Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive199

Dana Nuccitelli
Seems to be less than a stub, and its sole ref is SPS by the subject. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * In the process of being written afaict. Bit too early to raise as a subject here, is it not? --Kim D. Petersen 15:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It was Wikilinked in an article being discussed above - and in such a case, it is not "too early" IMO.  The current solitary ref does not meet WP:RS at all.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Hiya, thanks. There was such a chat about the person I was starting the story, please help to write more, ta Mosfetfaser (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I deleted the story, a user User:Nomoskedasticity was deleting any non positive detail about him, the guy isn't en wikipedia storyworth anyways, I searched a lot, that user deleted the only thing I found - he removed a referenced addition that was clearly stated as the opinion of a en wiki notable person  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dana_Nuccitelli&diff=605908179&oldid=605907056 and yet the same user supported the addition in the previous discussion of keeping the opinions of thios non notable en wiki person - such bias destroys the neutrality of the story. Mosfetfaser (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You'll need to learn some more about how Wikipedia works, in particular WP:AFD. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You are simply a revert user - I created the article and blanked it, you had no right to replace my content - Mosfetfaser (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dana_Nuccitelli

Pernilla August
Yeah, this is probably no big deal, and it went unnoticed for a while by other editors, until I just caught it. An IP user 174.22.10.16 (talk) left something written in Arabic in the Persondata/metadata section in the "Date of Death". They also made another vandalistic edit which he/she reverted but not the "Date of Death". This is probably no big deal but as it could remotely be seen as threatening I am mentioning it here. See following diffs:


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pernilla_August&diff=next&oldid=522439754
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pernilla_August&diff=next&oldid=523440005
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pernilla_August&diff=next&oldid=523440122

Quis separabit? 00:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Shaker Aamer more eyes needed
An editor adds allegations based on 2007 US government assessment document. Later a US government review finds that allegations in prior assessments are unreliable.

"In 2010 the Guantanamo Review Task Force found that prior detainee assessments to be overstated. Some assessments, for example, contained allegations that were not supported by the underlying source document upon which they relied. Other assessments contained conclusions that were stated categorically even though derived from uncorroborated statements or raw intelligence reporting of undetermined or questionable reliability.[http://www.justice.gov/ag/guantanamo-review-final-report.pdf (p. 9)"

I have added to the allegation section of the BLP that the assessments are unreliable so that the section is balanced, NPOV and conform with BLP.

Another editor who has already |shown bad judgement regarding this BLP keeps removing that the documents are unreliable so that the article is now misleading.

Putting serious allegations into a BLP based on unreliable documents is fine with me.

Not telling the reader that the US government review task force found the allegation documents unreliable seems to me not conform with BLP policy. Right? Mautodontha subtilis (talk) 09:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * What our supposedly "new" editor is not saying is that I added the comment "if you really want it to stay, then you need to tell the entire paragraph, not a half-truth."
 * He is not giving the entire meaning of the source's statement. It's one of the most blatant examples of cherry-picking I've seen in a while.  I wouldn't mind keeping it if he told the entire truth even thought it's not applicable (as I'll explain).
 * If you read the entire paragraph he's citing, the source says three things: 1) some of the assessments were good; 2) some of them overstate the threat; and 3) some of them understate the threat.  Editor Mautodontha subtilis is pretending that only #2 happened.  I said it would be okay if we include #1 and #3 even though it's still meaningless.
 * The reason it's still meaningless is because the real problem is not only that the source isn't particularly talking about Shaker Aamer (the article subject). The source is actually a report from a group that maintains the conclusion that Shaker Aamer should stay in Gitmo until he is sent to Saudi Arabia.
 * In other words, the group he's citing agrees with the previous decisions. Shaker Aamer falls into case #1 or #3, not the #2 that the editor tries to pretend is the only case that exists.
 * The editor is also misrepresenting what I've added before, but that's another subject.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 14:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * As a compromise i edited the article text according to the first part of your comment.
 * The second part of your comment is a Fallacy. There is no way to know for us on what basis the task force made their decision. The threshold is very low under AUMF.
 * The allegations in Aamer's assessment could easily be overstated. The assessment especially names information from fellow inmates who have been shown utterly unreliable. Some might be true others fiction. No way to know. Mautodontha subtilis (talk) 07:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * No way to know? Sure there is.  The source itself says, "the review participants have decided on the proper disposition—transfer, prosecution, or continued detention—of all 240 detainees subject to the review."
 * That means the same review panel that found some cases to be overstated also found no reason to change Aamer's status. Remember that this was in the same time period that the habeas hearings were going on.  Some judges ruled then that detainees should be sent home based on the same criticisms that you cited, but they, too, didn't apply this to Aamer.
 * Yes, I'm making an inference here, but it's a lesser one than what you're making. The source doesn't say how it applies to Aamer.  We only know that they didn't change his status.
 * The legal threshold is lower than for a full trial, but it's not "very low" by any means. And since his main supporters are unwilling to say they oppose the enemy's side of the war (and it becomes clearer everyday how much they do support it), it's hard to see why the international laws of war shouldn't apply.
 * That said, your adjustments do make it better. I think it needs rearranging, but it's not as bad as it was.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 14:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You still get it wrong. Not changing his status does not mean all the allegations in the former assessment were true.
 * The burden for the government is to show that he is "more likely than not" member of the Taliban or al-Qaeda or an associated force. That's all it needs to hold him. (12 years so far). You know any other war in history where any war prisoner has been held for that long? Mautodontha subtilis (talk) 01:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Your arguments really do not make sense. Randy2063 do you actually know that the Guantanamo Review Task Force cleared Shaker Aamer for release? It seems to me that you claim the opposite? Mautodontha subtilis (talk) 05:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * You're twisting the facts. As the sources say, Aamer was only cleared conditionally.  Since his country, Saudi Arabia, is willing and able to accept him under these terms, he can go home as soon as he's willing to go.  He made the choice.  It is a choice that most of his fellow detainees do not have.
 * You cite the Guantanamo Review Task Force, and yet they have agreed to continue holding him under those same terms based on the very reappraisal that you're trying to make a big deal over.
 * The fact that Aamer's detention is so long is irrelevant here. It is solely due to the length of the war. If it really bothered Aamer that much then he would have called for Al Qaeda to end their war, which he has not done, and will not do.  None of Aamer's supporters are willing to do so in any meaningful sense.  (They all support the war in one way or another.)
 * I think you should take this to the article's regular talk page. I will make more changes but they can be addressed there.
 * I also think you should make clear whether or not you've edited these articles under a different account.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 14:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, it is clear who is twisting the facts. Could you just explain why they US government does not want to release him to the UK? Because in the UK is a democratic country with a working rule of law and free speech? Whereas in Saudi Arabia he could be subject to arbitrary detention and further abuse. In terms of human rights Saudi Arabia is in the same league as North Korea, Syria, Cuba, Somalia, Iran... just in case you did not know. And by the way the UK government is more than willing and wants him back in the UK as soon as possible. Mautodontha subtilis (talk) 03:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Matis Weinberg article
Eyes and comments are needed on the article with regard to this controversy matter. There is back and forth reverting at that article among IPs when it comes that material. Yes, Josve05a and I have reverted at that article, restoring the material, but maybe we should not have. This is my first time truly looking at the controversy material. Flyer22 (talk) 05:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

My removing the material after seeing a "possible BLP issue or vandalism" tag before restoring it minutes ago is what led me to look closer. Flyer22 (talk) 05:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I see this article as highly problematic and encourage other editors to take a close look. The subject is a rabbi and educator who has repeatedly been accused of sexual improprieties, which he has denied vigorously. Charges before a bet din (rabbinical court) were dropped and I don't think he has been arrested or convicted by the justice system. Since his notability is based mostly on material that is controversial from the BLP policy point of view, deletion may be the best solution. What do others think?  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  17:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a plan very much in keeping with the wisdom of the community leaders in question. They're surely quite wise, so we can follow their lead without thinking about it too much ourselves.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Please note,, that I asked for ideas from other editors about how to deal with what I see as the serious BLP issues here. I have not nominated the article for deletion though I don't like what I see. I don't do the bidding of Orthodox rabbis here, as a brief glance at my edit history will show. I am aware, as well, of the problems with secretiveness among Haredi Jews. But Wikipedia is not a forum to right great wrongs, and our BLP policy applies to all, including ultra-Orthodox rabbis. How do you think we should deal with such unproven allegations?  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  03:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Eyes on Providence (religious movement) please
There are all sorts of BLP claims and counter-claims being made about the founder of this group. It really needs to attention of a neutral Korean-speaking editor, I suspect, since most of the claims are being made based on Korean-language sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What is the indication that this article has a BLP problem? It looks well sourced to me, though I do not understand Korean. If you only need more Korean reading eyes then I think the Korean-related noticeboard is a more suitable place than this noticeboard. Andries (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Tara Teng
This article is well-sourced, but it's quite full of personal trivia and unencyclopedic info. I feel like a lot of the minor trivia and personal anecdotes from the subject in the article need to be pared down unless multiple sources can be verified (to conform to WP:PUBLICFIGURE), but I'm not well-versed enough in the rules to tackle the project myself. Any assistance would be appreciated. thebogusman (talk) 16:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a Good Article as of now, so any major changes you think should be done to it must be discussed in the talk page with other involved editors. This is not the place to propose cleanups, unless the article contains material that is inappropriate or problematic. § FreeRangeFrog croak 20:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for reviewing it. I'm aware it is a GA, however I think that the sheer volume of trivia and minute details in the article might constitute a violation of some of the WP:BLP policies, as I indicated above. So it was my understanding that this would be a place to make those concerns known. thebogusman (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Given 10 of the 15 images in the article at the time it passed GA were later deleted due to failed licensing, it's certainly reasonable to look more closely at this one beyond its GA stamp. DMacks (talk) 06:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Stefan Molyneux
Looks like a puff piece relying on primary sources and non-RS secondary sources. I am inclined to scour it down to RSes. Am I incorrect in this? Other opinions requested - David Gerard (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Disagree. The only primary sources are supplemental and near impossible to replace with secondary ones (such as information about the details of his personal life). The secondary sources are reliable and have their own WP pages to establish their notability - Reason (magazine), The Next Web, The Guardian, The Globe and Mail, and RT (TV network), Ludwig von Mises Institute, and Alex Jones (radio host).  The article still needs continuing improvement, not a torpedo. -- Netoholic @ 19:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Did you just cite Alex Jones as an RS to Wikipedia BLP standards? - David Gerard (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you just gloss over all the others? All I did was point out that we have pages for these sources, so they are notable. Also, biased sources are acceptable per WP:RS, as long as the overall article is NPOV. -- Netoholic @ 19:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Notable sources are not necessarily reliable sources, . Both Weekly World News and Der Sturmer were indisputably notable. Neither was reliable for anything as the first was a publication that specialised in sensationalistic lies and the second was an anti-Semitic slander sheet that actively incited mass murder. Alex Jones is also indisputably notable but not by any means a generally reliable source, especially for anything in a BLP. He's reliable for his own opinions in our article about him, and little else. If you can't see that distinction, then perhaps you should study up before continuing to edit Wikipedia.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  04:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but the only factual claim on the article that relies on Alex Jones' site as a reference is the fact that Molyneux appeared on the Alex Jones Show. This appearance is verifiable and factual, and so is for this limited purpose Alex Jones is a reliable source. Do you see *that* distinction? -- Netoholic @ 04:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

nikky kumar jha
article is fake, have no refrences , delete soon


 * I've tagged it for speedy deletion, but why do you care anyway? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

BLPs Quoting Blog Posts By Dana Nuccitelli
These BLP articles quote blog posts by Dana Nuccitelli, on a blog titled "Climate Consensus The 97% By John Abraham And Dana Nuccitelli Hosted By The Guardian": Richard Lindzen,  Wiesław Masłowski,  Murry Salby,  Stephan Lewandowsky. We know that WP:BLPSPS says there is an exception to the blogs-are-unacceptable rule: "Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." But that is not the case here. The Guardian itself says that this blog is in a category which is not under the newspaper's full editorial control.

The original proposition for The Guardian's new "environment blogs" explains "editorial support" by linking to the science blogs network page which says: "'Editors have traditionally had complete control over what appears on their pages. Experts and sources can espouse their views, but only within the parameters set by editorial control. The journalist decides which comments make it into their story and which are out. But nearly three years ago, the Guardian's science desk began an experiment to loosen this grip ... They [i.e. the Guardian's original group of science bloggers] were effectively given the keys to the Guardian's site and told they could publish what they wanted, when they wanted. It was a model that no other mainstream newspaper had tried (and to my knowledge that's still the case)'" Further, for The Guardian's list of its blogs in this program (which includes Climate Consensus The 97% etc.) The Guardian says: "... our environment bloggers will have independence to publish without our editorial interference." Nuccitelli described his application to join the Guardian's program here.

