Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive210

2014 Arizona gubernatorial election
This election (Arizona gubernatorial election, 2014) will take place in two weeks' time, and the biographies of both the Democrat and the Republican candidates have long-flagged issues:


 * Fred DuVal (peacock)
 * Doug Ducey (lacking sources)

Both could do with some remedial work from editors who are not known for strong opinions on US politics. Andreas JN 466 21:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I cleaned up the Fred Duval article. I'll let someone else work on Doug Ducey.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 01:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh nevermind, I cleaned up Ducey too.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 02:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your work on these. --Andreas JN 466 01:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Paul LePage
contains a listing of alleged beliefs of people alleged to have met with LePage, but no source that the beliefs (which are contentious) are held by LePage, or that LePage agreed with the beliefs, and the existence of the meetings is questioned.
 * On June 30, 2014, the website Talking Points Memo reported that LePage had met eight times with members of the sovereign citizen movement between January and September 2013. According to participants, topics discussed at these meetings, some of which lasted nearly three hours, included assertions that the US Dollar and Maine state courts are illegal, and that Maine Senate President Justin Alfond and Maine House Speaker Mark Eves are guilty of treason and should be executed, and that the US government and the United Nations are planning for a war against Americans. 

The reasonable text excluding the edit, AFAICT, is
 * On June 30, 2014, the website Talking Points Memo said that LePage had met eight times with members of the sovereign citizen movement between January and September 2013.[106][107][108]
 * The governor's office issued a statement saying LePage has met with “hundreds of Mainers hearing thousands of ideas, concerns and suggestions” and that “hearing those ideas during constituent meetings does not translate to the Governor endorsing the ideas of others.”[108] In a phone call to the Bangor Daily News, LePage said that he stopped meeting with the movement members because "they got mad and called me all sorts of names" and had stopped listening to him. He said that he agreed with some of their views but that other views they held were "off the wall".[106] He also said that those he had met with had called his office on June 30, the day the story broke, to request a meeting, but he declined to do so.[106]
 * Two of the men who had met with LePage rejected the claims of ties to the "sovereign citizen movement" and denied any discussions of executions took place. Along with LePage, they threatened to sue Mike Tipping, the liberal activist making the claims.[109]

I am concerned that the iterated inclusion of the "beliefs" may be UNDUE and possibly misleading by implying that LePage holds such beliefs. Collect (talk) 13:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I have opened an RFC on this matter at Talk:Paul LePage. I did not see Collect's thread here before opening the RFC - it may have occurred around the same time. I think it would be best to centralize the discussion in one place.GabrielF (talk) 14:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * For concerns specifically about WP:BLP this is the proper noticeboard. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Guy Laliberté
Defamatory comments at the top of the article. Edit history suggests users have removed these comments previously and they have been re-added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.177.43.72 (talk) 21:15, 21 October 2014‎ (UTC)


 * I've removed it and added the page to my watch list. —C.Fred (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Yup. Roger that.  What C. Fred deleted from the article is one of the most egregious BLP violations I have witnessed.  If you need back-up, please ping me.  Hopefully, nobody is dumb enough to try to re-add it.  You may want to ask an admin to remove the offending content from the edit history.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Nitin Gadkari
Biased article and improperly sourced and in poor language. Logs show legitimate revisions have been reversed. Subject is a controversial political figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.49.90.156 (talk) 02:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Evan Peters
In his entry, he is listed as "Died: October 20, 2014":

Born	 January 20, 1987 (age 27) St. Louis, Missouri, U.S. Died	October 20, 2014 Occupation	Actor Years active	2004–2014

Is this true? I have not heard it in the news, and when 'googled', there are no results found. please investigate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.161.217.192 (talk) 04:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Jemele Hill
Someone has maliciously edited this biography of Jemele Hill, including snarky comments about her looks, they have inferred that her journalistic skills are inferior and not deserving of her position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.107.248.170 (talk) 00:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reporting it, the inappropriate edit has been reverted. If you're interested, you can read more about how to deal with vandalism at Vandalism. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Excuse the deletion and thank you for reverting, that was a TW misfire of some kind EBY (talk) 01:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Comma before Jr. or Sr.
Seeking clarification of this guideline, which states: Do not place a comma before Jr., Sr., or Roman numeral designation unless it is the preference of the subject or the subject's biographers.

In many cases, the subject individual does not have any biographers per se, but there have been books published about them or various aspects of their life. An example is John F. Kennedy Jr.. There are two possible approaches in this situation.


 * Treat these authors as the subject's biographers for the purpose of this guideline. In other words, survey the books to establish a majority preference as to the presence or absence of the comma.


 * Say that the subject does not have any biographers, and therefore the subject's preference is all that matters. If no subject preference can be determined, default to no comma.

Which is the better approach, and is there any objection to my updating the guideline to clarify? &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * If there are 'books published about' someone, those books are biographies - you seem to be creating a problem out of thin air. Maybe 'the subject's biographers' might be better worded as 'sources concerning the subject', but one would think that common sense would apply here, and we don't (and can't) need to invent hard and fast rules for every possibility. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * What is or is not a biography is largely a matter of opinion. There are strict interpretations and liberal interpretations, as with many words and concepts. There are professional historians who write serious and well-researched biographies (e.g. Ambrose), and there are authors of books about people, who don't even necessarily write for a living. I am hardly "creating a problem out of thin air". Thus, your condescension is not only inappropriate, but incorrect as well. If this page is intended as an information resource, I'd suggest recruiting some people who can interact in a more collaborative way with other volunteers. I will change the language to "sources concerning the subject". Thank you. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * But that guideline looks very much like a "hard and fast rule"? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

If a subject has no serious biographers and there's no way to discern a preference, it would be better to default to no commas. It's cleaner. Making it default to "whatever any random source of any quality used once" seems like it would be less helpful as style guidance somehow.__ E L A Q U E A T E  21:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I personally have much more often seen suffixes with commas than I have without, but don't think we need to "default" one or the other.  Snuggums ( talk  /  edits ) 22:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * There needs to be a "house default" for cases where there is no other clear basis for one choice or the other. The alternative is the editor's personal preference, which would mean endlessly bouncing articles back and forth between the two forms. As for what that house default should be, which is a separate issue, I agree with no comma. It has at least some authoritative support in the Chicago Manual of Style, which has recommended omitting the comma since 1993. And it really doesn't make a lot of sense to include the comma for Jr. while omitting it for II.


 * All that said, that's tangential to the reason I started this discussion, which is "what is a biographer for the purpose of that guideline?". There has been one somewhat experienced disagreement with Andy, so I'd like to hear more opinions. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd also note that "sources concerning the subject" would include things like news items, which is an even looser criterion than a liberal interpretation of "biographers". I don't think anyone would call a news writer a subject's "biographer" because they wrote an article about the subject. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

It has been more than three days without any further discussion. I feel a cogent argument has not been made for either the original language or the current language. I also feel that the original vagueness, far from providing needed flexibility (which has not been explained or demonstrated), only creates opportunity for editor conflict and wasted effort. I would therefore like to propose the following language in the hopes of either improving the guideline or stimulating further discussion.


 * If the subject's preference can be established, use it.


 * If a subject's preference cannot be established, look at the form used by the subject's biographers. Use only authors who are known for serious, well-researched biography, such as Stephen Ambrose or Doris Kearns Goodwin. Other authors, news items, etc. should not be considered.


 * If neither a subject preference nor a biographer preference can be discerned, default to no comma. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Slipknot (band)
The metal band Slipknot hired a new bassist and drummer with the intent to keep their identities secret. They filmed a new video with hoods over the heads of the musicians. The band's fans have identified the bassist by his left-hand tattoo, which was reported in an industry magazine. More conjecture can be found in fan forums about the identity of the drummer in the video, but the evidence is not conclusive.

