides to her views and this is certainly not a balanced summary of her views.

In short, I am concerned that opponents of Rep Rodgers have slipped in several misleading statements producing a very unbalanced portrait. I appreciate your attention to my concern and appreciate the great job that Wikipedia does for our society.

Thanks for reading my note! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.187.111 (talk) 02:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with example 1, but have yet to go thrgh the others in any detail yet. Mentioning the accreditation, or lack thereof without a source making note of this appears to cast Rodgers in a negative light. I have removed this info twice, but will not do so a third time. I would appreciate others looking into this. Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Accreditation is the single most important issue for a school. It is worth noting that such mentions have been white washed by Washington DC IPs and Washington state government IPs. See Talk:Cathy_McMorris_Rodgers. This white washing has go on for years and has not been stopped in any way. RobinBnn (talk) 05:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Example one seems well-sourced and fairly worded. To me, the issue is one of relevance, and I don't see how the particulars of the school accreditation are relevant unless we have a secondary source that says so.  Example two and three have the opposite problem. The material is very relevant and fair game, but poorly and non neutrally worded, especially that horrible bit about "stalking a stranger, threatening a loved one", which I have replaced with the legal terms for the relevant crimes.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 05:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Seán FitzPatrick open criminal cases
The Seán FitzPatrick article seems to be a tangled messed of untried criminal charges. While the main reason for notability seems to be this individual's criminal charges, this requires either untangling, updating, or deleting the relevant sections ("Arrests" and "Irish Life and Permanent transaction 2008", and perhaps "Resignation") to avoid misleading readers. I would appreciate involvement of an additional editor. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

John A. Shaw‎
I removed some obvious coatracking, but do not have time to fully review this right now. If someone else could take a look and help keep an eye on it, would be appreciated. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Charlie Clemmow
I recently attempted to remove some unneccessary information on a page attributed to Charlie Clemmow. I felt that it was unneccessary information on a minor actress, and felt as if it was written either by the actress herself, or a close associate of hers. My amendments were removed by a bot, as vandalism, yet I was trying to keep the page as close to facts and streamlined as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Velvetsa (talk • contribs) 14:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's probably because your account is relatively new, or maybe it didn't like your edit summary. I tagged it as relying too heavily on a single source, but rather than remove the information perhaps it would be better if additional sources could be found for it. § FreeRangeFrog croak 20:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Barry Ritholtz
The criticisms section of Barry Ritholtz's page is entirely unsourced and contentious. Per BLP rules, I believe it should be removed. I work for Rubenstein Communications and to mitigate conflict of interest issues, I ask that an editor review that section and edit as they see fit. NinaSpezz (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Removed, as wholly unsourced controversial information. Thanks for letting us know. § FreeRangeFrog croak 20:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Question posted on the Humanities Reference Desk deleted as a BLP violation
Hello. I posted a question on the Humanities Reference Desk. Some editor (User:Nil Einne) keeps deleting it, claiming that it is a BLP violation. I don't understand the BLP violation. I believe that the editor is imputing his/her own "reading" and/or "interpretation" into the question. For me, it's simply a generic question about which I am interested. Please advise. Thanks. This is the question (below, the entire italicized material). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Duties of Secretary of State in the USA


 * I have a factual question about the duties of the Secretary of State in the USA. Maybe someone can clarify.  Is it possible that a Secretary of State, during his entire tenure, never once send or receive classified emails whatsoever?  (This question is, obviously, limited to the recent era during which the technology of email even "exists").   When it comes to highly sensitive material, do they use other forms of communication (e.g., telephone) in lieu of email?  Does the job of Secretary of State not get too involved in classified matters?   Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 *  Addendum. Some editor has stated that this question is a BLP violation.  Which I do not understand.  In any event, I am making it clear that this is a generic question.  It is not about any specific individual who held the post of Secretary of State.  Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that is not a BLP violation. It may have the subtle appearance of trolling, but certainly not a violation of any policy that I'm aware of.- MrX 03:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Well, different people obviously see it differently.  So, how do I post that question back up on the Reference Desk, without User:Nil Einne removing it (yet again)?   Thanks.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hold on. Did you just misrepresent the situation? The question that you asked at the reference desk is different that the generic one that posted here. What's up with that? - MrX 04:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, he misrepresented the situation. The refdesk question begins "I have a factual question about the Hillary Clinton email controversy", while above, he says "this is not about any specific individual." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That's shameful. - MrX 04:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Not true. I posted two questions.  (#1) I  posted a question about Hillary Clinton.  I was told that that was a BLP violation.  Fine, I accepted that (in fact, anticipated it).  So (#2) I then posted a generic question.  I want the answer to the generic question, regardless of who the individual in the position is.  The question has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton.  It was the Hillary Clinton controversy that prompted me to think of that question, in generic terms, with any individual.  What exactly is shameful about that?  And my italicized question quoted above is a direct "copy and paste" from the question posted on the Reference Desk.  I don't know the technological (computer) steps as to how to show (here) old posts that have been removed. (I think they are called "diffs"?)  So, I simply did a copy and paste of the exact question.  So, actually, and in fact, User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris (and MrX) are 100% misrepresenting the situation.  They are referring to my first post (the one that I did not object to its removal).  I am referring to my second question.  So, Short Brigade Harvester Boris (and MrX) 100% misrepresent the situation, and Mr. X calls me shameful?  You cant' make this stuff up.  Everyone go back and look at the history of the Reference Help Desk page.  All of the facts are there.  It would be pretty hard to misrepresent the facts when every single keystroke in Wikipedia is: (A) recorded; and (B) available for all to see.  No?  You will clearly see in that Edit History Page (in black and white) that what I have stated above is 100% true.  I have not misrepresented anything whatsoever.  And you will see the evidence (in black and white) that, in fact, Short Brigade Harvester Boris (and MrX) misrepresented the facts.  So, please check the edit history of that page.  And let me know. Get back to me about that.  And, don't jump to conclusions without knowing all the facts.  Don't jump on bandwagons.  Don't accuse others of misrepresentation, when that is exactly what you are doing.   That's "shameful".   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Regardless of whether the question relates to a specific individual, it isn't an appropriate question for a reference desk - it is asking us to speculate on which if any statements are true, when we are in no position to provide a sourced answer. 04:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Question 1: Is it possible (i.e., likely) that a Secretary of State, during his entire tenure, would never once send or receive classified emails whatsoever? Question 2:  When it comes to highly sensitive material, do they (Secretaries of State) use other forms of communication (e.g., telephone) in lieu of email?  Question 3:  Does the job of Secretary of State not get too involved in classified matters?   (A) How exactly are those BLP violations?  (B) And how are they not appropriate for the Help Desk?  (C) How do they invoke speculation?  Please advise.  And, to boot, I added the very specific caveat: "I am making it clear that this is a generic question.  It is not about any specific individual who held the post of Secretary of State."   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Asking whether something for which we have no verifiable source is 'likely' is a request for speculation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, let's say that is true. (A) That aside, how about the other two questions?  (B)  Where is the BLP?  Thanks!   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * For the avoidance of doubt, JAS is correct that they asked two seperate question, both of which I deleted. One of them specifically referred to Clinton, the other didn't. Weirdly, they didn't delete or even close the first question after adding the second which may be the cause of some confusion [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&diff=680148221&oldid=680147836] and I didn't notice the second question at first so deleted them separately. I also made a mistake and deleted only one of their comments rather then the whole question which didn't refer to Clinton once.
 * First, there are alternatives to general email used by the US government which are sometimes called private or secured email which may use specialised email protocols but operate on secured private networks and which can be used to send classified information. I've given JAS multiple opportunities to clarify that they are referring to these alternative messaging systems and they haven't so I can only assume they are referring to general email for which it's illegal or unethical to send classified information as per the source I initially provided. (This source also basically answers JAS's question of what they are supposed to use to send classified information, namely these secured electronic messaging systems along with secured fax and phone lines, as well as the obvious person to person contact and passing of documents.)
 * Anyway, as I have explained directly to JAS on their talk page and also at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk, the big problem is that they aren't satisfied with the simple answer. Namely that since it's either unethical or illegal in the US to send any classified information by email, Secretaries of State should theoretically in fact send and receive precisely zero classified emails.
 * This may not happen in practice, but it's impossible to us to guess how many Secretaries of State are unethical or break the law by doing something they shouldn't. (If it's just receiving it may not be their fault, but it still shouldn't have happened.) In fact, since there have only been perhaps 6 Secretaries of State (discounting the one acting for a day) since early 1993 (see List of Secretaries of State of the United States) we're actually talking about a very small number of people. So even ignoring Clinton, it's fairly problematic to discuss how likely it is they engaged in unethical or illegal conduct by emailing stuff they weren't supposed to.