Accordingly, I hope for acceptance that BLP references to Nuccitelli's blog posts are WP:BLPSPS violations. To avoid having to repeat the argument for every affected article, I am posting here and putting notifications on the articles' talk pages. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * To the extent that they are "notable opinions" they should be clearly ascribed as opinion. The big problems always occur when people treat opinions as "fact" alas. Collect (talk) 02:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * You make a good case that Nuccitelli's Guardian blog has no editorial control by its host, and hence is not an acceptable RS for BLPs. Thanks for doing the homework. --Pete Tillman (talk) 07:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The idea that there's no editorial control is ostensibly true but substantially limited. If the writers in question started spouting nonsense, theguardian.com would swiftly step in and end their ability to publish on that platform.  This is not a license to do anything at all but rather a license to exercise their professional judgment; that judgment is then subject to scrutiny by the owners/editors of the Guardian.  Ignoring that point here amounts to naked wikilawyering.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Collect got it right above: these are at best Nuccitelli's opinions, and should not be presented as facts. It's not at all clear to me that Nuccitelli's opinions are notable, but that's a slightly different debate. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Something like this? (diff) — TPX 10:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I emended it a tad -- the biggest BLP problem was using a single NYT article in several places in the single BLP to be a sledgehammer. Collect (talk) 11:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Isn't there a major difference between editorial control and editorial oversight? Control here is whether or not the newspaper chooses what would be the best thing to put into the newspaper based on their view of what sells, while oversight is the newspapers fact-checking and basic editorial process. The former would be irrelevant for reliability while the latter is imperative for reliability. As far as i can see there is nothing that makes the Guardians blogs different from other WP:NEWSBLOGs. Or am i completely off the hocker? --Kim D. Petersen 13:24, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "Full editorial control" is the language at WP:BLPSPS -- if not, use in BLPs is clearly against policy. WP:NEWSBLOG's standards apply to use outside BLPs. Pete Tillman (talk) 14:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, that is the literal view of BLPSPS... the letter of the policy, but is it the spirit of the policy? Afaict all newsblogs are written this way, otherwise it would be editorials/columns. --Kim D. Petersen 15:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPSPS is policy and means what it says. Pete Tillman is right here. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Dana Nuccitelli has a degree in astrophysics and describes himself as a "hobbyist" regarding climate change. Though personally I find his blog interesting and useful, I do not think that it is an acceptable source for BLPs of climate scientists.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  18:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I want to assure Kim D. Petersen that the objection to this blog does not, and could never, apply in general to blogs hosted by news organizations. (a) it partly depends on The Guardian list which has only 11 blogs, and quotes a Guardian editor that other mainstream news organizations had no similar program; (b) professional Guardian bloggers for example George Monbiot have nothing to do with this program; (c) The initial assumption must be that the blog is under full editorial control -- if one claims otherwise, one must prove otherwise (which is why I had to produce The Guardian's statements). See the discussion in a talk archive in section 'Newspaper columns called "blogs"', initiated by administrator User:SlimVirgin. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Update: Four editors agree that this Nuccitelli blog can't be used for BLPs. The citations have now been removed from the articles about Lindzen (for a different stated reason), Masłowski, Salby, Lewandowsky, and three that I didn't see before -- Joe Bastardi and Scott Mandia and Peter Sinclair (climate change activist). As I understand BLP rules, anyone wishing to restore would have to find counter-evidence and get a consensus the other way. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Date of Birth
In this article she is having to Date of Births. According to one her age is 24 and the other it is 26.. This is for Pallavi Sharda — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.119.39.202 (talk) 10:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I've looked at the citations for the 1988 birthdate. Citation 1 is a video where she says her birthday is March 5, the other two are news articles which note that she is 25 years old as of 2013.  I've removed the 1990 birthdate from the infobox.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 17:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Since she was born in Australia, I think we can be fairly confident with the birthdate. --Ronz (talk) 19:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Michael Grimm (politician)
The following which had previously been discussed on the article talk page and at BLP/N has been repeatedly re-added today:


 *  According to the article,[4] written by Evan Ratliff, the incident resulted from a dispute between Grimm and his date's husband. A former NYPD officer working as a bouncer at the time said that Grimm remarked about the husband, "I’ll fucking make him disappear where nobody will find him." Grimm reportedly then returned to the nightclub twice, pulled out his gun once, and brought FBI and NYPD officers the second time. Grimm said the article was written by a reporter "on a witch hunt" and that "this incident was fully investigated and I was cleared of all of the ridiculous and absurd allegations. To further entertain this partisan attack on my exemplary career and service to this great nation would be to give [the allegation] credence, of which it deserves none."

Prior views were that the emphasis on a long version was not superior to a short statement, and that emphasis on "fucking" was unneeded in any BLP. Added eyes here would be welcome, as this particular BLP seems to have attracted a number of "silly season" edits recently, including one which changed his district, and said he was succeeded by Charles Rangel, etc. :) Collect (talk) 18:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The other odd material added was:


 * Grimm married Susan Kim in October, a marriage that Grimm describes as brief, and having ended in annulment. I New York state, annulments can only be granted because a spouse is underage, mentally disabled, physically unable consummate the marriage, or spousal consent was gained through force, fraud, or under duress.

Which I suggested is unsourced, and OR at the most generous valuation. Collect (talk) 18:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Of course we don't know much about the marriage to Kim. Where was it certified?Two kinds of pork (talk) 18:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * No comment on the first issue, but the marriage-related stuff is certainly WP:OR, and shouldn't be included. I note that the contributor who added it included source URLs in an edit summary - though even if the sources had been properly cited in the article it wouldn't alter the fact that it is OR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Unless this statement. " I New York state, annulments can only be granted because a spouse is underage, mentally disabled, physically unable consummate the marriage, or spousal consent was gained through force, fraud, or under duress.'' directly references Grimm and his marriage to Kim, the statement is OR and so has no place in the article.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC))
 * It's true, that annulment bit does not belong in the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Nomoskedasticity and Andy regarding the marraige material. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the "fu*#ing" quote and attendant material, I don't think it adds much to the article. Makes for salacious reading though, sort of like a NY tabloid. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Asterisks?? Are you sure you're old enough to deal with these issues?  If you are: your horizons re these issues might be expanded by reading The Guardian, where readers are commonly adults who don't flinch at strong language.  It's not salacious, it's just English.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

This is not needed in this BLP: "A former NYPD officer working as a bouncer at the time said that Grimm remarked about the husband, 'I’ll fucking make him disappear where nobody will find him.'" The reporter is apparently not willing to give the Grimm quote as factual, and instead attributes to a single anonymous third party of unknown credibility. Grimm denies having said it. BLP policy was designed to keep crap like this out of BLPs. He said he said he said something he denies having said. Gimme a break.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Yup. We don't need anonymous quotes like that in BLPs. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Kenneth Brander
The article is almost entirely inaccurate. These parts are false:

"Brander was born and raised in Sioux Falls, South Dakota by Joan and Quintus Brander. Brander was named for his birthplace, Kenneth, Indiana, where his family farmed quinoa until the drought of 1988. [1] He then moved to Sioux Falls, South Dakota during his youth where his father farmed additional lands.[2] ... In 1999 Brander received special ordination from Kenneth Brander, a rare case of self-ordination, in the field of medical ethics and is completing a PhD in Pemphigus vegetans in the work of French dermatologist François Henri Hallopeau at Florida Atlantic University. Rabbi Brander is also pursuing a Masters of Science in Scatology at University of Florida.

Brander returns to spend the summer vacation each year in his hometown of Sioux Falls where he and Janice, his wife through levirate marriage, work with concrete and other course granular composites. [3] In light of this work, Brander has been admitted to the South Dakota chamber of commerce, [4] even though he is only a part-time resident of the state.

Brander himself is blood type B negative, [6] one of the rarest blood types for a white male Rabbi. [7]

In 2014, Brander was nominated for the Andrew Carnegie Prize for his work on Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik's manuscripts. Brander has not yet won a Nobel Prize [8] though he has been nominated on multiple occasions for the prize in peace. Brander has yet to voice his opinion on the controversial topic of partial-sprout abortion in plants...

Brander is a U.S. citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution and the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. He also maintains a rare collection of Bhutanese ngulttrum which he obtained during his time a visiting professor of comparative futures studies at Royal Thimphu College where his son Ugyen was born.

All of this is patently false and perhaps libel again Rabbi Brander, please remove this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.200.117 (talk) 18:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I made some changes. Please let us know what you think.


 * Also, please read WP:NLT. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Robert J. Rodriguez
Robert J. Rodriguez

General article has been repeatedly co-opted by political opponents, intentionally spreading salacious information and deleting overviews of the assemblyman's career in favor of biased and misrepresentative highlights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.31.195.55 (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Natashia Holmes
The Alderman's birthdate is incorrect its April 26th, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.201.7.122 (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Polaroid Kiss
This Wikipedia page doesn't offer reliable sources of information and is believed to have been written by the music artist's themselves as a means of promotion. Also, there is nothing on this page that shows that Polaroid Kiss has had any notable accomplishments. If this is a fictitious band, with claims of being a super-group (consisting of a lot of members of other bands), this entry is potentially detrimental to the careers of claimed members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.8.224.94 (talk) 05:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Omand
Please restore the previous entry on myself as soon as possible. The current entry is from start to finish a lampoon, and is malicious in intent, in clear conflict with Wikipedia's policies on biographical entries. The previous full entry was accurate and informative. Many thanks Professor Sir David Omand GCB War Studies Department King's College London — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.115.63 (talk) 07:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Bah, childish vandalism. I have reverted it and watchlisted the article. Thank you for reporting the issue and my apologies that it was up for so long without anyone noticing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Gulshan Ara Ahmed
She is a bengali actress — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fairooz Ibnath Mallick (talk • contribs) 07:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Erlendur Haraldsson
See talk:Erlendur Haraldsson. This one will solve itself as soon as I have time to add more references, but for the time being I do not have time. Andries (talk) 13:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I added some positive remarks and as far as I am concerned this one is solved. Andries (talk) 06:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Not resolved. My edits got reverted. Andries (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Goblin_Face repeatedly removed reliable references. Andries (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I removed a primary reference from Haraldsson's own book which you added. Reliable secondary sources should be used, especially for controversial claims. Goblin Face (talk) 20:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Notice, this is a BLP problem by omission of pertinent context, so I think in this particular case it is no problem to repeat the specific BLP problems
 * In addition to that you also removed David C. Lane's book review in which Dr. Lane stated that

Erelndur Haraldsson debunked some miracles:
 * http://www.integralworld.net/lane62.html "Although the Icelandic professor of psychology fails to get Sathya Sai Baba to undergo controlled experiments, he does nevertheless get to the truth behind many reported miracles. A number of them Haraldsson debunks, including the famous "resurrection of Walter Cowan" "
 * Andries (talk) 20:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * A few problems. Whilst David Lane is a notable scholar - Integralworld is a crackpot paranormal website. Is it RS? Secondly Haraldsson is a believer in Baba's alleged paranormal powers. As he says in his own book Baba had psychic powers which allowed him to "produce various phenomena when he wants to" is supported by an "endless number of observations and experiences". Considering all the primary sources have been put back into the article, then so should that statement. I believe you are cherry picking statements in an attempt to make out Haraldsson is some sort of debunker, but he has openly endorsed alleged paranormal powers of Baba and other pseudoscience. Goblin Face (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It seemed that there was a misunderstanding between Goblin Face and me due to different content of different editions of the same book. Andries (talk) 05:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

This one is solved as far as I am concerned. There has been no reverting anymore in the last couple of days. Andries (talk) 10:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Deepak Chopra representative. Biographical bias, overtly critical, UNDUE BLP concerns

 * Discussion moved back to Talk:Deepak Chopra per WP:FORUMSHOP.
 * null edit to date for archiving. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  00:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Donald Sterling
This person is at the center of a media frenzy in the USA right now. There are some minor problems at the article right now, mostly some less than neutral edits, but more importantly the weight of the incident is inappropriate with respect to the rest of the article. This has happened before, at the Phil Robertson article, which I cleaned up after the dust settled. That shouldn't happen in the first place. Can people give this article a once over and see if my concerns have merit? Some trimming might be in order. Thanks.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure the weight given the incident is completely out of whack (though I guess we don't need to quote Obama). That being said, it may make sense for a seperate article devoted to the incident.  Especially since this will likely wind up sparking a lengthy legal battle.   Calidum   04:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see any glaring BLP issues with the state of that article. Cwobeel (talk) 04:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing glaring,no. But there has been some vandalism and pov edits. Perhaps a dedicated article is in order.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

A bigger BLP issue is the related article. Probably it needs to be AFD'ed. Cwobeel (talk) 04:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Deleted as A7. Perhaps it merited a redirect, but I'll let someone else decide that. Classic BLP1E half-assed "in the news" articles with no importance or value whatsoever. § FreeRangeFrog croak 04:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

More participants requested
This is another one of those articles where some feel that every horrible committed by the BLP needs to be documented. It seems Sterling has quite a list that can be collated, but what they text sometimes editors use to leaves a decidedly negative, and often unfair assessment. A current example is the Clippers organization refused to pay for a medical procedure for one of their coaches, and the text in the surrounding context made it seem like Sterling was a heartless bastard. However upon reading the sources (and in fact all of the sources used editorialize upon the "root" source) it seems the Clippers, like most businesses provide their employees insurance. The coach wanted a procedure out-of-network. The Clippers refused, as it would create a precedent. This seems like par for the course for most businesses. The only reason I can surmise it being used is to paint the subject in a negative light, and this is ignoring the fact that there is no evidence that Sterling was involved in the decision whatsoever. Two kinds of pork (talk) 13:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The article contained contentious claims about marginally related third parties, etc., had a bit of "citation overkill" and was a bit like placing thirty stakes into a vampire.  The Wikipedia Van Helsings are our in force.  Collect (talk) 14:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * There is an ongoing and sudden attempt to delete content from the article. While it is always a good idea to avoid painting a negative portrayal of a living person, it is not a good idea to remove content that pass WP:BURDEN and that provides context for the notability of the LP. Cwobeel (talk) 14:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * There is an ongoing attempt to conform with WP:BLP and the latest problem is editors seeking to add the "important fact" that his sun was rumoured to have died from a drug overdose. There is a brand-new RfC there on that issue.  The desire to add any snippet of negative material about a living person even if only a rumour is IMO a major problem here. Collect (talk) 15:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

more
shows re-insertion of "Jewish" for ethnicity in the infobox and insertion into the category "Jewsih American sportspeople" with the claim of "self identification per http://edition.cnn.com/2014/05/08/us/los-angeles-clippers-donald-sterling-saga/"

My problem is that the source appears to make no such claims at all, and the category "sportspeople" does not generally include team owners at all (People involved in sports in some way in significant aspects of their lives. is the discriminant there).