User:TypeONegative13 has been adding text such that the two new musicians are actually members of the band, or members in training. The band has said in interviews that these two new players are not yet full members of the band. The following articles are affected by this news and BLP conjecture:
 * Slipknot (band)
 * Alessandro Venturella (bassist with left-hand tattoo seen in the video)
 * Jay Weinberg (conjectured drummer in video)
 * Template:Slipknot (listing members)
 * "The Devil In I" (a song with new players seen briefly in a video)
 * .5: The Gray Chapter (the album with some new players)
 * Donnie Steele (the previous bassist)
 * List of Slipknot band members

I think Wikipedia's policies are best met by keeping a conservative stance on the guesses and conjecture surrounding the new bandmembers. I could use some help in keeping these articles BLP-compliant. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Exactly not YET full members of the band hence in training... Look at it as they're the privates and the rest of the band are the Sargents but they will rise in the ranks eventually Corey stated they have to earn their way to be "full members" again hence IN TRAINING Also I have never added Jay Weinberg only Alessandro as he is confirmed as Corey admitted it was him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TypeONegative13 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Band members in training? No. They are not official band members yet. They are not in training. The source does even remotely suggest this. They came with the ability to play instruments. Actually auditioning is more along the lines of what is going on. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Heard a Taylor interview on Talk is Jericho last night. Was clear that Slipknot plays with the new guys, but they're not part of the band. Also repeated that he there's no intention to name them in the foreseeable future. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Update: TypeONegative13 was blocked for two weeks by Materialscientist for edit warring and adding unsourced text. Binksternet (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Circle of Dead Children
The tone is written almost like a press release. No references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.6.33.13 (talk) 20:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia presents Metal week... I think the lead does alot in the way of a press release. Some things there not in the body. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I moved a section of the lead down into the body of the article.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Russell A. Kirsch
I've just removed a major claim about the subject of this article, after trying to verify the claim showed it to be clearly incorrect. Basically, the article credited the subject with an endeavor for which there is no evidence and which he could not possibly have performed, due to chronology. I'm sure correcting this doesn't violate BLP policies, but I'm nevertheless a bit concerned about this, due to the nature of the change and the fact I'm not used to working in BLP territory. Hence my inquiry here. Comments? Sorry if I'm being bothersome. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 04:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have checked the sources; Various blogs and less reliable sources do credit Russell with inventing the first computer or leading the team that designed it. However, in the cited self-published source by the author, he did not make such a statement, so it was indeed unsourced, and all reliable sources that I could find, state that Russell joined the team when SEAC was already operational. So thank you for your contribution.
 * Done: I have added the article to my watchlist. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

BLP newbie and List of NFL starting quarterbacks
OK I admit it... I've been around awhile, but I haven't bothered to learn how BLP works. In a recent thread I tried to make an example using List of NFL starting quarterbacks. I was surprised by a dismissive reply asserting that that article does not involved any BLP issues. The exchange is here  Can someone at this board explain to this BLP newbie why the BLP policy does not apply to that article? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I may be a voice in the wilderness, but I vehemently disagree: all articles that mention living persons have potential WP:BLP issues. At its core BLP strongly suggests that all statements about living persons should be sourced to reliable sources:


 * "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."


 * Some editors have asserted that lists of living persons are not required to be sourced to reliable sources so long as the listed persons are wiki-linked to Wikipedia articles about such persons wherein the membership in the list and any statements in the list are supported and properly sourced. I think that violates the spirit of WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:RS, and especially WP:WPNOTRS.  Clearly, it is best practice to source every statement in every article, and I believe that should apply with double effect to BLP articles.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the 2 bits; " all articles that mention living persons have potential WP:BLP issues." That succinctly sums the extent of my prior impression. Anyone else? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Near the start of the thread you were in I had pointed to WP:BLPCAT as the specific part that was applicable in the circumstances. The bit about false light is I believe particularly applicable. Dmcq (talk) 22:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I was typing a rebuttal when you posted here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Editors here might like to look there where they are saying that BLPCAT means we can take a reliable source at face value in a case of possible false light and only need to remove an entry if the scientist gets something published saying they do not support what the RS said. Dmcq (talk) 14:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree, insofar as more eds with BLP knowledge at that thread would be beneficial.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

BLP applies everywhere that living people are talked about on Wikipedia. But that has almost nothing to do with whether List of NFL starting quarterbacks requires additional direct inline sourcing for non-contentious material. If it's material unlikely to be challenged on BLP grounds, and it's inlinked to a main well-sourced BLP-compliant article that directly supports the claim, then I don't see any problem in that case. WP:BLPSOURCES demands an inline citation for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. It doesn't demand inline citations for every possible type of claim always, just the ones with a possibility of drama and possible BLP-harm. Basically, if the list is navigational, anodyne, and ultimately sourced where we are directing people, then it doesn't need additional citation to be perfectly BLP-compliant. __ E L A Q U E A T E  20:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The actual article is not about quarterbacks but List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming and possible false light is always a very real possibility if checks aren't done. Dmcq (talk) 20:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Hussein Chalayan
The article makes reference to "ethnic cleansing" of Turkish Cypriots by Greek Cypriots in 1974, in footnote 3. I am appauled at the political and factual inaccuracy of this statement and request that it be removed immediately. Not only are semantics misused but history is misrepresented. A death toll of 600 Turkish Cypriots in 1974 can by no means be termed mass expulsion and be presented in this way to the general public. The reference to fault on the part of Greek Cypriots only, who in fact suffered 6,000 deaths, is both bias and again an unjust manipulation and account of events.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.208.238 (talk) 22:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe there is a Wikipedia policy somewhere which prohibits the use of the term ethnic cleansing and instead we are required to use genocide–a more neutral and accurate word. Same situation where we are to state John Smith died not John Smith passed away. Maybe someone else is familiar or can find the policy. Meatsgains (talk) 23:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:EUPHEMISM is the guideline.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not policy, it's a style guideline. I thought User:PBS was suggesting it be removed from the guideline, as "Ethnic Cleansing" can cover activities not always contained in "Genocide", (although they are both general descriptors of horrific war crimes). We should generally describe these crimes as RS describe them..... __ E L A Q U E A T E  18:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up Elaqueate, I think that there is a useful summary in the Ethnic cleansing article about the difference between Ethnic cleansing and genocide. There is a quote there which I think particularly succinct and graphic "Thus, these concepts are different, but related; "literally and figuratively, ethnic cleansing bleeds into genocide, as mass murder is committed in order to rid the land of a people." (by N. Naimark, 2007). There is a general problem on Wikipedia where inexperienced editors place lots of terms in the narrative voice of Wikiepdia which carry a bias. This is often because they have read or heard the definition of words like "terrorist" or "genocide" and apply their own analysis to conclude that an organisation is a "terrorist" organisation, or horrific events must be "genocide"/"ethic cleansing" or whatever. In all cases like this it is far more encyclopaedic to attribute the statement to one or more of the most prominent unbiased source or sources that use the term. If the term is not widely used, that it is easily attributable then it probably should not be used. In this case who is stating that "Ethnic conflicts between the Turkish and Greek Cypriot communities eventually led to war and acts of ethnic cleansing from the Greek side". It seems very biased as the civil war ended in the partition of Cyprus with some of the territory under the control of Northern Cyprus. It would seem better to me to rephrase the sentence around the fact that "Ethnic conflicts between the Turkish and Greek Cypriot communities led to a a war in which members of both Greek and Turkish communities were compelled to leave their homes" (which is roughly in line with what the article Turkish invasion of Cyprus says). -- PBS (talk) 18:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is that Ethnic cleansing is very broad terminology and can offer very little clarity in what actually happened. I think there's pretty much a consensus off wikipedia that what happened in Cyprus was ethnic cleansing. However calling it ethnic cleansing does not tell what actually took place. Reading what PBS has to say here the removal of Turkish Cypriots seem to be a key component to this ethnic cleansing.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think there's pretty much a consensus off wikipedia that what happened in Cyprus was ethnic cleansing. If true, this is more important than what is decided in a random conversation of Wikipedia editors. This is definitely a case where we should reflect the phrasing and assessment of better reliable sources rather than decide what to call it independently. __ E L A Q U E A T E  21:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not important at all especially if what the hell actually happened isn't being made known. Ethnic cleansing happened on both sides. But what actually happened, what constitutes ethnic cleansing in this case, is what's important. We aren't trying to invoke an emotional reaction in readers. We are trying to give them information.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What sources say is important; that shouldn't be disputable. We should describe it as better sources describe it, however that may be. This seems to have been a non-trivial event in this BLP's biography. __ E L A Q U E A T E  23:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Using what the sources say hasn't been disputed. Using the exact wording has been questioned. The Greeks have been accused of ethnic cleansing but so to have the Turks. However saying that either side employed ethnic cleansing does not tell you anything. It tells you they may have done a long list of things to encourage an ethnicity to leave. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for the Turkish side and it's not a soapbox for the Greek side.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 11:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Ariel Fernandez
James B Watson and “Jytdog” - By blocking contributors, refusing to hear what they say and attaching libellous tags you are making a travesty of Wikipedia and its mission. I know Heidi (identified as a major contributor to this article under alias Hayde Blinky), and judging from the Wikipedia picture, she doesn’t look at all like AF!! You can’t assume that everybody that writes about AF is either AF or a puppet of AF and block them. That’s not Wikipedia. This type of censorship is out, has been out for a long long time! I read the article on AF and it is pretty anemic. You talk about promoting AF, but all I see mentioned is employment, a book, papers and few accolades. Most notable people, including porn stars, get more thorough coverage. And there is nothing funny about this. I am sorry Jytdog, but I don’t think that your harassment of Heidi (I just got to read it) while hiding behind that name is funny. I really don’t. I see nothing funny about harassing Wikipedia contributors. 201.254.127.32 (talk) 13:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC) Liping Laura Meng

Dear Wikipedia authority,

I am writing in regards to a libellous tag attached to an article entitled "Ariel Fernandez" that has me as subject.