 * Practically, the complexities of classification mean it's perhaps easy to unintentionally break the law/ethics of office by sending classified information which you didn't realised was classified, by email. But e ven if when it's done unintentionally people may feel it isn't so bad, we're still basically speculating on unethical or illegal behaviour, and we also get in to complexities like how had someone tried to avoid doing so. (From what I've read, some people therefore used the specialised systems to send most messages, but this seems to depend on precisely who. The military or at least those in the field seem to do this a lot more, perhaps because they are often using computers which can access these networks, whereas other branches of the government less so, perhaps because they want to use their smart phones, home computer etc. Some people even mark as secret everything sent via the secured system, even stuff where there's no reason.)
 * Nil Einne (talk) 05:50, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * And why can't an answer like yours above be posted on a Help Desk? Why can't the question-asker (me) get input from others, too, on the topic?  Why just your reply, no one else's is allowed, and even that gets deleted?   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:53, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * And you still have not answered: Question 2: When it comes to highly sensitive material, do they (Secretaries of State) use other forms of communication (e.g., telephone) in lieu of email? Question 3: Does the job of Secretary of State not get too involved in classified matters? (A) How exactly are those BLP violations? (B) And how are they not appropriate for the Help Desk? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I clarified my wording a bit [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=680176812&oldid=680176750].
 * I take it you mean the RD. Anyway, as I've repeatedly said, I already basically provided the above answer on the RD but you rejected it. In fact, you kept insisting I wasn't answering your question, even though I gave you this same answer, and clarified multiple times in multiple places in case you didn't understand what I was saying after you kept complaining. It seemed apparent then that you weren't satisfied with the answer namely that it shouldn't actually happen at all (i.e. the likelihood of them sending classified info by email should be zero). So it seems that you want us to speculate on how often people do actually engage in these illegal or unethical behaviours, which isn't something for the RD even ignoring the BLP problem of us basically referring to 6 people engaging in these illegal or unethical behaviour. If this isn't what you want, you will need to clarify what you actually want and why you aren't satisfied with the simple answer, which you haven't done despite multiple explanations of what my answer was, and why asking us to say anything more was problematic.
 * As for the other questions. Question 2 was already answered by the source (and also above albeit only after one of my edits), they are supposed to use these secured messaging systems, along with secured phones and secured faxes. And also direct person to person contact or passing of documents, although this isn't directly stated in the source. Note it's a reference desk, not an answer desk, so my assumption as with many other people will always be that people are going to read the sources provided. As to the last question, it may or may not be fine, but your other question is still problematic for the reason highlighted above so as long as you insist on adding the other question along with it, we have a problem.
 * Nil Einne (talk) 06:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't understand one word you are saying. You are saying that you answered the question on the RD.  I assume that implies that the question is appropriate for an RD.  So why is your answer deleted (along with my question)?  Why is no one else "allowed" to offer their input alongside your answer? So, this is the process.  It's your answer only; I must accept that answer; and no one else is allowed to answer. Is that the process you have proposed?  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * And you are taking quite a few leaps at "reading into" my intentions, motivations, what I am/am not satisfied with, what is "apparent" to you; what "seems" to you, etc.. Unreal.  You are God himself here on Wikipedia?  You seem to fancy yourself quite omniscient, no?   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * If you are willing to accept a simple answer namely that Secretaries of State shouldn't send or receive any classified information by (regular) email then yes your question was fine. But I already provided this answer. Multiple people can provide this answer if you desire, but for BLP reasons and RD policy, they can only give you the same answer since they are forbidden on speculating on the likelihood a select group of Secretaries of State engaged in unethical or illegal activity. What this means is there was therefore nothing more to answer with that specific question, unless you actually wanted us to discuss stuff which wasn't appropriate for the RD (or wikipedia in general). Perhaps your additional question on "Does the job of Secretary of State not get too involved in classified matters" hadn't been answered (although IMO the source I provided does answer it, namely they do get involve in classified matters). But you rejected this simple answer [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&diff=680148687&oldid=680148667] outright. You didn't seek clarification on the addition questions which you felt hadn't been answered or ask for further explanation. This seemed to imply you wanted more and this pushed your question from the acceptable category to the unacceptable one so I deleted the question. In case there was any confusion, I later provided an explanation at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk on why I deleted the thread, which also explained what my answer was, and why your question clearly became a problem once you rejected the simple answer. To put it a different way, your question was borderline acceptable (albeit perhaps poorly worded). If you were fine with keeping it to the right side of the border, then yes may be it would have been okay. Once you pushed it to the wrong side of the border, no it wasn't acceptable. Nil Einne (talk) 06:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Once again:  So, this is the process.  