Does the source have him specifically self-identify as having Jewish ethnicity? (The recording refers to black Jews and white Jews in Israel being treated differently (''It's the world! You go to Israel, the blacks are just treated like dogs," the man says''), but does not appear to say he self-identifies as Jewish ethnicity at all.

And he is already in the "sports businesspeople" category under  Category:Los Angeles Clippers owners,  making the "sportspeople" category nicely useless here IMO. Yours? Collect (talk) 14:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * We appear to have another instance of reading comprehension difficulties -- in this case quite a surprising one, as the article contains the rather definitive passage "I'm a Jew", spoken by Sterling himself. The mind boggles…  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oops et mea culpa, and your snark us not helpful here,  -- the "search" function in IE8 went immediately down to the "comments section" on that.  Leaving still the problematic category of "Jewish American sportspeople" when he is already in the "sportspeople" category as owner of the Clippers.    Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Natalia Poklonskaya - fan art in a BLP?
I just came across the article Natalia Poklonskaya. This person is a senior law enforcement official in Ukraine, who has played a significant role in the recent Crimean crisis. However, our biography of her instead chooses to focus on the fact that she is apparently popular with East Asian Internet users, and even includes a gallery of amateur cartoon fan art of her. This seems to me like a BLP issue - it may not be saying anything false about the subject, but it's plainly disparaging her and not treating a living person with the respect she deserves. The fact that our biography has fan cartoons of the subject but no actual photograph of her strikes me as pretty insulting, frankly. Is this kind of material really acceptable in a BLP? Robofish (talk) 00:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Firstly, there are no free "actual photographs" of her. A fair-use screenshot of her during her popular press conference was uploaded and deleted as per this discussion. There is simply no insult that there are no free "actual photographs" in the article. starship.paint   "YES!" 02:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Secondly, it is absolutely true that the anime-style moe fanart has in part, resulted in Poklonskaya's popularity and fame on the Internet. This is the secondary thrust of notability for Poklonskaya, and has been noted by international media: BBC News, ABC News, Agence France-Presse, International Business Times and Russia Today. Now that Commons has been able to obtain free images of artwork of Poklonskaya, I find it absolutely encyclopaedic to display multiple artwork in the article to show that Poklonskaya is indeed a "Japanese anime art sensation". starship.paint   "YES!" 02:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not a problem to not have portraits of our subjects. Most of our biographies are without images, until the person dies. We should have a long wait before she dies, and I should imagine that for a person of her stature, a free image will become available before long. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 04:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The images that are currently discussed are not used to depict the person, they are there to depict the internet phenomenon. Please don't confuse the two, since they have completely different implications. -- benlisquare T•C•E 05:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Not only "with East Asian Internet users". She is very (extremely, crazy) popular in Russia. The fact that she as a subject of fan art is not trivia cause it has been discussed by all the major Russian news networks (including the government ones), discussed many times over (cause there have been several memes based on her statements and there have been several songs written about her or using samples from her speeches and interviews). There's nothing bad and nothing contradictory in it. She and the fan art have been in the news for a month and a half now and still are. (To prove it, here's the latest song dedicated to her, it's on YouTube: . The video already has 8.7 million views and its popularity has been reported by all the major news agencies in Russia, Belorussia, etc. For example, (Interfax, the article also lists two other songs about her),  (ITAR-TASS). Just accept it as something absolutely normal. :D --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Robofish, don't you think that this is bit of a western-centric attitude on things? Western society isn't the only civilised society on earth, and you're essentially forcing the culture of your society on everybody else. Two of the most populous Asian countries on this planet do not see any moral or ethical problems with running news reports about the drawings, so why should an encyclopedia that claims itself as being fair and free of cultural prejudice do so? Wikipedia reports on what third-party reliable sources report about the topic, and not what editors feel is "ethical" or "moral", and what "should" be written on. These things are all subjective, and all vary depending on individual user's beliefs and standpoints; there will always be conflict between different people's opinions, this is a natural trait of this universe—does that mean that people should delete things because they don't like them due to their own personal cultural attitudes? Let me tell you right now that in Japan, this kind of thing is hardly viewed as "degrading"; it's more expressed as flattering or admiring an individual. Would you say that Japanese society is "decadent and barbaric", or would you simply say that it's just a society that is a bit different to the one you grew up in? -- benlisquare T•C•E 04:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The internet phenomenon is focussed on her looks and imply that an attractive woman cannot possibly occupy such a position of authority. It is therefore clearly sexist, and whilst it may be appropriate to mention and have an illustrative or representative image in our article, the kawai picture gallery give the very strong impression that sexist fancruft is appropriate and endorsed by Wikipedia. Having said that, the other language wikis are much worse, but what our sister projects do has no relevance here. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 04:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That is a very westernised viewpoint. Your reasoning is based on personal assumptions, rather than hard evidence on the actual motivations for people to create the aforementioned content. If people on the other side of the world don't follow the same views, then that means that this view is based on a specific culture; in this case, a certain culture is being forced over others, and this is a neutrality issue. When I say neutrality issue, I'm specifically referring to the English Wikipedia, so this has nil to do with the sister projects. As many of us are/were raised in western societies, including myself, everyone needs to be aware of this, and how it may affect the way people think. In addition, your claim that the editors involved are simply cashing in on sex selling is rather close-minded, since again it makes culture-based assumptions. -- benlisquare T•C•E 05:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The internet phenomenon is focussed on her looks and imply that an attractive woman cannot possibly occupy such a position of authority. It is therefore clearly sexist - the words in green are opinion, not fact. I live in Asia, by the way, and I don't see it this way. starship.paint   "YES!" 07:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I see zero problem mentioning this fan art phenomenon if there are reliable sources backing it up. A gallery of fan art is way over the top. One example might be appropriate, maximum, though I'm uncomfortable with Wikipedia generating its own examples of a phenomenon it is documenting, because at that point you are participating, not just documenting. Gamaliel ( talk ) 04:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree. Also from WP:GALLERY:
 * The gallery in the article obviously fails several of the criteria. It is just an indiscriminate collection of pictures without explanation and represents a rather bad example of WP:OR and SYNTH. It is visual editorialising fueled by original research and synthesis. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 04:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Quote: "I'm uncomfortable with Wikipedia generating its own examples of a phenomenon it is documenting, because at that point you are participating, not just documenting" - None of the images used were generated by Wikipedia contributors, they were all selected based on significance. There are many related images on Commons, but not all were comparably significant to the ones used, which is why they weren't included within the article. File:Natalia Poklonskaya fan-art by Itachi Kanade.jpg is probably the most significant: This image was covered by multiple Russian and international sources, including BBC. File:Natalia Poklonskaya by phanc002.jpg was also covered by various Russian newspaper websites. Out of all the Pixiv images, File:Natalia Poklonskaya by As109.jpg has the most views on Pixiv, and is therefore the most popular (likely because the artist involved is a famous one). On the day it was uploaded and the three days after that, the artwork by As109 was the second-most viewed and top-rated artwork on a daily basis ranking on Pixiv, and thus was featured on the front page of Pixiv. -- benlisquare T•C•E 05:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I believe the main criteria for inclusion should be whether the image has been used to illustrate the Poklonskaya fan art in reliable sources. See how they did it in the Japanese Wikipedia: ja:ナタリア・ポクロンスカヤ (for every image, there are links to reliable sources that use the image). --Moscow Connection (talk) 09:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As Benlisquare already explained, none of the images were generated by Wikipedia. They were found elsewhere, and then their authors were contacted for permission to upload them to Wikipedia.


 * I apologize for my unwarranted assumption about the source of the images. If a particular image has been referenced in reliable sources and we have permission and/or the relevant license to use that image, then that would be an appropriate use, within the bounds of NPOV, BLP, etc.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 16:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Would you agree that two or three would be enough? Obviously any more than that would be inappropriate, since they would be less encyclopedic and more decorative. How many do you think should be used? I've left a detailed rationale at Talk:Natalia Poklonskaya. -- benlisquare T•C•E 19:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see why we need more than one. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 19:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Imagine this: You are writing about a Nissan Hydra GTR (this is a completely fictional car that I just made up for the sake of this discussion). You can assume that plenty of your readers have never seen any before, and have no idea what one is. The Nissan Hydra GTR comes in two models: The GTR-X with twin-turbo engines plus a flat bonnet, and the GTR-Lite with a lower chassis and different rear body shape. If you only include an image of the Nissan Hydra GTR-X, readers would become inclined to believe that all cars of the Hydra series of vehicles share the same appearance. This is a problem. However, they then read the prose which states that there are two models within the series - this confuses them even more, since there is only one picture, but mention of two models. Our article prose makes it clear that the internet phenomenon involves multiple drawings. Obviously, we cannot place fifty artworks within the article, since this is overkill and absolutely silly; hence, we go for a "minimum approach" and choose a number of images that a) does the job properly, whilst b) not being overkill. A small number of two/three images doesn't cause any problems in regards to WP:GALLERY as long as it is clearly demonstrated by captions that there is a reason for there to be two/three different images. -- benlisquare T•C•E 19:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right, but we're not just talking about a fan art phenomenon here, we're talking about a living person, and there's two considerations your comment leaves out. One is the issue of WP:UNDUE, where you propose a gallery of images in an article otherwise free of them to illustrate a discussion that takes up one tenth of the article.  The second is the issue of appropriateness towards a living person, balancing the need to document a legitimate phenomenon versus concerns that these images might be perceived as demeaning or sexist by or towards their subject.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 20:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Different artists draw different impressions of things. Aphrodite features different impressions of her, including The Birth of Venus by Sandro Botticelli and Venus and Adonis by Titian. You cannot avoid this problem. If we only include one instance, then we are being one-sided. Yes, we are dealing with a BLP, but if we have enough sources, that should be ample justification, is it not? Furthermore, in what manner are the proposed images in Talk:Natalia Poklonskaya sexist? They are depictions of human beings with no sexual element involved. It's not like the images are implicitly demeaning like File:Futanari.png (warning NSFW) would be. Are all images of women inherently sexist? -- benlisquare T•C•E 20:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of things on Wikipedia that are only illustrated with a single representative image. For example, I recently participated in a discussion on Talk:United States about what single image should represent each section of that article.  Any single image obviously leaves something out, but we simply can't include galleries to illustrate every single section or concept.  That was complicated enough, but that discussion didn't even have to deal with BLP issues, as we do here. I understand what you are saying to me about wanting to fully document a multi-faceted phenomenon, but these other issues trump that.  Edit conflict: I already replied before you added that straw man about "Are all images of women inherently sexist?"  We're not going to have a productive conversation if you insist on that kind of nonsense.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 20:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If I used a straw man, then let me ask you this: In what manner are these images different from other depictions of women? In what manner are they less acceptable? -- benlisquare T•C•E 20:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Didn't we want to discuss the content? Not trail off... Tutelary (talk) 20:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The idea is that we shouldn't use multiple images, partially because people might be put off by them due to percieved sexism. I'm trying to figure out in what way are the three images selected on the talk page sexist, since I have not had any definite or clear answer from anybody. Not one person has explained why, they just mention that it's potentially detestable. -- benlisquare T•C•E 20:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I've twice removed the gallery from the article. This is a BLP matter and this gallery should stay out until we have consensus that a gallery is appropriate. Gamaliel ( talk ) 19:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * To be honest I agree with Moscow Connection - We've narrowed the gallery down & should just source it like the other WP. →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  19:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've only reverted because at them moment it's a shit fest and it needs to stop, I'm not taking sides just dont see the point in edit warring. →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  19:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This isn't about taking sides in an edit war. This is about BLP.  Consensus must be achieved before inclusion of controversial material involving living individuals.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 19:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Gamaliel seems to be ready to violate WP:INVOLVED and lock and restore the article into his preferred version; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ANatalia_Poklonskaya&diff=606670477&oldid=606664303 Tutelary (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC) Discussing about content now.
 * Calm down guys. I'd rather this situation not get any worse than it already is. -- benlisquare T•C•E 19:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Why is it imperative that the gallery stay in the article while it is being discussed?  BLP trumps all other considerations, so make your case, and if you succeed, then the gallery can go in the article.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 19:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * But we can't do that if the people being addressed don't respond to points that are made. Nobody is making any responses, people are just edit warring. Furthermore, I was under the impression that per WP:BRD, the status quo is restored following a bold change, and in this case, the bold change would be the removal. Finally, whatever the current revision is would be purely temporary; I don't see why all chaos would break loose if we have an intermediate revision whilst we're working on a final solution. -- benlisquare T•C•E 19:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, in general, but BLP considerations trump BRD. It's a moot point now, because another administrator has locked the article, so we can dispense with this INVOLVED nonsense.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 19:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I only say it should stay for now to stop the warring, I'm not taking sides I'm actually trying to calm it down but seems I've done the opposite .... →Davey 2010→ →Talk to me!→  19:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Your edits were well intentioned, but you know what they say about the best laid plans. The article is locked now, which I guess was inevitable and maybe the first thing I should have done instead of hoping people would refrain from edit warring.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 19:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * To be honest It's a shame we (myself included) all edit warred over it and got it locked but I suppose what's done is done, →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  20:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Can we please stop talking about the edit war now? It's discussing spilled milk, no amount of discussion will put the milk back into the bottle. -- benlisquare T•C•E 19:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. I think the response a few posts above me tells it best. The images were not randomly picked by Wikipedia contributors. They are what showed reliable sources and thereby have significance to be there. The images adds an encyclopedic benefit. Tutelary (talk) 19:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right, I've responded to your comment above. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 20:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I support Gamaliel here. One picture is enough. Let's not forget this is a BLP and not an art gallery. A single cartoon of the person amply demonstrates the cartoon-genre which has been created for the subject of the BLP. Unless we have valid commentary from art experts which analyses these cartoons as to the symbolism of the depiction of this person, their artistic merit, and creative differences etc., any addition of multiple cartoons in the article would be unnecessary visual editorialising driven by WP:SYNTH and OR. And even if we had critical commentary from art experts, the commentary should go to a new article, not the BLP, per WP:UNDUE. This is an article about a person's life, not the analysis of an internet cartoon phenomenon. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 21:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
Alright, we've had a bumpy ride so far. That said, much of the discussion is going here and there, and not much progress has been made. Many of the points provided aren't being adequately addressed, and this is one of the many problems we are having. First of all, the claim that the images are demeaning. Of these images:
 * A summary of points that have yet to be addressed

Which of these are demeaning or sexist, and why? No explanation has been given. You can't just drop the "it's offensive" bomb, and then run off without elaborating on it. Why are they sexist, and why do they affect the status of women? Is there too much cleavage in one of the pictures? Or is there too much makeup on? What? Come on guys, I can't read minds, just pretend that I'm an idiot and explain it to me from the foundation upwards.