The tag indicates that a major contributor to the article has close relation with the subject (me). This is false and it is libellous because it implies sockpuppetry and conflict of interest. This is not correct and I must request its immediate removal as it infringes BLP regulations.

Wikipedia editor James B Watson falsely assumes that everybody who writes about AF is either AF or a puppet of AF, refuses to listen to what they say and blocks their accounts. This is not Wikipedia, it is fascism.

Read my lips: I am NOT personally or professionally related or even acquainted with Heidi Belkin (a. k. a. Hayde Belinky). I do recall having met Heidi way back on a legal matter.

While vastly incomplete, the article on me as it now stands seems fair, objective and accurate as far as I can see. It sems to be fairly well documented and seems to have been taken from verifiable sources including websites that I have edited myself.

I must ask you to please remove the libel tag from my article.

Should you have further questions, I would be happy to discuss them.

Feel free to contact me at your convenience. NOTE: INTERN LAURA MENG WHO WROTE THE PREVIOUS REPORT IS RIGHT BY ME.

Ariel Fernandez, Ph. D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.254.127.32 (talk) 15:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Having a tag on an article that says "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject." is not libelous nor does it infringe on BLP. GB fan 15:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

TELL THAT TO THE COURT! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.68.120.165 (talk) 19:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Slander, Harassment and Abuse of Power

Wikipedia contributor “Jytdog” and Wikipedia editor “JamesBWatson” may be responsible of harassment, slander per se and abuse of privileges and rights. First, Jytdog and JamesBWatson falsely included me in a sockpuppetry accusation named “Arifer”. I have nothing to do with any contributor or contributors named “Arifer” and there is not a trace of evidence to the contrary. Second, both individuals did not even bother to read what I had to say in that regard, and after blocking me, they simply attached a slanderous tag to the Wikipedia page “Ariel Fernandez” (AF) falsely indicating or implying or suggesting sockpuppetry and conflict of interest. This false accusation, real or perceived, constitutes “slander per se” in the State of Texas where AF has his residence. As I said before and repeat now, my real name is NOT “Haydee Belinky” and I have no connection, personal or professional, with AF. I learned about AF and took interest in his work after I became acquainted with his consultancy work in a patent litigation case in 2011, where I volunteered an opinion outside the Court. An accusation of sock puppetry based on the fact that the subject and I live part of the time in Buenos Aires, a city of 15 million people, is ridiculous. I don’t even know if we ever overlap. I thought the subject and his work met the notability criteria demanded by Wikipedia to be included in its pages. I have every right to publish articles on the AF work subject to the Wikipedia standards and editing. If I chose to write only about AF, that is also my prerogative. The work of Ariel Fernandez has been reviewed in some major venues like: Nature: http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110518/full/news.2011.294.html Scientific American: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/complicated-protein-interactions-evolved-to-stave-off-mutations/ Nature Medicine: http://www.nature.com/nrd/journal/v7/n2/full/nrd2524.html Commissioned review by Harvard professor George Demetri: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2096446/ Chemistry World/Royal Society of Chemistry: http://www.rsc.org/images/ProteinProteinInteractions%20-%20A%20Sticky%20End_tcm18-205395.pdf and many others. As for the notability of Ariel Fernandez himself, it appears to be established in the Talk on his Wikipedia article. I simply was not able to find any regulation forbidding me to contribute with a neutral objective tone to Wikipedia by writing articles on a subject and his work that meet the notability criteria. The information I presented is thoroughly verifiable. There is no promotional intent in the articles contributed. I feel I may be a subject to harassment and abuse at the hands of Jytdog since I started contributing to Wikipedia. He rejected most of my entries for rather absurd reasons: books, professional papers or words like “pioneer” were arbitrarily banned and considered by Jytdog as “promotional”. In fact, they are quoted profusely in Wikipedia. In the end, everything I wrote, no matter how relevant to the subject matter, was considered promotional, as if I did not have the right to write about a single individual and his work. I feel Wikipedia may consider what prima facie appears to be a case of slander, abuse of power and harassment proceeding internally as appropriate and ex-oficio by elevation to the proper Civil Court. Secondly, out of respect to AF, I request the immediate removal of the slanderous tag from the Wikipedia article on AF mentioned in this report. Heidi B200.68.120.165 (talk) 19:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks like everyone should re-read WP:BLPKINDNESS, WP:NLT, WP:BLPDELETE, WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE.... Threats of legal action are not going to resolve anything here, and whatever relationship (or non-relationship) you've had with the subject in the past is completely moot if you're saying you're advising the initiation of any kind of "Civil Court" action on their behalf. At that point, you seem a little "involved" no matter what you were before. Please review the links I've provided before continuing. Consider reading WP:NLT more than once, and if you still want to continue here in that vein, Please e-mail [mailto:info-en-q@wikimedia.org info-en-q@wikimedia.org] with a link to the article and details of the problem; for more information on how to get an error corrected, see here. It is usually better to ask for help rather than trying to change the material yourself.__ E L A Q U E A T E  20:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Walter O'Brien
About week ago, I started a thread on the reliable sources noticeboard, but did not receive a response. I'm concerned that some of the sources do not meet our BLP policy. I left a note here and would appreciate any additional input. Mike V •  Talk  15:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Barry Freundel
So far, treatment of recent events has been pretty good. As a precautionary matter, extra eyes on the page would be a good idea. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 12:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Watchlisted. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Possible unreferenced HOAX pages on BLPs
Please see above. I nominated these pages for AFD at Articles for deletion/Golden Star Award for Best Supporting Actor. But they may qualify for speedy deletion as completely unreferenced pages on WP:BLPs that are possible WP:HOAX pages. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 15:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Golden Star Award for Best Actress
 * 2) Golden Star Award for Best Supporting Actor
 * 3) Golden Star Award for Best Actor
 * 1) Golden Star Award for Best Supporting Actor
 * 2) Golden Star Award for Best Actor
 * Note: Someone may also wish to investigate problems at Spanish Wikipedia on this user: contribs, and multiple warnings. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 15:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Does seem to be a hoax. Only mention I see of a "Golden Star" award is at Asianet Film Awards, something briefly handed out for a few years to Bollywood actors/actresses. Tarc (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, so what should be done about on en.wikipedia and also on es.wikipedia? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Depends on what their next move is; after these AfDs close, if the behavior happens again, probably an easy WP:NOTHERE block at ANI. Tarc (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Jordan Belfort and Joseph Borg


An editor recently removed material from the Belfort article stating that the cited source did not support the material. I think that's a stretch and said so. The same editor changed material related to Belfort, as well as a good deal of other material, on the Borg article, which, unlike Belfort, has very few page watchers. The editor then left what I can only call a tirade on the Borg talk page, including a BLP violation, which I removed.

I reverted the edits to the Borg article but did not revert the change to the Belfort article. I confess that some of what I'm doing is based on attitude, but more is based on WP:SYNTHESIS and inappropriate inferences by the editor.

A little help on both articles would be appreciated.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Fraser Hobday
Unknown and unremarkable person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.215.66 (talk) 08:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Article was an autobiography - stubbed. It's been listed at Articles for deletion/Fraser Hobday. --Neil N  talk to me 14:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Milo Yiannopoulos and Gamergate
I take issue with the subject's section on his involvement in the Gamergate controversy, in particular his claims of receiving harassment. Some of the sources appear dubious and seemed to have been copied from the Gamergate article, of which some such as Chinatopix and Reason had been questioned. I felt that there's an undue weight on the subject's involvement in the controversy.--137.111.13.200 (talk) 08:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

When is there a possible BLP violation?
On Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming there was a discussion about whethger a section included SYNTH. Then one of the people removed the section giving BLP as the reason so it was under WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. Now whilst I'm quite hot on ensuring BLP isn't violated, the section itself does not mention anyone and I simply do not see any false light problems that might be caused by the text to anywhere else in the article except by badly misreading it and a number of other bits. It seems to me like wikilawyering to avoid BRD and force deletion without discussion. I have come across this problem before and that time the person just said BLP a without saying which bit of BLP or why and wouldn't expand.