It's your answer only; I must accept that answer; and no one else is allowed to answer. Is that the process you have proposed?  So, you have all the answers.  I must accept them, because you say so.  No one else is allowed any input whatsoever.  Unreal.  Unreal.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * You have a pretty high opinion of yourself, it seems. Again, you must be the God of Wikipedia. I never got that memo.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No. What I said is that part of the question were very borderline and most possible answers are not allowed on the RD or wikipedia per our BLP policy (and others). If you want the acceptable answers, that's fine. But since it appears you instead want the answers which are on the unacceptable line of the border, answers which would require us to speculate on a very select group of people engaging in illegal or unethical activity, then it's not fine. As many people as want to can answer the first part of your question, but they will be providing very similar answers if they're sticking to policy. Unfortunately history has shown people (including me) can very easily cross over policy, so the question was best deleted once it became clear you wanted answers which weren't allowed by policy. Nil Einne (talk) 06:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * (EC) As for your comment of "reading into", since this is a discussion surrounding a question and what happened after and why, I feel it's appropriate that I explain what I did, and why I did it. By doing so, it's easy for you to clarify or explain if I was mistaken or misunderstood something. If for example, you don't want people to speculate on the likelihood of a select group of Secretaries of State engaging in illegal or unethical behaviour,, it would be helpful if you'd explain what you're actually trying to ask, and why my answer didn't answer your question (which you told me multiple times). If you don't want to do this, that's you choice but ultimately unless people understand what you're actually trying to ask, we're not going to be able to help you word an acceptable question or alternatively properly explain why what you're trying to ask is a problem. Nil Einne (talk) 06:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * But since it appears you instead want the answers which are on the unacceptable line of the border (speculating on people engaging in illegal or unethical activity), then it's not fine. How the FUCK do you know what I want? How the FUCK do you know how things "appear" ?  Who the FUCK do you think you are?  You know what?  FUCK YOU.  FUCK YOU.  FUCK YOU.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Since your comments seem to indicate to me you are very unhappy, I won't be replying further. Feel free to ping me if you feel like continuing this discussion further at some stage. I'm sorry for any part I had causing your current feelings. And I apologise if I have instead misunderstood how you are feeling. Nil Einne (talk) 07:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Ahmed Mohamed clock incident
In Ahmed Mohamed clock incident, sources uses the colloguial term of "arrest" for when Ahmed was taken into custody. texas law and the Attorney general make clear that 10-14 year olds are not arrested and if asked they can truthfully answer "No" to the question have "Have you ever been arrested?" In addition, all records of custody including photographs and fingerprints have been destroyed as no further proceeding have occured. Since "arrest" has real-world implications for future jobs and the eternal nature of wikipedia, it my position we should use "taken into custody" so as not to contradict his possible future answers on job apllications and what not. Those arguing that it should be "arrest" in wikipedia's voice seem to agree that "taken into custody" is equivalent to "arrest." It seems we should err on the side of caution and attribute the word "arrest" to the source, and in Wikipedia's voice only use "taken into custody" because of the above mentioned concerned. --DHeyward (talk) 15:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The relevant detail to support "taken into custody" is provided by the Texas Attorney general interpreting the laws of Texas here. On page 6 in the section called "Taking a Child into Custody" where it explains the terminology. I have yet to see an argument from those advocating "arrest" that "taken into custody" is different than "arrest" but I very clearly see the AG stating that "taken into custody" allows juveniles to later state they were not arrested.  It seems obvious when given the choice between to colloquially identical terms, we should use the one with least harm.  --DHeyward (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Notwithstanding the nuances of Texas law as it pertains to juveniles, all the sources covering the incident, including LA Times, NYT, WaPo, CNN, ABC, CBS, The Guardian, and many others, describe the incident in the context of an "arrest", i.e. Arrest, when used in its ordinary and natural sense, means the apprehension of a person or the deprivation of a person's liberty . DHeyward is arguing for the application of Original research, and asks us to dismiss the overwhelming number of sources that describe the arrest of the 14-year old in non-ambiguous terms. As for the concern of "harm for future jobs", Ahmed Mohamed will always be known as the 14-year old that got arrested by bringing a clock to school, given the massive coverage of the incident and the use of the term "arrest". -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * in addition to the first class sources from around the world, the TEXAS sources use "arrest" to describe what happened. Houston Chronicle: "The 14-year-old Irving ISD student was arrested. " Dallas Morning News: "Irving’s police chief announced Wednesday that charges won’t be filed against Ahmed Mohamed, the MacArthur High School freshman arrested Monday after he brought " Austin Statesman: "Irving police arrested MacArthur High School freshman " El Paso Times :A 14-year-old Muslim boy has been arrested in North Texas.  If there were in fact any peculiar Texan distinction between police officers dragging a 14-year-old in handcuffs to the police station from "arrest" they would know. We do not utilize WP:EUPHEMISMs or WP:JARGON. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources overwhelmingly refer to the action/event in question as an "arrest," and so should wikipedia. The argument that RS are wrong because a particularly narrow interpretation of what "arrest" means (and of Texas law) suggests that he wasn't "really" arrested is WP:OR, as far as I can tell. And it contradicts the vast majority of RS on the subject. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This *is* an encyclopedia, there is nothing preventing us from describing it as an arrest (as that is what the reliable sources use) and also pointing out the Texas law enforcement opinion on it. Its certainly interesting that someone 'arrested' by any common usage of the word can reply that they havnt. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Referring to Texas Law, when there are no sources discussing to that law in the context of the incident, would be a violation of WP:NOR. Now, if sources emerge that make that connection, we can surely add a mention if and when that happen. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If it's obvious that reliable sources are fudging things and that there is potential harm to a 14-year-old child, then I agree we should err on the side of caution. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What harm are you referring to? This kid is now a media sensation because of this incident. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no 'harm' in stating he was arrested, since that is what happened and that is what reliable sources have reported. The harm was the reaction to the kid, not the reporting of that action. This is just a smokescreen by DH. It's original research and synthesis. Not some altruistic way to protect the kid. Dave Dial (talk) 16:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldnt even say fudging to be honest. The main issue would be that in many jurisdictions being taken into custody is an arrest. That it is not necessarily in Texas is unlikely to cross the UK Guardian editor's mind. If the police put handcuffs on you, take you to a police station and lock you in a cell, you have been arrested by any common language definition. That you might not officially been 'under arrest' is a minor point. But to be honest, all this rubbish would be resolved if the damn article had been deleted as a clear BLP1E like it should be. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I offer no opinion on the substance of the matter because I've commented on related disputes as an uninvovled admin (though I agree that deletion would have been in the best interests of the project), but just FYI, one can be 'detained' by police in the UK (for example to be searched for drugs)—a process that can involve handcuffs and being taken to a police station and placed in a cell, but which does not necessarily involve formal arrest (so the detained person could be released if found not to have drugs, and there would be no record of them having been arrested). Just food for thought; I don't know (and am not particularly interested in) whether "arrest" is the appropriate term here. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  16:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , that is what happened to this fellow...legally he was detained is all. I don't have any rationale to not use reliable sources which refer to this as an arrest, but it should be clarified as to what that terminology means under Texas law if reliable sources discuss this matter.--MONGO 04:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It is false that no other sources refer to it as "taken into custody." The police press release scrupulously follows the Texas AG guidance.  There is no police report or release that refers to an "arrest."  That is not political, it is the law.  It is not a rare occurrence that breaking news misses the details that would be provided in a refereed journal.  All of the sources of news are "primary sources" under the guidance of using breaking news coverage.  Once the police press release came out, the language used there should be used in the article as it is the most accurate of all the primary sources and has the backing of the secondary source of the AG's interpretation of Texas Juvenile law.  Don't defame and libel him by saying he was arrested.  He was not.  --DHeyward (talk) 04:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