Second, the necessity of having a image. Wikipedia reports on what other news sources report, and not what is necessarily justice. File:Natalia Poklonskaya fan-art by Itachi Kanade.jpg is reported by the following outlets: RussiaToday, BBC International Business Times, videogame news website, Japanese news site, German news site, Vietnamese newspaper, Russian news site, Kazakhstan newspaper, Sina Hong Kong, Chinese news site, ABC News, Huffington Post Japan. This is just a preliminary search, and there is much more. This is only just for the one image, and there are more out there for the others as well.

Third, the necessity of having multiple images. From Talk:Natalia Poklonskaya:  Would a carefully crafted selection criteria meet WP:GALLERY?
 * The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject.
 * Two or three images are able to adequately explain to the reader what is being written in the prose. Too many and it becomes inappropriate, any less and it doesn't do the job as effectively.


 * Images in a gallery should be suitably captioned to explain their relevance both to the article subject
 * Captions can be included to explain why the carefully selected images are of relevance. Reasons may include "this image was covered by X, Y and Z media outlets", or "this image was top-ranked for X consecutive days".


 * and to the theme of the gallery,
 * The gallery itself is self-explanatory, and a heading would make it even clearer.


 * and the gallery should be appropriately titled (unless the theme of the gallery is clear from the context of the article).
 * This is easily done.


 * Images in a gallery should be carefully selected, avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made.
 * The point being made would be that there are differing artworks with varying styles that exist, because by default the reader would not know this kind of information. We're talking about a new reader who is just discovered this topic, and doesn't know anything else about it. If they only saw one image, he would not fully understand the topic of the section. The careful selection of images would be non-arbitary and non-random, and be chosen via WP:CONSENSUS based on reasoning including media coverage and so forth. Images selected will have significant visual difference between each other - in other words, we don't need a selection of images all featuring microphones, or from one pose, or from one author. If all the images were too visually similar to one another, this would negate the purpose of having different images.

Are there any flaws within my reasoning, and why? Which of my points are wrong?

Someone please address these points. They have been out there for a long time now, and I hope that this is the final time that I have to repeat these. -- benlisquare T•C•E 21:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * your second and third points are not BLP issues and should be discussed on the talk page for the article IMHO. CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * A point was made on the talk page that as long as the issue regarding images isn't settled here on BLPN, the admin will not lift the page protection (within the time limit). -- benlisquare T•C•E 21:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As I do not see a BLP issue, I will not discuss it here. When page protection is lifted, I strongly reccomend getting wp:consensus on the article talk page before adding a wp:gallery CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hold on a second: The issue of galleries was clearly being discussed above by a few people, regardless of BLP issue or no BLP issue. It was someone else who first brought up the issue of WP:GALLERY here, so it's only logical to seek a response here, where they are more likely to see it. People here on BLPN may not necessarily have the time to visit the article talk page. As long as people don't agree here about image use, nothing will change at the article, which is why I'm here to gauge the reasons, and find out why they don't agree. -- benlisquare T•C•E 21:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you really not see the potential gender issues arising from depicting a female law enforcement professional as a child-like fetish object? Do you really not see the WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK problem of having a gallery devoted to a mere one-tenth of the article text? Gamaliel ( talk ) 23:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * So by that regard, there's nothing wrong with File:Natalia Poklonskaya by As109.jpg then? I don't see any child-like features there. Come on, I'm being serious when I said that I'd like someone to explain it to me as if I were an idiot. I am not an American, or a Californian, or a Democrat Party voting Californian. These concepts are very very unfamiliar to me. I wasn't joking at all. Finally, if a gallery is the problem, is the solution suggested at Talk:Natalia Poklonskaya a valid compromise? Unlike a gallery, it takes up significantly less screen space, and two images can behave as just one image, see the Donkey/Mule example at Template:Multiple_image as an example. -- benlisquare T•C•E 00:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * depicting a female law enforcement professional as a child-like fetish object - is this what you are getting from the three pictures above, Gamaliel? Benlisquare is right - there's some sort of a cultural gap here. I am Asian, and the view that Poklonskaya is being depicted like a child has never crossed my mind. I have seen a lot of anime pictures with big eyes, small nose, small mouth and a big head, that's just the way anime is drawn. As for "fetish" - as in a sexual way? Sure, all the three pictures above show Poklonskaya in uniform - but there is nothing sexual about them to me. Honestly, I see all three pictures as a tribute to her beauty, and I don't see them trivialising her office. starship.paint   "YES!" 00:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The thing about fetish objects is that people who have that fetish will see sex in them, regardless of intent. Right now, somebody is masturbating to interracial cabbage, and Wikipedia can't help that. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Apparently, not all fetishism is sexy. My apologies if I called anyone a pervert. Still, same basic deal. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * International Business Times: "global appreciation over [her] physical beauty ... fan art in which she is portrayed as an anime heroine ... 2ch, the largest online forum in Japan, clarified that she is not a sex symbol in Japan but more of a cute symbol" starship.paint   "YES!" 04:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if this is a bulky answer but under the circumstances it is the best way I could come up with to reply to the questions of the blockquote just above. Please feel free to reply within this block so that we don't proliferate these blocks. I wanted to reply within the original quote block but I did not want to alter another editor's comment.  Would a carefully crafted selection criteria meet WP:GALLERY?
 * The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject.
 * Two or three images are able to adequately explain to the reader what is being written in the prose. Too many and it becomes inappropriate, any less and it doesn't do the job as effectively.
 * Reply: The number is purely subjective. What job has to be done as effectively? If the job is to depict anime cartoons, one cartoon is enough. The anime style is characteristic enough to not need multiple examples of the art. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 18:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The latter part of your statement is also purely subjective. "The anime style is characteristic enough to not need multiple examples of the art." That's quite a boldly generalised statement there. A similar train of logic would be to say "African Americans all look the same, therefore we only need one image in the infobox at the African American article", which I'm quite certain plenty of editors may take offense to. I would disagree with the opinion that the art style is characteristically the same. Hence, having two images with differing styles would be able to bring home the point quite clearly, just like how the 12 images within the infobox at African American does. Two is a much smaller number than 12, don't you think? By saying that we cannot display two artworks here to provide examples used in mainstream media, it's clearly a double standard being put into force. What job is being done by having 12 images or African Americans, 9 images of Turkish people, and 8 images of Argentines? They're providing examples, just like here. Why aren't the WP:GALLERY police chasing after them instead? Is it different because it's an infobox? Either address this double standard by asking the people involved in the African American article to fix their blatant "image-gallery-within-an-infobox" over there, or allow this article to join the club just like any other functional article, with just two darn images. No more, just two. -- benlisquare T•C•E 03:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I hope you realise that anime styles are not people and that this discussion has nothing to do with race, so let's try to keep well clear of this line of discourse. Mixing race politics and art criticism in a discussion is unwise. in any case, I have already made my points clearly. I will not repeat them because I don't see any benefit in doing so, other than to reiterate that the BLP is not the place to educate readers about anime variations at the expense of the BLP subject. If you don't agree with me, it is fine. Thankfully, this is a wiki and hopefully other editors can offer their opinions in the process of trying to resolve this through consensus. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  04:02, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * In both cases, we have examples. On the African American page, we have twelve examples of people that are considered African Americans by reliable sources. On this article, I would like there to be two examples of Natalia artworks as reported by reliable sources. They're different cases, but follow the same line of thought. -- benlisquare T•C•E 04:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Images in a gallery should be suitably captioned to explain their relevance both to the article subject
 * Captions can be included to explain why the carefully selected images are of relevance. Reasons may include "this image was covered by X, Y and Z media outlets", or "this image was top-ranked for X consecutive days".
 * Reply: Gathering stats from the internet is OR and SYNTH and it is not a valid reason to include images in an article, especially a BLP. And this image was top-ranked for X consecutive days: Wikipedia is not Alexa Internet. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 18:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * They were examples. On the article talk page, the primary point used was that images used need to be well covered in sources. Remember: You entered this discussion above saying that the choice of images seemed arbitrary, right? This is to fix this problem that you pointed out. Would you still be unsatisfied after that, even though it was one of the main points you made to justify your opposition? People keen on the images have made multiple compromises already; it's rather unfair if those opposing continue to make zero position changes. Let me remind you that this article once had five images that were all arbitrarily chosen, with no reason to explain why those images were selected. We've come a long way already, but a solution is impossible to attain without the co-operation of the opposition side as well. -- benlisquare T•C•E 03:13, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said above, a single image is enough to describe the anime style used to depict the subject of the BLP. I also explained why we do not need more than one image. I think that if we reach the point of repeating arguments between us, this is a clear indication of disagreement with little prospect of being resolved. It is also a good indicator that we should wait for other editors to offer their opinions. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 04:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You say that we're repeating our arguments, but you still haven't elaborated your OR/SYNTH point. I've addressed your SYNTH concern, but you're not elaborating. This isn't constructive. You know quite well that as long as you don't say anything, I can't do anything. If you believe that this point has been addressed, say so; if you believe it hasn't, explain why. By disengaging and leaving, you've left this problem hanging, and your position vague. If the page protection is lifted, still nothing fruitful will come out of it, and people will continue to revert any changes despite that you haven't properly addressed a few points. If you disengage, you lose nothing out of it, whilst I do - this is the problem. Consensus should be built upon arguments, but it's hard to do that when one side only states arguments, and doesn't address counter-arguments. It's like the Taiwanese parliament. This is why I'm paranoid about people "running away" from the discussion, like a lot of people have above. People are very keen to disagree with something, but when asked to elaborate, they do nothing, or they claim they're too busy, or something else, whilst still leaving the impression that they're still right and that consensus leans towards their point. I'm not talking about you, I'm talking about the other people involved. It's too easy to disagree, and as long as nobody says anything, I can't do anything. Nobody on the opposition side has something to lose. -- benlisquare T•C•E 04:26, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Images in a gallery should be carefully selected, avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made.
 * The point being made would be that there are differing artworks with varying styles that exist, because by default the reader would not know this kind of information. We're talking about a new reader who is just discovered this topic, and doesn't know anything else about it. If they only saw one image, he would not fully understand the topic of the section. The careful selection of images would be non-arbitary and non-random, and be chosen via WP:CONSENSUS based on reasoning including media coverage and so forth. Images selected will have significant visual difference between each other - in other words, we don't need a selection of images all featuring microphones, or from one pose, or from one author. If all the images were too visually similar to one another, this would negate the purpose of having different images.
 * Reply: The point being made would be that there are differing artworks with varying styles that exist, because by default the reader would not know this kind of information.: The BLP is not the place to educate the reader about anime and its various styles. And: Images in a gallery should be carefully selected, avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made. This is exactly what I was saying all along. There is no reliable source contrasting or comparing these images. If we do that, it is our own OR and SYNTH. And Images selected will have significant visual difference between each other is not really true. The subject may be depicted in various poses, full-body or portrait, but the general anime style is unmistakable in all of them. We do not need multiple cartoons to illustrate the anime cartoon drawing method and its subgenres. One cartoon is enough. If the reader wishes to get an education on the anime style they can always go to the anime article. The BLP is simply not the place to educate people about anime. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 18:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "The BLP is not the place to educate the reader about anime and its various styles." That's not the point. This has nothing to do with "anime styles", this has to do with how different works of Natalia by different people appear different. c.f. the articles on classic Greek and Roman gods such as Aphrodite and Poseidon. (Yes, I am aware that they aren't BLPs, you don't need to point that out in your next reply. The point addresses the art issue.) The section within the much larger article is the place to educate the reader about the internet "meme". The internet "meme" does not have its own article because existing a section clearly suffices. Furthermore, your statement is slightly misinformed as well, since none of these images are "anime". Anime refers to a moving picture. Hence, the statement that the BLP isn't the place to "educate the reader about anime" is rather out of place. There is nowhere else on the entire project to demonstrate differences in Natalia artworks (not "anime", but artworks) except for this section within this article. The "anime" article is about anime, and not still art. "it is our own OR and SYNTH" Why? Multiple reliable sources show multiple artworks. It's not OR if it's done elsewhere. "The subject may be depicted in various poses, full-body or portrait, but the general anime style is unmistakable in all of them." - This is a subjective statement, and also contains the same logical misconnections as the above statement on "anime". Nowhere in the Natalia article does it claim that the images are "anime", so you should stop referring to them here as "anime". Saying that this Natalia_Poklonskaya_fan-art_by_Itachi_Kanade.jpg looks the same as Natalia Poklonskaya by As109.jpg this, is like saying that this Mike Tyson Portrait.jpg looks the same as this President Barack Obama.jpg. Both artworks appear clearly different, however you keep repeatedly saying that "the general style is the same etc etc", even though the difference is clear as day for anyone with two eyes to see. If someone said that "Greeks look the same as Turks, because they have the same hair colour and eyebrow shape", I can assure you that you would probably get offended. Why, then, should you follow the same train of logic here? These images are not "anime", and they do not share any identical or similar characteristics which would put them into a same generalised category. In Japan, these images would merely be described using the umbrella term of "fanart", which involves more than just one art style. This image is just a regular painting style artwork that doesn't even follow the alleged conventions of "anime". This logic is not accepted anywhere else, so why use this logic here? I'm certain that if we changed the subjects around (e.g. Greeks and Turks), you too would not accept this logic. Please do not use a train of logic that you yourself would not accept. -- benlisquare T•C•E 03:27, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As I advised you in my reply above, mixing race and art criticism is not a good idea. Now you have escalated this to using arguments of ethnicity with presumptuous conclusions. I have become convinced now that the best course of action is to disengage from each other and wait for the opinions of other editors. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  04:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My bad choice of examples is only an excuse. Yes, I probably shouldn't have made an example relating to race, but that's in the past now, too late to change anything about it. My point regarding the logical disrepancies within your argument still stand as long as you do not address them, and if page protection is lifted, then I reserve the right to assume that you have given up on your logically flawed point. Remember - so far, you have resorted to plenty of subjective and interpetative arguments, and have avoided making any statements with a concrete backing. I have adhered to using facts more than "feeling", basing my arguments on word dictionary definitions ("anime" is not what you think it is) and logical derivations. Until the flaws in my reasoning are presented to me, I have the right to assume that concrete arguments have priority over subjective ones. -- benlisquare T•C•E 04:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Art, by its nature, is subjective. Dr.K's statement that The anime style is characteristic enough to not need multiple examples of the art is therefore also purely subjective as well. It's opinion, not fact. I think that the three images above look different, therefore multiple images are needed. So do and  from Talk:Natalia Poklonskaya. Some viewers think that the images look the same, some people don't. The readers who think the images look the same, I don't see what harm is there for them to see an extra similar image. The readers who don't think the images look the same, I see them coming away misinformed by just looking at one image.  starship.paint   "YES!" 10:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, regarding The anime style is characteristic enough to not need multiple examples of the art, shall we read what the Anime article say? Visually, anime is a diverse art form that contains a wide variety of styles that share few similarities to one another. Follows up with a link to this image.   starship.paint   "YES!" 10:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Visually, anime is a diverse art form that contains a wide variety of styles that share few similarities to one another.
 * Let's get real here. This particular subgenre of anime is not very diverse. The oversized eyes looking like those of aliens from Area 51, the thin lips, the similarly stylized straight blonde hair. Are we looking at the same cartoons? Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 04:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Probably not. Some might even say that your overgeneralisation is narrow-sighted, but like he said, people may see things differently, and it just happens to be that you don't see things in as much detail, probably because you're not interested in the subject. I do the same thing for things that I am apathetic to - home architecture, for instance. To me, houses all look the damn same (seriously, what's the difference), but that's because I'm apathetic to the topic of home architecture. Also, again, it's not anime, anime is a moving picture. If you're going to keep doing that, then you're not listening. You can call it moe-style, you can call it anime-like, you can call it animesque-style, you can call it manga art, you can call it fan art; you just cannot call it anime. -- benlisquare T•C•E 07:26, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * These three? Natalia_Poklonskaya_fan-art_by_Itachi_Kanade.jpg, Natalia Poklonskaya by phanc002.jpg and Natalia Poklonskaya by As109.jpg.
 * (1) and (2) look similar, but (3) is markedly different from (1) or (2) in my opinion. We're not pressing too hard for (2) to be included now, only (1) and (3), so let's focus on those two. The origins of Internet popularity began with this video, which would explain the similar hair style, I wouldn't expect bushy or dark hair coming from any other art style. Everything about (1) is about the huge eyes, while nose and mouth is insignificant. (3)'s eyes seem much more proportionate to me, with an obviously more fleshed out nose and mouth. And how about their expressions? (3) is confident, (1) has a tinge of hesitation. I wonder why you brought up aliens and Area 51. Oh well. starship.paint   "YES!" 08:02, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it is simple. Anime/manga cartoons feature oversized eyes similar to drawings of  extraterrestrials  such as those allegedly associated with  Area 51 for example. Many drawings of ETs and anime cartoons are similar in their depiction of oversized eyes in relation to the rest of the facial features. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  08:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * So now you've demonstrated that you're not willing to be productive towards the problem, and only intend to continue mudflinging because your opinion is the only thing acceptable. -- benlisquare T•C•E 08:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * In what way is my opinion of the relative size of the eyes of these cartoons "mudslinging"? I think your attitude is anything but productive. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 09:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The answer to your original point has been provided. In some cases, the answer is repeated multiple times. You choose not to read them because you notice that there is a yellow signature at the end of them. This is the non-productive aspect of what you're doing here. I'm not typing letters because I feel like it, I'm doing so to address your points, start showing some respect and acknowledge the words that I type out, instead of typing another comment which gives the impression that my words fell on deaf ears. This cycle is repeating ad nauseam and I've yet to see a change. -- benlisquare T•C•E 10:09, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems to me that similarities between such cartoons and Grey alien are purely coincidental. From the Wiki-link above, grey aliens significantly entered popular culture from the early 1980s, stemming from new witness accounts of the Roswell UFO incident in the United States (not Japan) in 1978. can read History of anime, seems like TV animation had been prevalent in Japan by the 1960s.  starship.paint   "YES!" 09:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I don't think (3)'s eyes are dramatically oversized, and I'm still not seeing, how is the reader harmed by seeing both (1) and (3)? It's quite obvious the benefit to the reader if he thinks (1) and (3) look different, but even if he thinks they look the same? I don't see confusion or incorrect information being conveyed. starship.paint   "YES!" 09:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It isn't so much about incorrect information being conveyed as it is about keeping the cartoons to a minimum in a BLP to avoid WP:UNDUE issues. Don't forget, it isn't the fault of the BLP subject that manga fans find her kawaii or cute. We should not use this internet meme to convert the BLP of the prosecutor into a cartoon showcase, especially if the prosecutor was in no way responsible for the craze. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 09:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "it is about keeping the cartoons to a minimum in a BLP to avoid WP:UNDUE issues" - And this is already addressed. This has been explained multiple times, but you give off the impression of ignoring what I say. The gallery is being replaced by a much less conspicuous solution. -- benlisquare T•C•E 10:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I really don't see what's negative about the cartoons as it is implied through it isn't the fault. Benlisquare has said already, my side has been willing to meet you halfway in the interests of WP:UNDUE for the BLP. We've been editing the article from the beginning. We've added a fair use real-life image of her which was deleted. Regarding the article, WP:UNDUE was brought up, so we've cut the Internet popularity section and beefed up the other sections. Not long ago the Internet popularity section was 46% of the body. 45% of it was trimmed away and now the Internet popularity section is just 17% of the body. The "Internet popularity" content is out there but we're not adding it to the article. We've originally had a gallery of five images, step by step as we're arguing for five, four, three and now two. I think that the already reduced nature of the Internet popularity section allows for a marginally larger weight of two images than one, and that section in particular would rely on images the most. I guess it's easier to be a naysayer than a content builder, and it seems that nobody opposing is willing to budge. starship.paint   "YES!" 10:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess it's easier to be a naysayer than a content builder,...: You should consider this as an example of content-builders of other articles trying to offer advice about this BLP. One should not have to be a content-builder in this exact article to be able to express an opinion. In any case, the problem I have with this proposal is that what in effect this section amounts to, is an overblown, single-event, WP:TRIVIA section replete with pictorial examples of popular art. It is actually "Poklonskaya in popular anime/manga etc. culture". It is basically completely unrelated to the actual deeds of the BLP subject and it is imposed on it just because anime/manga etc. fans find the subject of the BLP "kawaii" or "cute". This cultural assault of the anime industry on the subject of the BLP is a useless diversion in the context of the actual BLP which is supposed to describe the life and work of the prosecutor, not an internet fad which is fueled by the anime/manga industry. Therefore, I think we should treat such sections with utmost care and regard for the BLP subject, and try to minimise them. Otherwise we run the risk of pop-culture, and associated industries, overwhelming this and perhaps other BLPs, creating in the process a BLP train wreck. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 18:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It is already as minimal as it can be. It can certainly be bigger, however the people involved have chosen not to make it any bigger. A Russian computer game developer has announced that Natalia will be a playable character in an online battle arena game, for example. I'm not kidding - the people working on the article have had plenty of restraint. -- benlisquare T•C•E 20:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Natalia is not like other BLPs. She is ingrained in Internet popular culture. The reliable sources out there prove that. She has dual notability both as the Crimean Prosecutor and as an Internet phenomenon, essentially she's Edward Khil with a more notable job. Just because she did not purposely perpetuate it, doesn't mean it's not relevant to her. It's easy to dismiss it as a "single event" when you're not fully aware of what's out there because we've not included it in the article to pacify those crying WP:UNDUE. 1. Initial press conference video (with real life "couch" photos unmentioned) 2. Fan-art. 3. (unmentioned in article) video game characters. 4. (also unmentioned) second wave of videos... music video, "nyash" etc. It's time people recognized that this is the "life and work" of the subject here. Accidental, so what? She's an Internet phenomenon and that is half her notability. starship.paint   "YES!" 01:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I've read over the discussion here, on the article talk page, and the DYK submission, and there is a key point that the proponents of the gallery are not quite grasping. Benlisquare makes a reasonable case that more than one image is necessary to fully represent this fan art phenomenon. This argument would be relevant if this article were called "Natalia Poklonskaya fan art meme", but it is not. It is the biography of Natalia Poklonskaya and must represent her entire life, representing each aspect in a proportionate way. Including a entire gallery for this single aspect of her life, especially when the article contains no other pictures, disproportionately over-represents this small part of her biography. The concern to respectfully, proportionally, and accurately document her biography overrides any concerns about fully documenting this fan art phenomenon with a large number of pictures. Gamaliel ( talk ) 04:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If there was a real-life photograph within the article infobox, would you change your position? -- benlisquare T•C•E 04:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, per the article talk page, it is no longer the case that people seek "a entire gallery"; two images is hardly considered a gallery. Since the number of images is to be reduced, the issue of WP:UNDUE and being overwhelming has become much less of an argument. Since your statement explicitly says that the problem relates to "a large number of pictures", this no longer applies, because it does not matter what part of the world you are from, two is not a large number, unless you're counting polonium isotopes by gram. May I even argue that two 100×100px images joined together by Multiple image behaves no less than a singular image to a fresh reader of the article, than one image that is 200×100px. -- benlisquare T•C•E 11:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems there is at least on editor on the talk page who still seeks more than two pictures: "As soon as the lock expires, we have the full right to put the gallery back."  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 17:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well I can assure you that it won't happen, since doing so would become disruptive. Even I don't agree with restoring the entire thing. -- benlisquare T•C•E 02:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Excellent points Gamaliel. I fully agree. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 06:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