I feel this is a growing problem, have we got any guidelines on how to quickly assess that there might be a potential BLP problem so we can reject such things quickly and go to normal BRD? Or are we stuck with this in any article which mentions a person? Dmcq (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As the person who removed this this is my reasoning: So far everyone seems to be agreeing that the part removed implied that the living people in the list disagreed with 97% of the peer reviewed literature. However the source of the 97% explicitly says that 10 of the individuals are included in the 97%.  As such what is being implied about, at least these 10, of these people's views is not their view.  It being said of a scientist that they disagree with 97% of their peers is a bad thing.  Implying a bad thing about an individuals views that is not true is a WP:BLP problem.  --Obsidi (talk) 14:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * That section was about why there was so few peer reviewed papers in the list. It wasn't about the scientists. Those scientists that were in the list who agreed with part of the mainstream view in a peer reviewed paper said nothing about their other views. There is no false light problem. The scientists there have been said to disagree and pretty obviously do. The section just says that there hasn't been very much that disagree peer reviewed that disagrees. The point is the section was a separate one. The scientists were in separate sections which clearly said what they disagreed about. And they actually do disagree with the vast majority of their peers. It requires misreading what the section says and not reading the article lead or the sectionheadings or the citations for the scientists to get it wrong. It is just contrived to delete the bit without discussion when the real issue you had was whether there was SYNTH in the section. Dmcq (talk) 14:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The part about how there were few peer reviewed papers in the list was not removed. If the implication is made that the scientists in the list don't agree with the 97% (which so far everyone had agreed that was the case, this is the first time I am hearing about them being in different sections might cause that implication to not flow), the rest is clear BLP violation once the false implication is made (about the 10 individuals that it is clearly false).  No misreading of the section heading or article lead is required.  --Obsidi (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Even if it was in the same section there would be no false lighht problem. They really do very clearly disagree with the vast majority of their peers. There was no even slightly smouldering BLP problem that required deleting that section while it was still being debated. And that's why I'm here. If the BLP implication is so very weak we shouldn't have BLP used to override BRD but that is what BLP is being used for. Dmcq (talk) 15:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Lets just say the weakness is disputed. --Obsidi (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * That somebody can just say 'I dispute the weakness' is not enough. The policy is being misused. Any wikilawyer can use that form of words. Dmcq (talk) 15:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * See above for the reasons why it is disputed (no need to repeat my arguments). --Obsidi (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Alex Jones (radio host)
Just had an RfC on how to treat the claim that he is a "conspiracy theorist" with regard to using multiple sources and quotes in the lead for that claim. The closer found than only one of the cites had a clear consensus for inclusion. Does this mean that the other material in the BLP which did not have a consensus for inclusion must therefore be kept? Do claims which were found not to have affirmative consensus for inclusion require an affirmative consensus to be found for removal in a BLP? The issue is one of weight - we had at one point five sources given space in the lead for the claim that the person is a "conspiracy theorist" and I suggest that overkill on such a matter is, indeed, a BLP concern. Thanks. Collect (talk) 14:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * From the RfC close: "Only one editor thought that none of the contested text should appear in the lede." And: "very clear consensus against wholesale removal of the three-part text segment".  You are therefore on very thin ice in your attempt to remove the contested text.  Did you think no-one would notice the extremely poor fit between your question here and the edit you have been trying (and, thankfully, failing) to make?  Your actions are in direct contravention of the way the RfC was closed, and I suggest you not make any attempt to repeat this in the future.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Um -- I did not ask for removal of all mention of "conspiracy theorist" only the excess sledgehammer use of five sources making the same claim. And your personal attack that I acted "in direct contravention" of the RfC close is not something which I find appealing on your part - it sounds like more of the same from you.  The closer stated that only one cite had consensus support - and I suggest you reword your attack here.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Time to dropthestick? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Collect, in early September you were trying to delete this material. You then posed an RfC which the closer noted had "flaws" -- and yet despite these flaws it failed to support your desired outcome.  To carry on attempting to delete this stuff in direct contravention of the RfC outcome is something that might easily be considered disruptive.  It's wise that you've stopped; the only question remaining is whether you've stopped for now or for good. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't think it's really necessary to call him a conspiracy theorist 3 times in the lede. Once or twice is enough, not to mention the second and third-time say the exact same thing, just with a different source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, there were five sources for the term in the lead alone -- which were, of course, repeated to some extent in the body of the BLP as well at one point. Calling someone a "conspiracy theorist" is one thing, but making it emphasized to that extent seems like swatting flies with sledgehammers.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Unless, the subject is “America’s leading conspiracy theorist” and "the most prolific conspiracy theorist in contemporary America", per sources. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah. If there's one case where "conspiracy theorist" is 100% valid, it's Jones. It's like labeling Jack Nicklaus a "professional golfer". I'd think fewer people would know him as an author, and that would be the dubious thing that needs two citations in the lead. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Dick Carlson
I came across this article while patrolling uncategorized pages. It's a BLP with internal consistence errors that would seem to indicate a general lack of trust in anything in the article and fishing through everything to find what's right and what's wrong may be what's required or just start anew. Please have a look. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Carlson has had a diverse career. The Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training has a long interview with him here that may back up the article, although it will take time to verify everything and in the meantime, of course, WP:BLP would warrant removing any dubious content. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * He was redlinked in a few articles under "Richard W. Carlson", which I've fixed. Be aware that there is also a geologist by the same name.-- Auric    talk  18:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

List of YouTube sex scandals
I'm coming here because I'm fairly concerned with the article List of YouTube sex scandals, as we have a list of YouTubers who were involved with several accusations of sexual abuse/manipulation/rape. What I noticed is that while a few of the people on the page have received some coverage (Sam Pepper, Alex Day, Jason Sampson, Mike Lombardo), some (Ed Blann, Gregory Jackson, Tom Milsom) have not received nearly enough to really warrant being listed on the page. I'm also mildly concerned about the inclusion of YouTube in the title, as while all of the people are vloggers the coverage in relation to YT isn't really the main impetus. For some of the people involved, it's not the videos they made that were the reason for the scandal- it's the actions they performed off camera. However at the same time, I can also see the reason for naming it as such. It's just that for some reason this just doesn't exactly fit well and I can't quite put my finger on it. In any case, I am concerned that of the people on the page, only 4 really have enough coverage to warrant inclusion and of those four, only three have an article on Wikipedia. That means that we have a page where three people have articles (Ed Blann's band has an article but does not mention the sex scandal). I'm not entirely sure that we entirely need a page on this at this point in time, but even more than that I'm concerned that this page is being used to log any YT personality that has had even the slightest amount of coverage for anything sexual misconduct related. I do think that this should be listed somewhere on the Internet, but I don't entirely think that Wikipedia is the right place for it at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Basically what I'm worried about is that this is starting to and may potentially become a place where people post about anyone who has received a modicum of coverage in regards to a sex scandal, using it as a place to make up for the coverage that the mainstream/reliable sources is not giving these people. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You mean like how there's a consensus forming on its Talk page that these guys are all douchebags? I agree, that's worrisome. What if a prospective employer sees this and thinks "We didn't want a douchebag, we wanted a janitor!" They'll be ruined. And you don't get much lower than a ruined douchebag. All because they tried to be a bit edgy and get some buzz. What if nobody had hired George Carlin for Cars? Or Richard Pryor for Superman III? Or Charles Manson for Lie: The Love and Terror Cult? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Jesus. This thing needs to be AfD'd. It's a synthesis coatrack to allow incidents that wouldn't be notable on their own to be published here, connecting them through a factor wholly unrelated to the crime or alleged crime. Reminds me of Articles for deletion/List of cruelty to animal incidents in Canada.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * AFD'd? The thing needs to be revdel'd immediately as a gross violation of WP:BLP policy - apart from anything else, it makes accusations of serious criminal offences. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've started a thread on ANI, asking that it be deleted, and blanked the page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support this action — I took a brief look and found, just with a casual glance, any number of terrible, unreliable sources used to support allegations of serious wrongdoing. Unsalvageable and needs to be gone. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support blanking. Started an AFD. Would prefer it being speedied. Abecedare (talk) 06:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Now deleted by User:John as "Potentially libelous/defamatory". AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks guys! I'm glad I posted this here. I felt like it was violating BLP in some form or fashion, but I didn't think about the libel angle. Yikes. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   07:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Jemima_Khan
I refer to the comments added in this edit: Special:Diff/456979783/440921989. I appreciate this is only the talk page, but still these are fairly offensive and unsubstantiated remarks. They've been there a while. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monxton (talk • contribs) 18:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The revision has been removed. The account is stale, so no point on warning. Thanks for letting us know. § FreeRangeFrog croak 01:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Jian Ghomeshi
Canadian television personality, recently fired and trespassed from his former employers premises, launches $50m legal action for reinstatement. The claimed actions appear to be crimes but no formal police compliant appears to have been laid. More eyes would be very useful. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Matis Weinberg
I would like some of you to have a look at the (obligatorily titled) "Controversy" section, to see whether the sourcing is up to snuff for a set of allegations that did not lead to a conviction. I have no opinion, being not familiar with the subject or the publications, but I saw an IP editor who just removed that section and I restored it--not without some BLP trepidation. Your attention is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Though the event is notable, the charges were dropped. The "Controversy" section gives WP:UNDUE weight to the convictions and the section is too long. I would suggest a heavy trim, keeping all sources. And as a side note-this is the only section on the page with reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 04:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