It may be worth noting that the news media in Texas regularly applies the term "arrested" to people who are the same age (and who aren't Mohamed). See: for a few examples. Even if it's not technically an arrest, "arrest" appears to be common parlance, even in Texas, for what happens when the police take a 14-year-old "into custody." Fyddlestix (talk) 16:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is colloquially an arrest. There is no colloquial distinction between "taken into custody" and "arrested."  If we want to get even more technical, it's a "seizure" within the meaning of the fourth amendment.  The point though is that is no colloquial difference between "taken into custody" and "arrest."  Wikipedia can use either term and it has the same colloquial meaning. No one has argued that "taken into custody" is different from the word "arrest."  They are colloquial synonyms.  However, in a legal context, they are different in Texas law as applied to juveniles.  Just as the offence that predicated taking into custody is "hoax bomb", the charge would be "delinquency" in juvenile court.  In 20 years when the news has long faded, and Ahmed applies for a job and the question "Have you been arrested?" comes up, we should not be in disagreement with that answer.  More to the point, if they toss his application in the bin for lying because Wikipedia has dead link sources to his "arrest" we are doing him a great disservice.  I think everyone agrees that "taken into custody" is a an acceptable descriptor of the action by police.  But not everyone agrees that "arrested" is okay to use in this case.  Choosing "taken into custody" doesn't change the nature.  He was taken into custody, put in handcuffs and transported to a juvenile detention facitlity.  That is just as accurate as "arrested".  as an aside, the software police use for writing reports in Texas does not allow the word "arrest" for disposition of 10-14 year olds that are taken into custody, only adults are "arrested."  That's personal knowledge though but the distinction is real in legal documents just as "delinquency" charges instead of criminal charges is real.  It doesn't hurt the article or change its meaning to use "taken into custody."  The police press release carefully uses "taken into custody." --DHeyward (talk) 17:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The uproar was about a 14-year old being arrested for bringing a clock on a box to school, and the article describes the response to the arrest. Given that the overwhelming number of sources describe it as an arrest, so shall we. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Breaking news stories are primary sources. Use the language in the police press release.  It is the most accurate.  We are not news and defaming a 14 year-old kid by sayin he was arrested when both the AG and the police department dispute it, is not acceptable.  --DHeyward (talk) 04:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The same (primary source) document written by the Texas AG's office that DHeyward uses to try to justify the assertion that a child cannot be arrested itself uses the phrase "a child's arrest" to refer to the sort of thing that happened to this child. In this case the child himself and his family have also repeatedly said he was arrested, and there are roughly 50 reliable secondary sources cited in the article that universally apply the word "arrest" to what happened. None of those reliable sources that discuss this incident, as far as I know, say that the word "arrest" does not apply – the word is used universally without comment or question or clarification in those sources. If we look up the definition of "arrest" or the article about Arrest, we see that it is defined merely as "the act of depriving a person of their liberty" by law-enforcement authorities (that's person, not adult). To avoid applying this word to this incident, when it is used so universally in the reliable sources, would be a textbook case of WP:Original research. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said, there is no colloquial difference. There is a technical difference which is quite apparent when Ahmed can truthfully answer that he was never arrested.  My question to everyone clamoring for arrest: 'What's the difference between "taken into custody" and "arrest"?'  If nothing, why not opt for the AG guide that allows him to answer "No, I have never been arrested?"  If there is a difference, please explain how "arrest" is a different descriptor than "taken into custody."  I choose the least harm to juvenile which affords him the privacy and dignity to answer "No, I've never been arrested."  (and no, it's a secondary source with expert interpretation of Texas law regarding juveniles.  The primary source is statutes.) --DHeyward (talk) 03:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You say "toe-may-toe". All of the sources say "arrested". We follow the sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If they mean the same thing, why use the term that the AG has expressly said he can deny? There are plenty of examples where we use phrasing that is more favorable in a BLP when they refer to the same thing.  All the Olympic record books, for example, refer to "Bruce Jenner" yet we use "Caitlyn Jenner" because they refer to the same person despite "all the sources."  Why are you intent on causing future harm to this boy by using a term colloquially identical to "taken into custody" but also a common question on job applications, security clearances, credit applications, etc, etc.  He can answer "No" when asked if he's ever been arrested.  Wikipedia shouldn't be saying "Yes, he was arrested."  We are not news nor are we robotic word salad spewers.  "Taken into custody" can be used in place of "arrest" and sourced to all the articles that use "arrest" because it's an acceptable, equivalent, colloquial paraphrase but with very different implications as a term of art.  Please explain what is gained by using "arrest" over "taken into custody."  I've outlined the harm.  You haven't provided the benefit.  Specifically, what information is being conveyed to the reader to justify this harm?  --DHeyward (talk) 08:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

bob dylan
in the first line of bob dylan's entry someone has inserted that he is the " organizer of the 9/11 attacks "

you would need to get this removed

barry wall — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.45.126.221 (talk) 23:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * That statement is now gone (it was there for fewer than 10 minutes.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)