In practical (read: realistic) terms to a reader, there is little difference in conspicuousness between these two:
 * On image use and WP:UNDUE



The total image size is the same, and the number of thumbnail frame boxes are the same. That's all the reader will notice. Don't dwelve into the technicalities behind template usage - the average reader will care very little about these intricate details. The reader is only concerned about what he sees. You can argue about how "technically two files are used", but this is something that readers have little concern over, and things such as WP:UNDUE are designed to relate to what kind of content readers find, and not things like load on the servers or anything like that. Readers are the primary audience here, and not technical staff or contributors. As long as the pixel size is low, and there is only one frame, there is nothing WP:UNDUE about using two images. I have yet to find a convincing argument explaining why the two lizards on the left would be more WP:UNDUE than the one lizard on the right. Formatting the two images like this is no different from me stitching two images together in Microsoft Paint and then reuploading it, the main difference is that it saves me the effort of opening up Microsoft Paint. -- benlisquare T•C•E 10:28, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * to claim that 1=2 is a sublime exercise in Newspeak. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking if one equals two. I'm asking if formatting it a certain way is less WP:UNDUE, and why. Please don't twist my words to suit your own conveniences. If it makes no difference, in the eyes of the community, then we may as well go for a gallery. If the community deems that there is indeed a difference in conspicuousness, then using the new method would allow for a greater compromise. Remember - a gallery is huge, this new experiment is not. -- benlisquare T•C•E 12:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Alright then, let's change the game a little bit.



How are these two different, from a layperson reader's perspective? Ignore the minor technical details (GIF format, 256 colour limit), they're the uploader's fault and not mine. From a technical standpoint, there's nothing stopping me from pulling one of these, like on this article's infobox, which combines this, this, this, this and this. No matter how you argue it, this is one image—not five, but one image. It would clutter the servers of Wikimedia Commons a bit less if I didn't, however, and so I would prefer if I didn't have to do that, since it would be quite hassling and troublesome for the people in charge of running the servers. All I want, as an end result, is two images. That's it. If one method won't work, I'll move onto the next, and if that method won't work, I'll move onto the next method which is most guaranteed to work, however is least preferable for a number of reasons (server resource wastage, plus I actually have to put effort into something), and thus is my final option. -- benlisquare T•C•E 12:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Single purpose account block requested




Hi all,

A couple of days ago I semi-protected both these articles due to a variety of unregistered and un-autoconfirmed editors repeatedly adding BLP violations/other unencyclopedic content. One of the main culprits was the above-linked user, however I decided not to block because I expected the semi-protection to halt the issues.

Unfortunately, now that the user is confirmed, they have returned to readding the BLP violations, and have not only broken 3RR but gone well beyond it. Given the account is a single purpose account purely for re-adding these BLP violations, I request an indefinite hard-block to prevent any repeat offences from this individual.

(I could have technically done this myself as I am not involved and it's a BLP dispute, but given the editor in question has already given me one spray on my talk page about being biased and whatnot for semi-protecting the article sans their BLP violating content, it would be more appropriate for someone else to do it.)