S. Truett Cathy
This subject donated money to various groups; I have started an RfC on the talk page to determine whether a modifier (in this case, "anti-gay") should be added to those groups. Drmies (talk) 17:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: the "anti-gay" is ascribed in Wikipedia's voice in the BDP which is still subject to WP:BLP, while the sources correct ascribe the usage to Equality Matters which provided the list. Collect (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Wendy Davis (politician)
I ask yet again for more eyes on this page. One dynamic IP is transparently trying to turn the talk page into an anti-Davis hit piece. ,, , , , , ,. If I'm the only one occasionally reverting then maybe there isn't a real problem and will stop. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Most of the diffs are about an editor, and not apparently about making the BLP talk page a "hit piece" - sometimes a thicker skin is useful here. Have a cup of tea.  Collect (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Added to watchlist -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Vincent Sheheen
Good morning good people of WP:BLPN. Vincent Sheheen, apparently, is a politician in the USA and currently a candidate for some office or other. Please could you evaluate whether this edit (and indeed the entire paragraph) is due weight, and otherwise appropriate based on the source(s) used, in the article about him. Thank you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think due weight applies here because the paragraph is only three sentences long. If we are presenting one side of the story, Sheheen calling the other candidate a "whore", then we should provide some sort of explanation-both of which are properly sourced. I would however, suggest a more neutral tone by removing "even joking". Just my two cents. Meatsgains (talk) 00:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Meh. We're not the news. It's not sourced strong enough to make a case for enduring relevance. I cut it, and some other fluff, including his Facebook and Twitter. Drmies (talk) 02:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Not terribly important, no. And worded weirdly. I fixed the words, but was conflicted by your deletion. Readded my version, but if that's still too much, I'll understand. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm--that wording certainly reflects the source better. Funny--Romney is hit "in the gut" and then talks about what a "great girl" Haley is. Really, that should raise as much controversy. Drmies (talk) 03:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I watched the video after. The "You gotta tell the truth" thing was out of context, too. It was about showing her the door because she was misappropriating funds and because her policies were "stupid". Intentionally calling her stupid and corrupt seems to be OK, at least to the news. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Jason Stverak
This article appears to be advertising in nature and written by either Watchdog.org, their parent group Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, and/or Donors Trust. The aforementioned are connected via grants from Charles and David Koch and thus not neutral. This is witnessed by the large majority of sources pointing to internal articles of Watchdog.org and the Franklin Center as a convoluted loop to not referencing any sort of neutrality as to the issues and controversies surrounding Jason Stverak and his financiers.


 * Removed most of the content to keep as a stub. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Jian Ghomeshi alleged sexual abuse scandal
Please see Articles for deletion/Jian Ghomeshi alleged sexual abuse scandal. I didn't feel comfortable just using a speedy, but This is a model case for a prejudicial POV  split.  DGG ( talk ) 15:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Closed. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Greg Orman
This is the article on Greg Orman, the independent candidate facing Republican Pat Roberts in the 2014 Kansas Senate election. is arguing that we need to include very detailed information about Orman’s past donations as a citizen, to Democrats and Republicans, resulting in a long list of names, including names used by Roberts attacking Orman during one of their debates. The result was this:.

My opinion is that the section violates WP:UNDUE in this BLP and it is not necessary; a short description of Orman’s past contributions as a citizen should suffice in his biography. I would appreciate fresh eyes and comments from uninvolved editors. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC notice: Comma before Jr. or Sr.
There is an RfC proposing a clarification of the guideline about the use of comma before Jr. or Sr. in article titles. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

ashish thakkar
Ashish_Thakkar his name isn't Ashish Thakkar - it is Pretal Shah.

He didn't start his first business at the age of 15, as at this age he was at secondary school in the UK, while this business was in Uganda, called EXIM, and owned by his father

The claims of businesses in 19 african countries, and 21 countries world wide are completely without substance. There are a few brand names marketed around, that amount to nothing real. He has "hinged" himself to a number of other companies, under lose co-brands, but even if you trippled these companies they would never amount to 8000 employees. However, he's a good talker and a good salesman, and having convinced a few colour magazines that he tells the truth, this is now his "evidence" of success.

Just an example of how one person can charm the (supposedly) educated masses into believing in tulip bulbs and south sea bubbles.