Regards, Daniel (talk) 07:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Indefblocked. Sole purpose account here to edit war over a controversial BLP and related topics. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 11:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Akinwunmi Ambode
Akinwunmi Ambode is a candidate here in Lagos Nigeria vying for political office in the 2015 elections. The article Akinwunmi Ambode contains some irregularities as shown below:
 * The article is not written from a Neutral point of view (NPOV)
 * 1) "he ensured probity in the financial management of the limited resources and also plugged the loopholes that allowed for financial frivolities and recklessness."
 * 2) "He was known as an achiever and performer."
 * 3) "In addition, he was able to motivate the civil service staff around him and all were glad to have worked under him"
 * 4) "Ambode believes that..."
 * 5) "Ambode is a very active member of the..."
 * 6) "This book tells the story of his life about giving back to humanity, his community and his mission of selfless service."
 * Ambode's heritage (which the article claims to be Epe, Lagos) has been reported to be something else by the biggest newspaper publishers in the country (http://www.thisdaylive.com/articles/lagosians-warn-against-emergence-of-non-indigene-as-fasholas-successor/175913/)

In summary, Wikipedia's policy of BLPs advises they be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone. I would therefore like to request the article be modified to adhere to these guidelines and not be used as a political tabloid tool as it currently is in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tadegoke (talk • contribs) 08:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That article is basically a resume, lacking sources for most of the material there. Not sure if the subject of the article pass any of the criteria for notability either. I'll research a bit and clean it up or send to AFD if I don't find anything. Cwobeel (talk) 03:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Paul Stam
This Article is obviously written with a bias. The NC House Representative has been an elected official for 14 years and only one topic highlighting one issue is highlighted. Why? - Patty C — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.192.107 (talk) 10:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It may need cleaning up, but we will not delete it, as he's automatically notable. I'll tag it and try to fix it. Bearian (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see any WP:UNDUE problems. Bearian (talk) 19:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Leon Ockenden
Concerns have been raised on the article talk page regarding the legitimacy of the information provided in the article, specifically with regard to Ockenden's early years (which I removed here pending verification). On the face of it the claims do appear preposterous or a joke being presented as fact, but I can't review the youtube link to verify what, if any, is accurate. .--<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 16:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Watching. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Walworth Barbour
Good afternoon,

I am a family member of Walworth Barbour, and though your facts on his page or correct the photo on the page is not that of Walworth Barbour. Thank you.

Elizabeth Hammond Casey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcasey1966 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that? Are you sure? The LBJ Library says it's him at . In the interim, I've removed the link. Hipocrite (talk) 18:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It is him. The picture linked to by Bcasey1966 is listed as being from the National Archives but I cannot verify that for copyright purposes. -- Neil N  <sup style="color:blue;">talk to me  19:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Here's a picture I found online that is him. If you can put it in that would be great.

https://www.google.com/search?q=walworth+barbour&client=firefox-a&hs=41H&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=sb&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=SZFiU6-VLYKayASj5oK4Bg&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAw&biw=1920&bih=949#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=aeSLSZw76bSWIM%253A%3BziWtd6CN4P4iIM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww2.gwu.edu%252F~nsarchiv%252Fnukevault%252Febb432%252Fphotos%252F5-30-13-rg-59-SO-Walworth-Barbour-photo-from-still-pictures-division.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww2.gwu.edu%252F~nsarchiv%252Fnukevault%252Febb432%252F%3B800%3B1035

We appreciate it. There is a slight similarity, but this picture is more like what we all remembered him as. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcasey1966 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Kevin Barrett
There is a lengthy section in the article on Kevin Barrett that describes an arrest without a conviction. It's unrelated to the topic for which Barrett is known, and appears to be nothing more than a smear. While Barrett's article should definitely describe his controversial stands, this appears to violate WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE. What say you all? 70.235.86.50 (talk) 21:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, I removed the section, and I was reverted. Other opinions are welcomed.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  19:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Mark Miller has identified this as a "page ownership issue". The section has been removed by four different editors (1, 2, 3, 4) and the removal has been reverted three times by Capitalismojo (1, 2, 3) and once by Hyperionsteel. It's time for some new eyes on the article. 71.139.142.181 (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I feel no ownership of this article at all, I was not the one who made the initial restoration. I will be happy to see this edit made if it was supported by either consensus or policy. This section was created in 2008, deletion without discussion seems unwarranted and was unexplained at talk. I note that one of the section deletions attributed the deletion to AVOIDVICTIM. The subject of the article was not a victim, the policy does not apply. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * FWIW, Jumping to BLP/N before and without trying to reach any consensus at talk seems premature. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Antonio Giordano
The article appears to be self-published. I flagged it 2 months ago for multiple issues including lack of neutrality, poor sourcing, reads like a resume, and inserted citations needed flags.

when nothing happened I expressed my concern on the talk page. Unregistered users, presumably fellow researchers from his corporation, or employees have made numerous edits, adding soft awards etc. I sincerely doubt the notability of this person; Publishing 300 biomedical articles is not enough, otherwise thousands of researchers should have their own wikipedia page.

All of a sudden 26 changes were made, again unregistered users IP addresses tracing to the location of his lab. From beginning to end, this article has been written by Giordano's corporation. --Wuerzele (talk) 22:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * AFDed - Articles_for_deletion/Antonio_Giordano Cwobeel (talk) 03:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Peter Thiel
Should the lede say "German-born" American? Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 02:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If he is, and there are reliable sources that attest to that, why not? It is a biography after all. Cwobeel (talk) 03:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * We are talking about the lede and because WP:MOSBIO says to use the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable. Does anybody know when the subject became a US citizen? --Malerooster (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Per WP:OPENPARAGRAPH "Ethnicity ... previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability." I have provided lots of sources that show that it is relevant to the subject's notability. Most contemporary sources describe him as German-born, e.g. Evgeny Morozov, To Save Everything, Click Here: The Folly of Technological Solutionism, Perseus Books, 2013 here. Often, Thiel is even laballed as "the German businessman, who co-founded PayPal" (e.g. Daily News) here Per WP:OPENPARA → 3.2. the info is "relevant to the subject's notability." - if not relevant, why does the media mention it all the time? → please see the other refs provided in the lead of the article →
 * References

--IIIraute (talk) 05:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:OPENPARAGRAPH seems clear enough here - being German-born isn't what makes Thiel notable. It certainly doesn't belong in the first sentence of the lede, and I can't see any compelling reason to include it in the lede at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The consensus, small sample now, 3-2, has formed. I know this isn't a vote, but I will wait a little longer and then revert to the prior version that only included the subject's present nationality. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Peter Rees (producer)
There's a disagreement between some editors and the apparent subject of the article going on on. The editors want to include a statement that the subject, a TV producer, had to leave a TV show after a prsenter received a severe electric shock. The source cited is a YouTube clip of the prsenter giving an account. Insufficient source for this acusation, in my view. But in any case, the prsenter doesn't allege a causal link in the clip anyway. The other editors seem to be more interested in COI allegations than BLP so more eyes on this article would be a good idea. DeCausa (talk) 08:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but this is not at all true. The content that DeCausa refers to was added in 2013 by an editor whose only ever edits to Wikipedia were these edits to the article. Nobody else has argued that the content be included in the article. The restoration of the edits have been the natural result of an editor claiming to be the subject adding original research and inappropriate claims about the hosts of MythBusters to the article, and then completely destroying the article with a subsequent edit. When the edits were reverted, the claim was restored to the article in the process of reversion. The offending claim has been removed by DeCausa, who has explained his action on the talk page, and whose actions I supported. The issue now is that of COI and legal threats by the editor, who has yet to prove that is who he says he is. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 12:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not untrue at all. The BLP breach was restored three times over two days. The last time it was restored the edit only included a restoration of the BLP breach and no other material. DeCausa (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Donald Sterling accusations of a third party being a Prostitute
shows a blanket revert of material which includes what I consider to be exceedingly serious BLP violations -- including accusations that another person is a prostitute, and a third was a "mistress". BTW, there is no way that Castro is "notable" or in any way subject to any exception from strict compliance with the policy.

It also contains speculation about criminal intent in a real estate project, etc.

I consider such re-insertion of fairly contentious material (saying a person committed felonies is contentious IMHO) is intolerable.

I was "warned" on this by a person who wrote:


 *  All that is not mandated to be deleted can be included, and all that is allowed to be included should not be deleted; BLP therefore assures that there should be no deletion of contentious material with a reliable source. Edit summaries should not include contentiousness as a sole rationale.

Which I am either bemused by or affronted by. The idea that all that is not forbidden is required is Orwellian enough, but how one can stretch that to calling another person a "prostitute" and think it does not violate WP:BLP is quite beyond my ken. By the way, the sources refer to "allegation" and I consider "allegations" of criminal acts to not be worth the paper they are printed on for statements in any BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

K Camp
was recently converted from a redirect into a full-blown article. I'm a little concerned about the writing style and referencing. In particular, several sentences in the lead seem to express opinions as if they were facts, and quite a few quasi-factual claims (particularly those relating to the history of this artist) are unsupported by references. I don't want to just stubbify the whole thing because I'd rather not step on the primary author's toes (especially if they plan to fix these issues tomorrow), but on the other hand we're really not supposed to just wait around on BLP issues. -- N Y  Kevin   03:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * All I did was add the discography section, add citations since there was zero before and removed all the opinion garbage that the person that wrote the article had in there so the article was not tagged for deletion for not being notable or for another reason. I did not write a single bit of the prose besides the first sentence "K Camp is an American rapper." I seriously would not like my name attached to that article at all, because I did not write it. I honestly do not care what happens to the article, but the subject clearly meets WP:MUSICBIO. STATic message me!   03:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My apologies; you showed up a lot in the history so I assumed you were primarily responsible. I linked your name to ensure you saw this discussion, not because I wanted this "on your record" or anything like that.  -- N  Y  Kevin   04:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * So what is it exactly you want to be done to the article? I believe I cut all the inappropriate content that was there when you made this edit. STATic message me!   04:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure what to do (which is why I'm here instead of just fixing it myself). But it still has serious problems with the areas I described above (e.g. "K Camp took his talent a little more seriously..." is basically unverifiable fluff, an album is described as the "best showcase" for something, etc.).  Either that material has to be reworded, or it has to go.  -- N  Y  Kevin   19:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Satpal maharaj
Most of the content of This article are not true & not having documentary or any other evidence.

These article/information written is very wrong intension to defame a person.

Most of the content of this article are violating the rules of "biography of a living person" & "Defamatory" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vashishtha.gyan (talk • contribs) 11:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I have removed one paragraph as it was poorly sourced. Can you provide specifics regarding which other statements are poorly sourced? Thanks. &mdash; goethean 17:28, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Pernilla August
First of all -- this good faith BLP notice was left on April 27 and was never reviewed or replied to before the bot finally automatically archived it. I retrieved it and have restored it here in blockquotes. It is outrageous that you people just ignored it and went on to newer posts. Is my post too complicated or difficult to review and reply to? I don't get it. Just unbelievable. Quis separabit? 13:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Original post: "Yeah, this is probably no big deal, and it went unnoticed for a while by other editors, until I just caught it. An IP user 174.22.10.16 (talk) left something written in Arabic in the Persondata/metadata section in the "Date of Death". They also made another vandalistic edit which he/she reverted but not the "Date of Death". This is probably no big deal but as it could remotely be seen as threatening I am mentioning it here. See following diffs:"


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pernilla_August&diff=next&oldid=522439754
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pernilla_August&diff=next&oldid=523440005
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pernilla_August&diff=next&oldid=523440122

Quis separabit? 00:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You get angry when nobody responded to your post which states "this is probably no big deal"?! GiantSnowman 13:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Also the diffs are from November 2012 and look like straightforward vandalism which should be reverted (as it has been) and ignored (which it hasn't). So what action were you actually expecting here? GiantSnowman 13:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * My saying its probably no big deal does not exclude anyone from the courtesy of replying. The diffs are old, but, as they could be viewed as even remotely threatening that is why I reported it here. If I overreacted to the edits in question then let me know so I don't make the same mistake. Threats or anything even perceived as threatening are taken seriously here, no? There is no justification for not replying or leaving some kind of recognition of my post before archiving!! Quis separabit?  14:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, just a slight over-reaction ;) - revert, warn and ignore per WP:DENY. GiantSnowman 14:07, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * However, it's better to think something is wrong and bring it to wider attention (only to be ignored or told there's nothing to do), as opposed to there being something actually actionable and doing nothing about it! GiantSnowman 14:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Catherine Bosley now at AfD
The article Catherine Bosley has been repeatedly raised as problematic on this noticeboard, over a lengthy period of time. I have now sent it to AfD on the grounds of WP:BIO1E - Articles for deletion/Catherine Bosley. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Jaiyah Saelua
Jaiyah Saelua is an international footballer who identifies as a fa'afafine. All the press items which involve interviewing the subject make it clear that fa'afafine is the primary identification. In some, teammates are quoted using female pronouns for the subject. They play in the FIFA men's league. The article identified the subject as transgender and the talk page as a trans women. As far as I can see fa'afafine should be used in both of these places. The fact that the western media is translating this non-western gender into western concepts in order to explain things to the readers is of no concern when it comes to WP:MOSIDENTITY.

Oscar López Rivera
User, Rococo1700, insist on adding information about criminal charges using primary sources (US Congressional reports) and ignores secondary sources, including a cite from the NY Times: 1. Several editors have asked him to stop edit warring in a BLP. I also asked last night for page protection but the request has been ignored. Thanks,--Jmundo (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Jmundo has a bias to downplay the violent crimes for which OLR was convicted. He claims that I deleted the reference New York Times 1999 which stated


 * "Mr. Lopez Rivera was convicted in Chicago in August 1981 of numerous charges, including weapons violations and conspiracy to transport explosives with intent to destroy Government property, and sentenced to 70 years in prison. Mr. Clinton had offered to reduce his sentence."

And I replaced it with citations that are very detailed about the convictions in a US House of Representatives Report. However, if he does not like, why don't we use New York Times 1981, a report on the conviction of OLR which states:


 * After deliberating five hours, the 12-member jury, which received the case today, found Mr. Lopez-Rivera guilty on five counts involving seditious conspiracy, armed robbery, weapons violations and interstate transportation of stolen property.

Does he still have problems with the notion that OLR was convicted of armed robbery? Please participate in the Dispute resolution ongoing for this article.Rococo1700 (talk) 05:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

All Congresspeople
The issue at Michael Grimm (politician) is asserted to include all Congress men people.

The dispute is over whether Charles Rangel "succeeded" Grimm in Congress. Despite Rangel and Grimm having absolutely zero constituents in common at all.

The edit involved is  with the claim in the edit summary: ''Then please change every single Rep. who has been redistriced on Wiki. That is what happens with re-disgtricting. Do not RV. This is how it is to be display''

On the Talk page:


 * I have reverted your edits because, to be frank, you are wrong. Regardless of how the districts overlap, this is something that does not only affect Grimm but also every other Rep on Wiki. This is not a page issue but an issue that has to do with the general format. If you feel strongly, please try to adjust the default format with the Wiki admins and not try to experiment on Grimms page. I understand what you are saying logically, but physically your changes look ridiculous on the page itself. Please, again, do not revert my recent edits or I will report you for vandalism. - DONALDderosa (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC) 

So far I have found absolutely zero RS sources for claiming that Rangel succeeded Grimm. Congress counts seniority independent of "district numbers" and thus it is inane to haveWiki[edia make a claiminWikipedia's voice that Grimm was succeeded by Rangel. The same "decision" is inded found on other pages = such as Rangel's BLP, and is fully as ludicrous there. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * So this is a problem that does not appear on pages dealing with female members of Congress?? How odd…  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:50, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I presume it does affect every member of Congress who is subjected to this peculiar editing style.  I emended the title to "Congresspeople" per your important contribution. Thank you. Collect (talk) 19:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd have to admit, it's odd to see Collect assert that it's not right to call redistricting a "succeeded," event, and get into a full-blown edit war over that, but not once "fix" the "Preceded by Yvette Clarke" line on the exact same article. Perhaps that doesn't mesh with whatever political axe Collect is grinding in this instance, but yeah, there's a real problem with Collect's editing here. Hipocrite (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Son Na-eun
Claims of fluency in Chinese and English is false. Removed false information but reposted again by someone. No concrete evidence of fluency but merely basic conversational speech. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiejie8 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

2 users 2xiyong and James pig and an anynomous user with IP 60.29.78.150 have attacked Son Na-eun's page with false informations in May 6, 2014.Ke ac lam viec tot 03:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keaclamviectot (talk • contribs)

walworth barbour
The picture that is posted on the page for Walworth Barbour is not a picture of Walworth Barbour. I am a family member, and I have asked multiple family members and we are in agreement that this is not a photograph of Walworth Barbour. Please remove this photograph from this page. Here is a link to a webpage with a true photograph of Walworth Barbour. I am not sure of copyright rules for this picture, if it can be posted on Wikipedia. Please advise. thank you.

Elizabeth Casey --Bcasey1966 (talk) 12:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I checked the source and there is no mention of Barbour, so I have removed the photo from the article. Cwobeel (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Found a confirmed photo of Walworth Barbour at the National Archives, and added to Commons and the article. Cwobeel (talk) 16:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Ironically, both pictures are clearly of the same man. And here is a source stating the original was of Walworth Barbour: http://www.lbjlibrary.net/collections/photo-archive/photolab-detail.html?serial=c9188-31. --GRuban (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Cwobeel - are you sure you got that picture from where you said you got it? Hipocrite (talk) 18:35, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Cwobeel - I found it here - http://www.jewishpress.com/news/photos/middle-eastern-country-builds-nuclear-weapons/2013/10/25/attachment/barbour/ - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Walworth_Barbour.jpg - looks exactly the same - http://www.jewishpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Barbour.jpg - I didn't find a pic at research.archives.gov Mosfetfaser (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Where in the National Archives? Or was it an offline search? I'm asking because I couldn't find it earlier. -- Neil N  <sup style="color:blue;">talk to me  18:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * . It is referred as such here: and here . Cwobeel (talk) 21:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Aleida Guevara
[Aleida Guevara] Inappropriate information. i.e. She was born in Cuba in a dustpan? Her religion is Fartism? Her child's name is Satan? Her award is in farting? inaccurate information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.51.224 (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Petty vandalism, reverted. Thanks for letting us know. § FreeRangeFrog croak 19:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Michael Tobias
Once again, a new editor has magically appeared to insert fifty pounds of fluff into this BLP including awards sourced only to the non-notable organization giving the award, and other majorly important material about the person. This has been repeatedly depuffed in the past, and eyes on anything that ought not have been removed are welcomed. I suspect not much will fall into that category. The new editor appears to have a corporate name ("intuitionentertainment"), but that is not going to bother me - there have been a number of such on this BLP in the past. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well the article is fully protected so I guess we won't have to worry about it too much :) § FreeRangeFrog croak 02:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Josiah Neeley
Article containing references only to the website of the foundation that publishes the subject's work. Article created by a user with a problematic history of self editing. David in DC (talk) 15:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Watchlisted. Cwobeel (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I did a bit of research and it does not look like this person fits the notability criteria. I'll AFD it. Cwobeel (talk)
 * Looks like a clear A7 speedy to me, so tagged as such.--ukexpat (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Clear A7, gone. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Arthur G. Bedeian
Arthur G. Bedeian (Professor at Louisiana State University) requests that the two pages bearing his name be removed from Wikipedia immediately. There is one (Arthur G. Bedeian) and one that redirects to this page (Arthur Bedeian). He is a living professor and the information in his article is incorrect and he does not want any information about him in Wikipedia. I am asking this at his request since I am the Technical Asst. to the Dean of the College of Business and an LSU Campus Ambassador. He has tried to have it removed. Lsukari (talk) 16:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I have reverted your blanking of this page. If you wish to nominate it for deletion, please follow the WP:AFD process. But please note that we do not delete articles at the subject's request unless the subject is of borderline notability. Bedeian appears to be notable. Any errors in the article can be addressed with suitable edits. Please explain on the article's talk page how the article should be corrected, with references, and someone will review your request.--ukexpat (talk) 17:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

RfC at Template talk:Infobox officeholder
There is an RfC at that talk page regarding the best way to deal with possibly inapt "successors" and"predecessors" being named as a result of redistricting. Collect (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

barbara roche
The opinions stated as fact in Barbara Roche, particularly those in the 'Controversy' section, are extremely biased and not supported by evidence. One part claims that she is trying to mislead the public, which I believe makes it libellous. It is clearly written by someone who strongly dislikes her. I would suggest occasionally keeping an eye on this and other pages relating to immigration in the UK as the topic becomes heated in the run up to the european election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.93.219.250 (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Removed some crap, & watchlisted.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Robert Aaron
I'd like to ask for a few more eyeballs on the Articles for deletion/Robert Aaron. It's a tricky one - he's a musician who may or may not meet our notability standards for musicians (you decide), but the primary interest in him as a suspected heroin dealer who allegedly sold heroin to Philip Seymour Hoffman. Since the AfD began, the article has been almost completely wiped of any references to PSH. Thanks. -- Y not? 15:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Gillian McKeith
A third opinion would be appreciated in a discussion about inclusion of certain pieces of criticism of McKeith (a nutritionist whose credentials are somewhat controversial) in our article on her. See the discussion here. Thanks, J Milburn (talk) 16:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Understatement of the week. Guy (Help!) 10:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Lt. General Frank E. Petersen
- I corrected his date of birth from March 3, 1932 to March 2, 1932 (the accurate date) and his picture was removed. How can I get the picture back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaylemp (talk • contribs) 17:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Please do not start posts with a space, as that causes formatting problems. The problem is caused by you removing the closing bits on the date field, which damaged the rest of the code.  Add }} at the end of the date field. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Cecialia Brækhus
Someone have edited her profile 1. May. Where she was supposedly defeated in a fight the 24. April. I cant find any information about this. Please check this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anders1985 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * taken down https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cecilia_Br%C3%A6khus&diff=607596936&oldid=606582654 Mosfetfaser (talk) 07:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Ted Kaptchuk
Violation of WP:BLP by with this edit. Thank you. New England Cop (talk) 02:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I see you have reverted it, appropriately.--ukexpat (talk) 13:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Do you think it's appropriate to a revision deletion and a block of the offender? New England Cop (talk) 14:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * No harm in asking: WP:OVERSIGHT.--ukexpat (talk) 17:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

bria valente
The link to the Daily Star says Prince shows up at an event with Bria Valente (his girlfriend). The picture shown in the link shows Prince with Andy Allo. I believe the journalist who wrote the piece doesn't know the difference and therefore quoting Bria Valente's age alongside a picture of Bria Valente is questionable. I don't thin think the source is reliable.

Thanks

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/219992/Celebs-party-for-High-St-hook-up — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.122.34.224 (talk) 05:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Tabloids are not reliable sources, removed. § FreeRangeFrog croak 16:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

William French Anderson
This article has massive laundry lists of patents, honorary doctorates, Society Memberships, Chairmanships of Major Symposia etc etc. It all seems rather overkill to me, perhaps an experienced BLP editor can have a look & see if all this is within policies & can be trimmed? NB editor User:Magioladitis added a COI template, but nothing on the article talk page. I shall ask him to comment here. 94.195.46.49 (talk) 22:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The BLP chainsaw has taken care of it. § FreeRangeFrog croak 23:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the surgical strike! 94.195.46.49 (talk) 02:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Biased article: Elena Udrea
Please do not let this site involved with the misery of political battles! Not a balanced biography, just few facts mixed with enumeration of denigrating claims(many of them false), purposely insisting on pointing rumors instead of presenting impartial information about a personality. From how is the article written it looks more like the opera of an editor serving political interests(the subject of the article being a politician possibly candidate for presidency) than a honest intention to contribute to Wikipedia.

And 80% of the quotes are from media sources or authors that are from slightly hostile to fully denigrating her daily and the parties that are not socialist, it is like would be quoting mostly republican sources in Obama's biography and write mostly what they say about him.

Example: for the personal life of a politician what is important is that a scandal media claimed that her dress did cost 14.000 pounds even if I remember from the press of that time that she showed the UK site price of 780 pounds for it pointing the proof of the lie? How would be if instead of so much useful information on articles here we would had found mostly what some scandal press are claiming and their cheap articles quoted? Watch out for this kind of editors...

Another example, for 710 million old lei contracts(~17.000 EUR, not mentioning that the amount is in our old currency is also biased as the new currency value is 10.000 times bigger so the amount would be 71.000 lei now) the unbiased information would had said the complete truth, that during 2003-2004 she received a total of 2.35 billion old lei(~55.000 EUR, were more contracts during two years) from RA-APPS for her services as lawyer but later she also returned that amount on her initiative, claiming that she wants to be free to delimit herself from politicians immoral practices of getting luxury buildings from same RA-APPS without auction(during returning period her attorney bureau was successfully contesting a law allowing politicians to get public propriety buildings without auction at unfair prices). Her previous services were also with direct contracts(usual practice at state owned institutions, legal for smaller amounts work as auction on services required on bigger contracts only), if she did return the fees because feeling that was not 100% right on moral side even if covered on legal side, for her legal fight and protest against the acquiring of hundreds of thousands or millions EUR buildings at smaller prices to have more weight as she said, to give political adversaries less ammunition with a teasing subject, a bit from all of them, or other reasons - does not matter, what matters is showing the complete picture of a subject not only the "convenient" parts of it. The list can continue for most parts of the article. More or less subtle manipulation techniques like that content are common especially among some communist inheritance politicians here and their mass-media but less on Wikipedia I hope.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.123.242.253 (talk) 00:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The article is fully cited, but the problem is that all the sources provided are in Romanian, so it is impossible for a non-Romanian speaker to validate the material against the sources. We need the assistance of a Romanian-speaking editor to take a look. Cwobeel (talk) 03:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Tiffany Limos
I would like some help in working out a content issue with this article. I have a lot going on in real life and now adding to that is an editor who seems to think that whatever they get approved by the subject and her lawyers should be what is posted here on Wikipedia. This is a big pet peeve of mine, subjects (mostly Hollywood actors/actresses) who feel that Wikipedia is a PR platform for them. I'd like someone else to take on this article because I'm having to put too much effort into not biting off the other editor's head over this. I'm sorry if this isn't the exact place for this particular situation but WP:COIN suggested that this was better than COIN. Thank you, Dismas |(talk) 03:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have my doubts about the notability of this actress. I encourage other editors to take a look.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  02:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Vanessa Kerry
Another editor and I are having a disagreement over Vanessa Kerry. I feel that much of the biographical content is unsupported by the refs (none fo the refs mentions 'Phillips Academy', for example), which are mainly not-very-independent interview-based refs that cover a very small part of her life, in which she seems to be being a media spokes-person for a charity she founded. A considerable portion of the coverage is full of oblique references to american politics, which I confess not to understand, being a foreigner. I recently PROD'd the related Seed Global Health, because none of the article is actually about the organisation, but instead about he problem the organisation is trying to solve. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Additional eyes requested
I will also be requesting this at WP:COIN.

I encountered this article recently at the copyright problems board, and rewrote it to address copyright issues. The article had been under the attention of Youngren's business, it seems, and the rewrite (which is unfortunately mostly negative, since that's all the sourcing I could find) is not pleasing to them, as a result of which they have been blanking content. I would really appreciate assistance if anyone is able to help out to make sure that the content is properly balanced - I suspect that there must be more positive out there than I have found. It would also be helpful if any uninvolved editors can assess the sources being used. I checked WP:RSN but didn't find any discussion of them; however, ChristianWeek is cited in a number of articles already and seems to be widely referenced as a specialty publication on the web (for but one example, see reprint of a story here: ). I'm not really familiar with specialty Christian publications of Canada. :)

Thank you for any help anyone can provide. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Noel Cox
There has been a note added to the biography written about me that it may not be neutral as it appears to be written by me. Could I please request that uninvolved editors evaluate the article to make sure it is fairly written and properly. sourced.Ncox (talk) 07:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I've removed some slightly promotional wording (which seems to have been added originally by an unregistered editor, possibly misattributed) and I've also now removed the neutrality dispute template because I don't see a significant problem with neutrality, either in the article itself or explained on the talk page. I have however added a template indicating that the article needs more sources, because numerous paragraphs are completely unsourced. (The best way to deal with this, in some instances, may simply be to remove those paragraphs - I'm not sure it is encyclopedically significant, for example, to list every single organisation that Noel Cox happens to be a member of.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Larry Dvoskin


The original author clearly has no idea about our content policies, though he's been here a while (albeit mainly promoting connections of a family member, but that's another story).