Surely WIKIPEDIA can finally stand up, be counted, and demand FACTUAL PROOF for all of these claims, including a copy of his passport to show his real name!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.66.100.3 (talk) 20:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ I have cleaned up some of the unsourced material that was obvious WP:PEACOCK, and will keep on my watchlist. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  02:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Greg Orman
There is a dispute on the above content, with some editors claiming this is a notable event and others claiming that it is a BLP violation based on WP:UNDUE. My opinion falls with the latter, given that the pay-to-play allegation has been published in biased sources such as the neo-conservative The Weekly Standard and conservative The Daily Caller, attempting to discredit the endorsement on the basis of an alleged pay-to-play scheme. I would appreciate uninvolved editors to comment on this issue. Unproven accusations are not something we should be promoting in Wikipedia, let alone in BLPs -   Cwobeel   (talk)  16:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * There appears to be no allegation of criminal activity, and the debt is acknowledged (that is, the debt is not "unproven"), so as long as secondary reliable sources report on it, then there is prima facie a case that a conflict of interest might exist. "Conflict of interest" is a status, and is not an action. Wikipedia often uses "biased sources" when it comes to political material - are you saying that we should excise all biased sources in BLPs?  I would certainly support that, but it is not the current Wikipedia state of affairs.    Certainly it is not common for a supporter of a candidate to owe the candidate money - it is more typically the reverse.  Collect (talk) 18:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point. This "scandal" was not reported in any sources besides right-wing sources, in an obvious attempt to attack Orman. Per WP:UNDUE this does not belong in a BLP, and it is awkward seeing how you responded to this, when I have seen you many, many times argue vehemently against these type of edits in BLPs. Care to clarify why here this is different? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, please clarify what is the biographical value of that material? Is there any? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There's an implication of COI in that wording, but obviously that's what The Weekly Standard was going for. I don't think this is a WP:BLP violation, but it certainly seems WP:UNDUE for this biography, at least without a couple more strong sources. It kind of stands out as an awkward aside about a manufactured controversy. It's silly at best.- MrX 19:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This material definitely needs some stronger sources to cease violating WP:UNDUE. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Is opensecrets.org a valid source in this or any BLP for campaign contributions made to or from any living person? It is used currently in a great many BLPs as far as I can tell, and in a great many articles on campaigns which are subject to WP:BLP. Including his list of contributions and also the article at which includes statements about contributions. Thanks. Collect (talk) 19:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As discussed in Talk page, OpenSecrets is a primary source by definition.  The definition of a secondary source:Secondary sources involve generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information. OpenSecrets does none of the kind. Then there is the issue of significance per WP:NPOV (we report significant viewpoints as published by reliable sources). If what is reported in OpenSecrets is significant, we should have plenty of sources to draw from. Primary sources such as OpenSecrets are not enough, in particular in BLPs. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  19:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Wow. Except for the fact I linked to an opensource.org article on Orman   ($10 to anyone who will say this is a "primary source" with a straight face)  -- which is absolutely a "secondary source"  which rather belies your assertions that it is never a secondary source.  I also point out that the NYT prints election returns, and is a "secondary source" where your argument is that the figures are a "primary source" which makes zero sense.  And I still invite you, to show good faith, to start removing opensecrets.org from BLPs.   Else I might think,  alas, it is only the one single BLP which you do not wish it used in. Collect (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * For non-controversial material, I think that may be an ok secondary source to use, except that I do not know the editorial policies for Open Secrets. Also, the author of that piece you've linked to is "Lalita Clozel", a summer intern for Open Secrets. I'm not saying she is not a reliable source, I think the link you gave is. I just think we need to be sure that we are not citing OS for compiled data. Dave Dial (talk) 20:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow. Shmow. I was referring to content in OpenSecrets that lists donations culled from FEC records. That is a primary source. -  Cwobeel   (talk)
 * Contrary to your absolute knowledge, opensecrets.org also has RS editorial content -- though I was aghast to find another editor implying that female interns mainly get coffee for the men in the office, and make "doodles". ("Perhaps you should 'collect' notes and doodles from the other interns too. I'm sure on their way to snag coffee for the staff they jot other stuff down.")  Collect (talk) 21:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh ffs, grow up. Are you telling me you don't know that interns get staff members coffee? Or do you believe that's only a job for females? Sheesh. Dave Dial (talk) 01:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate controversy
Presently, on this article, there is an argument as to whether or not the content in this article (which is being discussed at RSN presently) can be added. It is being contended that identifying moderators of one forum on Reddit as moderators of other forums on Reddit that are misogynistic boards that the people wishing to use this source are violating WP:BLP. The contested paragraph is here. Does this violate BLP?— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 19:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. Perhaps it would be best if it was moved here. § FreeRangeFrog croak 20:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This should arguably the right forum.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 20:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * How can it be a BLP violation when no real names are used? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Apparently negative statements about pseudonymous people, even as a group, is a BLP violation. At least those are the arguments being put forward on the talk page.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 21:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Going by that logic should someone on here call me a liar it is a BLP vio, you cannot commit a BLP violation against a made up name, and if the source is deemed OK on the RS board, then I see no issue with the edit. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussions on the article's talk page seem to be making comparison's to the target of the initial harassment campaign of being pseudonymous (her real life pseudonym) and arguing that if she is protected by BLP, then the screennames used on Reddit are as well.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 22:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * So, the article basically says that this or that Reddit moderator, without identifying them by personal information, posts this or that in public -- I do not see BLP as being implicated, as there is no personal information about a person. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. But, again, it is argued that their online pseudonyms are enough identifying information, akin to "Zoe Quinn" not being the legal name of the person discussed at the article of the same name.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 22:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Zoe Quinn is a known individual person right? Are these other anonymous known, and not anonymous? Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, Zoe Quinn is a known individual person. As far as I am aware, these other people are only known through their pseudonyms in this article and they are only being identified through their pseudonyms on one website. Also, it is now being alleged that by adding this paragraph I am kink shaming. I'm not sure if this falls under BLP. You can take a look at the conversation I'm currently embroiled in based on the responses here and at WT:BLP.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 22:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * These anonymous do not appear ashamed to make public posts. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yet you see the arguments being made on the article's talk page as to how BLP is being violated.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 22:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You can see the rationales being raised here.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 23:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * So? Poor arguments are poor arguments. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's multiple people making the same poor arguments to form a consensus against inclusion.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 23:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree with Alanscottwalker. Andreas JN 466 20:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

So another issue has come up. TheHat2, which is one of the people specifically identified in the article, was doxxed in the mass Kotaku dox. This kinda makes him more a person than an online pseudonym. Also, they believe all the mods are men, when one is actually a woman (not a transwoman, my bad). This is from me messaging the KiA mods because it is their sex life. PseudoSomething (talk) 01:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If you stop advertising this then maybe it wouldn't be an issue. And no, the piece does not say anything resembling what you are accusing. And your PMs to Reddit members have no weight on Wikipedia.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 03:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ryulong, it has already been released, and he was ok with me stating it, because he has a right for it to be known, since this is ABOUT HIM, and is a BLP issue. It has plenty of weight, since this is ABOUT THEM, and they cannot comment on the talk page. PseudoSomething (talk) 03:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * He is not a person of interest to Wikipedia. He is simply mentioned in a source that you think is a BLP issue when sources themselves are not BLP issues.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 03:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Stephen A. Parke; Requests deletion of page about him
Please delete the Stephen A. Parke page. I am Stephen A. Parke and I am embarrassed to have this page in Wikipedia because I am not a notable person. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.18.144.224 (talk) 05:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Article is now in AFD at Articles for deletion/Stephen A. Parke -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Gail Dines
Hi all, Although maybe a bit out of scope for this noticeboard, I'd like a few opinions on this. There are a few maintinance tags on a few sections still (namely the reception section). Can someone give me a second opinion on whether the issues have been resolved or not? Thanks, -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  06:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. The section looks OK to me. I have removed these tags. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Contentious material in Touré biography
Hello, I'm reaching out here for some assistance with the biography of TV host and writer Touré. For those who might not be familiar, Touré is a writer on black social issues and culture, a pop culture correspondent and host of MSNBC's The Cycle. I'm here (on his behalf, as a consultant, so I believe I should not edit directly) because there are some significant issues with his article as it stands. Specifically, the section discussing his career includes some contentious material that is cited to a source I would suggest is far from reliable.

The material in question is a paragraph at the start of the Career section, which makes a series of claims and criticisms regarding a student publication that Touré founded at Emory University. While there are problems with the individual details, the main issue to my mind is that the main cited source and only original reporting is from The Daily Caller, a conservative web publication, and its first bylined reporter is Charles C. Johnson, who has been criticized in reliable sources for producing unreliable reporting (for example, Dave Weigel writing for Slate). Considering the source is being used to add some rather contentious details to the article, I'd like to ask editors here for their input on how to best approach this.