This article was PRODed as unreferenced, so the author added a load of "references" to YouTube videos, Wikipedia, blogs, forums and such. It now has I think one valid reference. The subject is an adjunct professor of music, so fails WP:PROF, but seems on the face of it, if we ignore the puffery, to be slightly famous. I'd be grateful if someone with an interest in music could review it and improve it - or blow away the cobwebs and find an empty shell, i guess, in which case it should be nuked. Guy (Help!) 09:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Scott Krug
The last two paragraphs of this article are opinion, not fact. They should be removed. Additionally the reference that is cited is not a report but an opinion piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.45.154 (talk) 18:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * REmoved. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Gary Null Article
So this article was neglected for a long time, with a lot of biased information, formally and informally. My Dad did radio shows with him in the 70's and 80's. So I looked at this article and thought it does not reflect a fair, balanced, or accurate portrait of Mr. Null. It seemed to have been taken over by people with biases, indeed. So i started editing it and putting in more information, deleting what was not justified, and providing fairness where it appeared warranted.

So right now the article is getting hammered under the guise of objectivity by people who appear to have biases against people who advocate naturopathy and have spoken against establishment medical practices. The problem is I know the subject personally, and that is partly what motivated me to at least get the article fairly balanced. Having a conflict of interest does not *necessarily* provent someone from editing an article according to wikipedia, but it certainly is something to consider. But some of these edits against my inputs have been legit, others peevish, others obviously informed by outside agendas/self-evident conflict of interest.

So all I can say is it would be great to get some additional non biased researchers involved not only in tearing down *all the edits* I made (someone reverted the article fully, but to provide more fair, balanced and accurate writing on the subject. hello 01:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian McGrady (talk • contribs)


 * For reference:


 * In the last day or two, Ian McGrady has made a flurry of edits (roughly 50, ranging from minor to enormous) to the Gary Null article. In rapid succession, he has watered down, minimized, and deleted content critical of Null; added spurious and dubious attacks on individuals who have expressed negative opinions of Null; larded the article with badly-sourced and misleading content supportive of HIV denialism; copy-pasted big chunks of self-serving CV; and fluffed up the article with promotional phrasing. Ian McGrady has made no effort to use the article talk page to discuss his very substantial edits to the article, either before or after.
 * Mr. McGrady was making so many edits in rapid succession that it is difficult to tease out exactly what he was doing with each one&mdash;and it's not clear that he thought them all through, or that his edit summaries are an accurate record of what he did. For example, with the edit summary "Deletes potentially libelous assertions made by Barrett, a delicensed psychiatrist", he does cut out a 'Controversy' section (which McGrady had himself created earlier: ), but also adds in hagiographic biographical material and a copy-pasted CV.  Particularly given his acknowledged personal bias with respect to this article's subject, we would be far better off restoring the article to its original state and discussing proposed edits. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As an aside, and per my note on Talk:Gary Null/Archive 2, I've reverted the article to a May 8 version of the article immediately before Ian McGrady's large number of substantial changes. I would strongly suggest that he propose and discuss his edits on the talk page before trying to introduce them into the article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What text in the article is a problem? Why? What reliable sources support the view that the text is a problem? What text should be added to the article? Why? What reliable sources support the addition of the text? Johnuniq (talk) 01:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Rob Reep
New article appears to be written by the subject. Have tagged with COI tag which as been removed and reinstated. According to WP:COS this practice is frowned upon. Unsure of next step concerning articles written by the subject. Any suggestions?--Egghead06 (talk) 02:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The article has still multiple issues. I added the appropriate tags and watchlisted. Cwobeel (talk) 02:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Removed all material that was violating WP:NOR, mostly self-serving resume-like material. Cwobeel (talk) 03:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Robert Lewandowski
This revert - reinsertion of BLP material - is the matter under dispute:

Here is the talk page discussion

Basically the material involves some inane minor incident. Some student gave Lewandowski the finger. There were some charges filed on both sides. Then both sides dropped the charges. The finger-happy student apologized. Why on earth this is important info which just absolutely must appear in a BLP is beyond me. It violates WP:BLPGOSSIP. Pointing this out on the talk page has not resulted in much constructive discussion as the other two editors merely repeat the assertion that the sources used are reliable. But per WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:BLP the reliability of the sources used is a necessary not a sufficient condition. This info is just simply too inane to be included in a BLP and it is also potentially defamatory.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It is trivia, and entirely inappropriate in a biography. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with Andy, and have reverted said edit. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Not trivia, but I accept consensus in this matter. As for Volunteer Marek edit warring over the issue, he should be ashamed. I asked him to raise the matter here and he chose instead to edit war. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:57, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Uh, Walter, I did raise the issue here. Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Marek, AndyTheGrump, and Darkness Shines, please explain how it's a minor incident. I would never say charges being pressed against everyone would ever be minor. Considering the background of the situation, I would hardly consider it minor. Even without the charges. Kingjeff (talk) 22:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, it is trivia and doesn't belong in a BLP. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I, too, oppose adding this trivial incident to the BLP. It's nothing more than an angry 17 year old giving the raised middle finger gesture to a professional athlete. I encourage other editors to comment as well.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  23:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * On the talk page, I explain how it's not "nothing more than an angry 17 year old giving the raised middle finger gesture to a professional athlete." Kingjeff (talk) 00:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If you are referring to the fact that the incident happened shortly after it was announced that Lewandowski was changing teams, then I am sorry, but in my view that does not justify adding discussion of this utterly trivial incident to the article. If I (and several other editors) are missing something,, why don't you try summarizing your argument again, which I simply don't understand.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  02:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Mark Versallion
Mark Versallion entry has had repeated insertion and deletion of claims that it relies on references to primary sources but it has not for several months, however, someone keeps reinserting the claim that it does. Furthermore there is no longer only one contributor who appears to have a close connection, as others have since contributed. I'm relatively new to editing but shouldn't the 'Multiple Issues' header be removed now?--Merv96 (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merv96 (talk • contribs)

Russell Targ
Re the article Russell Targ, characterisation of the subject's research that is almost certainly of a defamatory character is being repeatedly posted by User:TheRedPenOfDoom. See for example https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russell_Targ&diff=607964099&oldid=607962185 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russell_Targ&diff=607944060&oldid=607942517. --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There is nothing defamatory in describing pseudoscience as pseudoscience. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What you say is perfectly correct of course, but the courts might not accept your implicit presumption. A subject may at one time be genuinely pseudoscience as the scientific method is not being followed, but once a rigorous scientific approach is adopted, it is no longer pseudoscience and such an assertion becomes libellous.  As I noted in the talk page, the question of whether the claims are valid is irrelevant.  For example, the claim that neutrinos may be travelling faster than light was not pseudoscience even though a fault in the equipment was ultimately found, because the scientific method was strictly adhered to. I gather that Targ has been trying various alternatives that preserve the element of scepticism without making defamatory suggestions, but these have invariably been reverted by User:TheRedPenOfDoom. --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ignoring your evident attempts to stray into WP:NLT territory, I would like to know which sources you are going to cite for your assertion that Targ has used "a rigorous scientific approach" in his investigations into 'remote viewing' - other than Targ himself, since we don't permit self-serving autobiographical material, even for your personal acquaintances. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not threatening legal action, just warning the person concerned that his putting himself at risk. I should imagine Targ has sufficient resources to take him to court if he felt like doing so, and take the wind out of his sails.  I don't propose to fall into your trap of quoting a source for my assertion, but just point out that it is the job of journal referees to judge such issues and propose that a paper be rejected if it has methodological flaws. It is very easy of course to engage in armchair criticism and invent reasons why there might have been errors.  See 'how to debunk just about anything', at http://dandrasincom.ipage.com/Newscience/Newscience/zen_2.html (thank you, Dan!). --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, since you have failed to take the hint, and have made it clear that your references to 'defamation' and 'libel' were intended as a 'warning', I am going to report the matter at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Report all you like, I'm not bothered. I don't rely on WP's approval for anything. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: Brian Josephson has now been blocked per WP:NLT. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: has now been UNblocked per  --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Dick Cheney and The Huffington Post
Upon archiving Dick Cheney article I have stumbled on ref 163 as being Huffington Post, a reliable source which was discussed previously in various discussions about Huffington's reliability, and I have mixed feelings about it. I found the same ref only in Politico which I think is more reliable then Huffington, considering that the previous discussions regarding Huffington were calling it a blog as I just read. Should I change it, or should I add it, or should I live it as is, since I will do archiving either way in some time? I thanking all responders in advance!--Mishae (talk) 18:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * IMO If one ref was controversial as a "blog", use the Politico ref. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * O.K. What about the Washington Post, is it as unreliable as Huffington? Also, is Politico reliable, or its too is a "blog"?--Mishae (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: The Washington Post is one of the most trusted newspapers in the US while The Huffington Post is an Internet news site and blog, so they have nothing in common except for having "Post" in their names. Thomas.W talk 19:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * So, O.K. That clears up my mind, thanks.--Mishae (talk) 19:39, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, WaPo is generally considered a strong reliable source. Politico is a mainstream media RS and is not a blog. Huffington Post has to be closely looked at. Generally it is considered reliable but it has quite a number of invited blog pages, columnists and op-ed writers who are reliable for their own opinions only. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

olly murs
some was has hacked this page and put very offensive language on the discography page young kids are fans of olly murs and what this person has written is highly offensive — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.164.241 (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)




 * It was garden-variety vandalism. I've rolled back the article. —C.Fred (talk) 21:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Brian Day
The [|Brian Day] biography is largely uncited and reads like a heroic movie plot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenshockington (talk • contribs) 19:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Lenshockington, I have tagged the article for needing more references and for unencylopedic tone. It would of course be desirable that someone actually fixes the article, but experience unfortunately shows that chances for this to happen is slim. Thanks for notifying. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have cleaned the article up a bit, and watchlisted it as well. Cwobeel (talk) 02:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Ignazio Ciufolini


A while ago a series of SPAs whose contributions are limited to editing this biography insisted on inserting a "Misconducts" (seriously) section detailing an incident where the subject was accused of using "sockpuppets" to submit papers to ArXiv critical of his competitors. The original discussion ended with agreement that the source for the controversy was essentially ArXiv itself, which made it inappropriate at best. There were also concerns about weight. Now there's apparently a new source, a Discover Magazine blog that mentions the controversy. My problem with this is that the source is indeed a blog, written by someone under a pseudonym. Which also invites us to peruse other blogs for more information, in addition to the blogs used as secondary sources to re-insert the information. In other words, all this can be sourced only to ArXiv itself or blogs. In my opinion this is not sufficient to justify including it in the subject's biography, especially not by SPAs. But perhaps other BLP-savvy editors disagree. Here is a relevant diff. § FreeRangeFrog croak 20:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Now, the situation is substantially changed because of the appearance of several reliable, independent, third-parties sources   . It is a Letter to the Editor in a peer-reviewed journal like Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, and several blogs from all over the world in different languages. At this point, continuing to censor this aspect is unacceptable. Why FreeRange Frog deliberately ignore the peer-reviewed Letter to the Editor in the Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, and the non-anonymous blogs in Italian and Serbian? Why does he focus on the anonymity of Neuroskeptic in Discover (magazine)? It seems that he is only interested in my alleged "conflict of interests" or to whatsover wiki-paranoid excuses (the anonymity of Neuroskeptic...), not to the facts! It is a shame! Rambilon (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you. So the issue here is: Are these reliable secondary sources that are sufficient to support assertions of misconduct by the subject? Does the inclusion of the material represent an issue of undue weight? Blogs are almost never considered reliable, and I would have no problem accepting the Discover Magazine one except that it's written under a pseudonym and references a paper by one of the involved parties. By the way, emotional! arguments! with exclamation marks! based on "I am being censored" claims don't work around here. We base arguments on our policies. And the suggestion that you don't have a conflict of interest (given the focus of your contributions here) is rather ludicrous. § FreeRangeFrog croak 20:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree with FreeRangeFrog. I have this article on my watchlist. Cwobeel (talk) 21:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The article in Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology is a peer-reviewed article which is not a primary source on these alegations, but a secondary source (it reports that the archiveX moderators as the (possibly intermediate) source of the alegations). As a secondary source it seems strong enough to support very carefully worded misconduct assertions. I've looked for to see whether Ignazio Ciufolini has used any right-of-reply avenues, but I'm not seeing any. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It might be peer-reviewed but it's still a primary source, since the author is the one making the allegations about Ciufolini. § FreeRangeFrog croak 03:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My reading of the full text is that the ArXiv moderators were making the allegations "“This submission has been made by G. Felici, a pseudonym of Ignazio Ciufolini, who repeatedly submits inappropriate articles under pseudonyms, in violation of arXiv policies.”" and "“This submission has been removed because ‘G.Forst’ is a pseudonym of Ignazio Ciufolini, who repeatedly submits inappropriate articles under pseudonyms. This is in explicit violation of arXiv policies. Roughly similar content, contrasting the relative merits of the LAGEOS and GP-B measurements of the frame-dragging effect, can be found in pp. 43–45 of (Ciufolini, 2007).”". Whether or not the allegations were subsequently withdrawn is another matter.  Stuartyeates (talk) 05:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)