If you'd be interested to help, I have laid out a more detailed summary of the issues on the article's Talk page and a suggested alternative version of this paragraph. Any help would be appreciated. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 14:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * This request has been answered, thanks very much to Alanscottwalker, who has removed the contentious material. I may possibly return here with another query soon, but for now, thanks to anyone who took the time to read through this issue. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 19:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Users Adding Rumors on Doctor Strange page
Three users, part of a group that WP:OWNs comic book pages, insist on putting in rumors about living people onto pages. and. The rumor was that Benedict Cumberbatch was negotiating for a role. The role was put in a self-professed blog deadline.com that has been questioned in the past and cannot be a reliable source for BLP purposes according to WP:BLP. The source says they received an anonymous tip, and they have not been confirmed by Marvel or any other newspaper. Instead, they have been criticized in reliable press as spreading rumors that have been around since March. These users have been warned but insist on violating BLP. 173.153.8.43 (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC) Add Erik as violating BLP. 173.153.8.43 (talk) 20:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Deadline.com is a reliable source under WP:NEWSBLOG. It is staffed by accredited professionals as seen here so it does not qualify as an amateur blog. There is no BLP violation here. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Reliable source noticeboard does not have a discussion, so it was added without consensus. Its staff can be "professionals" but still bloggers, as they even admit on their website that they are bloggers (each blog was bought out by the parent group). Newsmedia like the New York Times host blogs that are not reliable sources. BLP requires we do not post rumors from anonymous sources. Hitfix lists it as a rumor. Treknews lists it as a rumor. Entertainment Wise lists it as a rumor. moviepilot lists it as a rumor. This goes on and on, because there are thousands of hits for it being a rumor.
 * Please read WP:BLPGOSSIP before making brash statements about something not violating BLP. Newsblog also says: " but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process" 173.153.8.43 (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * It should probably noted that the source doesn't actually support the text in question - not only does it say " I’m hearing Benedict Cumberbatch is the studio’s choice for the superhero pic", a clearly equivocal statement, but it goes on to say that "negotiations are about to begin" - and accordingly can't be cited for an assertion that Cumberbatch has in fact entered negotiations. To use the source properly, rewording will certainly be required. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Don't take this the wrong way but it's very peculiar that your first edit contributions are of you reverting and warning users like you have been in Wikipedia for awhile to know this. I would think you have another account or you are just warning people regarding that guideline over and over after you seen the edit contribution on that article? Just curious.  Jhenderson  7 7 7  20:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm on a cell phone. My IP changes with each tower. It is very difficult to type here and frustrating with editconflicts. 173.153.8.43 (talk) 20:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok man. You just summed up why it's always a good idea to sign up. But you are a common editor as an IP I assume?  Jhenderson  7 7 7  20:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If common you mean I correct typos in articles I look up for information, sure. I wouldn't edit if people didn't put in bad info. 173.153.8.43 (talk) 20:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * In addition to Deadline.com being reliable as evidenced by its structuring, WP:USEBYOTHERS also applies. Just Google Benedict Cumberbatch and Dr. Strange to find a whole array of periodicals (mainstream newspapers in particular) reporting this information. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Reliable Source noticeboard has never declared it as a reliable source. Your own link says that such sources have to be used with caution. It is obvious from the links I gave that other sources dismiss the statements as rumor so it fails usedbyothers. 173.153.8.43 (talk) 20:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Variety says sources tell it that Cumberbatch is in talks. Is there really anything more to discuss here? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:27, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "sources tell Variety" Anonymous sources. RadioTimes says it is a rumor. WP:BLPGOSSIP says not to use anonymous sources spreading rumors.  This link has a lot of people listed as rumored to be in talks. 173.153.8.43 (talk) 20:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPGOSSIP says, "Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." The consensus is that the sources are reliable. They are not tabloid journalism; per WP:BLPSOURCES, "When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources," and that is what has happened. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not one person. RS has never brought it up, and Wikipedia lists it as a blog. You have tried to Wikilawyer a lot and quote things that show you in the wrong. If it was a reliable source, the rest of the quote you left out shows that it is still anonymous. 173.153.8.43 (talk) 21:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Numerous other editors reverted your edits, and they all have experience working on film articles and using sources with care. I've seen numerous discussions to attribute content from reliable sources appropriately. The trade papers Variety and The Hollywood Reporter are well-known periodicals within the film industry and have reported on this information; Deadline.com is staffed by people who used to work for these papers. These are credible journalists who go through a reliable publication process per WP:RS, and that is not even looking at the periodicals who have circulated this information. Even The New York Times here says the film is expected to star the actor. So to dismiss this piece of reporting as mere gossip and to smear other editors as BLP violators is rather roughshod. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Number = 3 people who all know each other and didn't realize the source didn't say what you wanted it to say according to AndyTheGrump. Blind reverts by friends to put in a BLP violation. Where are the admin to block? 173.153.8.43 (talk) 21:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you should give a look to WP:CIR. I am not saying this to be rude, but I legitimately believe that you are not comprehending what you are being told. Admins are not going to ban us for adding reliable sources, and especially not because you are commanding them to. Please don't keep accusing editors that know what they're doing of ignorance. If we are misguided in using the Deadline article (and I can see how it may not be the best), okay, fair enough. But in no way are any of us acting in bad faith, and you are. Please, please, please, stop throwing around baseless accusations. I can absolutely see where you and Andy are coming from. The wording of the article is not concrete, and the lack of a source is questionable. This is all fair to bring up in discussion, but it is not fair to say that people are violating policy. Sock  ( tock talk)  00:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * According to that, you would be blocked. I never said ban, I said block, which happens all the time for edit warring BLP violations. Insisting something is a reliable source when it clearly is not does not make you right. It is evidence that you are behaving as an edit warrior. The RS noticeboard has no discussion on the blog being reliable and our BLP policy that says anonymous rumors are not allowed regardless of the source's credibility. The vast majority of sources online has it as a rumor only, and it is one of a dozen rumored possible leads. You got a few friends to jump on something you couldn't even read as AndyTheGrump pointed out. You'd think that such revelation would be embarrassing but you persist. 173.153.8.43 (talk) 01:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * PS WP:CRYSTAL "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." Your Wikilawyering to bully rumors in violation of every policy should be punished. 173.153.11.49 (talk) 02:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Nutan and son
Actress Nutan was married to Rajnish Behl. Her surname appears as Behl in her article. The son Mohnish Bahl also has an article. Is there a custom in India that when one's father and mother surname is Behl, the son's surname be Bahl? I am confused. Who can shed light on this? --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 23:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Have you tried asking this on the Talk page of either or both articles? The editors of those articles are more likely to be able to address this question than the editors on this page (which primarily deals with violations of the Biography of living persons and other Wikipedia policies). <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:100;"> Dwpaul   Talk   00:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did. Look, I may have written this on the wrong page, but thanks to this mistake I learned something. Also you taught something to someone. So a mistake has done two good deeds. Let's all be happy. Thanks and regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 00:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced personal accusations
This article version (dif) contains unsourced serious accusations against an apparently living person - I think it needs to be removed from the history. Neatsfoot (talk) 09:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. I have deleted the revision. De728631 (talk) 09:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Neatsfoot (talk) 10:07, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Justine Tunney
This article appears to give undue weight to 2 articles, one from Valleywag and one from The Daily Beast, as the basis as a hit piece against this person. Valleywag in particular is a tabloid. I think the claims about this person, such as them being a fascist and they support slavery, obviously violate BLP and I question whether they represent a mainstream view supported by other sources. 72.89.93.231 (talk) 21:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Link to article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justine_Tunney — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.93.231 (talk) 22:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree, pretty clear WP:BLPSOURCES violation - we don't cite admitted gossip rags for highly controversial information about living persons. Valleywag is a tabloid, and the Daily Beast piece is an opinion piece, and Tunney herself writes that she does not hold those views. I'd prefer not to be the one to zap it myself (never met her, but distantly work together), but will, per WP:IAR, if no one else will. --GRuban (talk) 15:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What you're missing is that Valleywag is not the only source - Valleywag is merely quoting and commenting on Tunney's own words, so Tunney's own words are also a source for the article. Please desist from further editing of the article due to your obvious COI - it is not acceptable to edit an article about a coworker.--greenrd (talk) 00:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Twitter is not a WP:Reliable source either to my knowledge. 72.89.93.231 (talk) 04:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You're seriously arguing that Twitter cannot be used as a source for what someone said on Twitter? You may want to run that argument past yourself one more time - and then read Wikipedia's policy on self-published sources.--greenrd (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I would "seriously argue" that using Twitter is rarely proper in BLPs at best. It can only be used per WP:BLP for an extremely narrow range of claims which are not contentious.  One major problem is the one of "lack of context" which can easily creep in the 140 character snippets.   Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Per WP:SELFSOURCE, Twitter can be used if its use meets the five specified conditions. The IP from 72.89 was incorrect in stating that it doesn't meet WP:RS in general.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If you read the material, the claims did not fall under the very limited exceptions allowed.  I had thought this was clear to everyone here. Collect (talk) 23:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

BLP mess at best, and hit piece at worst. I removed some of the worst parts (I note McInnes is covered by BLP and the claims about McInnes are poorly sourced for their contentious claims). Collect (talk) 15:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Chris Alexander (editor)
I'm trying to remove some unsourced information about so called pen names that Chris Alexander uses. There is no evidence to support this (outside of Chris getting caught using the Ben Cortman name to promote his own movie in Fangoria. He then posted that sentence on his own wiki page to make it seem people knew he used that particular name all along to minimize the damage that was done) and it seems Chris himself keeps undoing my edits. It gets to the point where the page gets locked (conveniently right after Chris gets the last edit in). It was suggested to me to post on the talk page but since Chris' friends Tokyogirl79 and Ninjarobotpirate are the only ones to post there I know it will be a kangaroo court which is why I'm posting here to be more fair. The wikipedia states that unsourced information may be challenged or removed which is what I'm doing. But it seems Chris undoes my edit and then his friend ninjarobotprate asks for the page to be locked after Chris gets the last edit in. I always thought the wikipedia was about sourced and cited information not unsourced sentences posted by the particular individual himself as a PR move.64.230.233.209 (talk) 15:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The article has been semi- protected, and will add to my watchlist. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate controversy (2)
There is a new dispute over this proposed addition to the page, which has been contested under BLP due to the language used in the sources but at present not on Wikipedia itself. The sources cited are TechCrunch and SpinMedia's Death and Taxes. This is, from what I have gathered in arguing with editors on the talk page, due to the negative coverage received by one party in the event and the interpretation of what was called a "bribe" in the Death and Taxes source as an accusation of criminal conduct. Discussion on the article's talk page can be found at Talk:Gamergate controversy.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 16:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Unproven criminal allegations against somebody or saying that they 'bullied' someone else is absolutely a BLP violation, full stop. Note that Ryulong, North, myself, TDA, TarainDC, Tarc, The Red Pen, Maseam are all involved in this and what we're looking for is uninvolved thoughts on it. I will try to keep my responses to a minimal. Tutelary (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And my response to this is that there are no criminal allegations being made (describing something as a "bribe" is not alleging criminal misconduct) and "bullying" is used by the sources in question.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 17:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Though Bribing is described as a crime in many jurisdictions and the fact that only a single person casting another allegation at another single person is making the article is unacceptable for BLP. 'Bullying' is also designated as a crime against someone in some US states, and is a negative connotation overall for such few sources discussing it. (Again, trying to be minimal, I'd rather uninvolved editors comment about this.) Tutelary (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a vast stretch and you know it.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 18:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There's simply no argument for calling a very public offer to make a donation in return for a statement of support a 'bribe' in the criminal sense. -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Looks like clear libel/slander regardless if "bribes" are actually illegal or not. Those pieces are extremely mean and not really something that would be found in a truly reliable source. Also, how can someone describe a donation to domestic violence prevention charities as a "bribe"? Those sources violate all journalistic integrity and posting them on Wikipedia violate all of our behavioral rules. This is shameful behavior. 173.153.2.179 (talk) 18:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "deathandtaxes" is own by SpinMedia, a self-professed blog network and is not a reliable source. That TechCrunch piece is also published in a blog format without editorial control and is not a reliable source. No wonder they contain such hateful and nasty allegations that could get people sued. 173.153.2.179 (talk) 18:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You are the one making strong allegations here.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 19:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It is clear from the talk page discussion that you were in the minority and in violation of our behavioral policy. Then you went here and got the same response. I asked that someone bring you up at ANI so you can be blocked. You crossed the line and your attempt to remove my post is an admittance that you know you are in the wrong. 173.153.2.179 (talk) 20:07, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No. The talk page discussion is split down the middle which is why it's being brought up here for discussion from uninvolved parties. And I'm not sure who you are to be making these claims. Log in with your account instead of "hiding" while logged out.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 20:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Harassing other people until they agree with you is more proof that you need a time out from this site. You are clearly wrong and no amount of attacking those who point that out will change it. 173.153.2.179 (talk) 20:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Death and Taxes is not a self-published source: . WP:BLPCRIME is irrelevant as the source is not accusing anybody of criminal conduct in the sense of anything actionable in a court of law. Andreas JN 466 20:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * In the first source (TechCrunch) Mike Cernovich is not even mentioned in any case. And I thought I saw a single mention in a link to another article (storify) but is not on the site but does explicitly mention Mike. But it's self published unambiguously. (Storify is, not TechCrunch) So that's original research from to connect him to it in TechCrunch because he's not mentioned explicitly in their article, and the scrutiny of BLP is absolutely not in favor of using that source that doesn't even make mention of him explicitly a violation of BLP. Then we're down to one source. Death and Taxes Magazine. I decided to dig a bit further to the 'about' sections which redirected to SpinMedia attempting to find editorial control, so I just read their terms instead. What it states The site which you linked from (the “Site”) provides a photo and video hosting/blogging service, amongst other things, to you (the “Service(s)”), subject to the following Terms of Service (“TOS”), which may be updated from time to time without notice to you. They blatantly also state they don't control the content. We do not control the Content posted via the Service and, as such, do not guarantee the accuracy, integrity or quality of such Content. (under user conduct) So Death and Taxes is self published and is in effect not a reliable source. Combine this with the fact that Bullying is a crime in several states, Harassment is in all 50, and Bribery is a crime when only one self published source describes anything about it is a full triple whammy in terms of BLP violations. It's not acceptable. - This is verbatim what I posted in order to prove that Death and Taxes is a self published source. When their own ToS says they don't control content, that's 100% an indicator of them being a self published source. Tutelary (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You're conflating Spin's terms of use at a different URL with those of DT, which is run by its own LLC company. Andreas JN 466 21:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * When the main site tells you that they don't have any control of content, that's not a good sign. 'About' of Death and Taxes just is full of promotional aspects whereas the ToS of the major operating entity telling you they don't control content applies dual heartedly to Death and Taxes, since they're an active member of SpinMedia. Tutelary (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * SpinMedia giving up liability to blogs on its service does not say anything about one particular blog.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 21:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "Death and Taxes is a member of Spin Music, a division of SpinMedia" It is not run by itself but is a division. There are only 4 bloggers on that site. 173.153.2.179 (talk) 21:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's very easily demonstrated to be false. The http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/ front page alone currently shows articles by 1. Alex Moore, 2. Robyn Pennacchia, 3. Joe Veix, 4. Maggie Serota, 5. Brian Abrams, 6. Ethan Fixell, 7. Joel Freimark. Andreas JN 466 01:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Is "BusinessInsider" a person now? They copied articles on other sites but they have 4 in house people according to their contact page. A simple scroll through the "news" feed shows that this site is no legitimate newspaper. 173.153.11.123 (talk) 01:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Did I count BusinessInsider? No. So you're not making any point here. The fact that Death and Taxes Media, LLC is a subsidiary of SpinMedia makes no difference to the fact that it is its own company with its own liability. You can sue them. Andreas JN 466 02:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Death and taxes is still a blog on a blog site, which is talked about on BLP. Others see it as accusing people of a crime. 173.153.2.179 (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Those people might be wrong.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 20:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * DT actually used to be a print magazine that converted to online only. It's run by a limited liability media company with paid staff, and thus is not a self-published source. That's all. Andreas JN 466 20:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You must be confused. "Death and Taxes is a member of Spin Music, a division of SpinMedia". Tutelary already showed that they are a blog. 21:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Death and Taxes is a former print magazine that is now hosted by SpinMedia.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 21:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If that was true, it would be on their site. It is not. Notice the lack of "news" in that site.  The site is owned by SpinMedia's current CEO. It was his pet blog.  This one calls it a lifestyle site. 173.153.2.179 (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if any of this actually discredits D+T as you think it does.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 21:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid the confusion is all yours: Death and Taxes is leading website for new music, politics and popular culture, as well as a lifestyle and events marketing firm. Originally founded as a print magazine in 2008, Death and Taxes relaunched on the web in 2010 and draws over 1.5 million unique readers every month. There's a write-up of the print magazine here. Note the proprietary logo used both on the print mag and the website. Andreas  JN 466 01:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * This needs attention by editors uninvolved with Gamergate controversy. Dreadstar  ☥   18:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This topic is far too convoluted to follow. As best I can figure out, some guy got pissed at his ex-girlfriend, posted some sh*t about her online, and now there's this huge flame war.  After that, things get really confusing.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I just tried to upvote the last comment but I realized I'm on the wrong website. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't figure out what the whole Gamergate controversy is, but I did some quick research on this, and I've reviewed the proposed text and sources. First, I think there are some serious WP:WEIGHT and tone issues including this much material about Mike Cernovich's dubious behavior here. The claim seems to be fairly true, Cernovich made some ridiculous demands of Anil Dash and has in general been acting like a jerk over Gamergate, which seems to fit into a pattern of his making ridiculous and offensive public statements in social media. But the most substantial source, Techcrunch, sees the whole incident as worth only a short paragraph, without mentioning Cernovich by name. In fact, there are no major mentions of Cernovich to speak of in the sources, he is a more or less completely non-notable person outside of social media flame sites. It would be weird if Wikipedia devoted more verbiage to this relatively minor incident than all of the major sources put together. At best, it's worth a sentence or so mentioning that Anil Dash got dragged into the controversy by somebody demanding that he take a side. No need to mention this one particular character unless additional sources come up to demonstrate its importance. Technically, what he demanded is not a bribe, nor is the accusation that it was a significant enough issue to repeat. I don't see that Cernovich has a plausible BLP interest in denying his behavior, if he's going to send out offensive tweets, and sources call him on it, but for one thing: we're escalating a very minor fact about a non-notable person into article content. Even if the claim is solidly sourced to reliable sources here, I do see a slight BLP concern (and to the extent it is a concern, it solidly suggests not mentioning him by name). - Wikidemon (talk) 05:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * So it might be okay to say Dash was involved after being harassed on social media for no identifiable reason (and perhaps attributing the involvement to Internet trolling taking over GamerGate) but not mentioning who was bothering him by name? This rings similarly to the prior dispute on BLP on the page where Wikipedia did not refer to people by name (or even their online pseudonyms) but BLP was still claimed for the content's removal. What is your thought on that?— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 07:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Jian_Ghomeshi
I am Suanne Kelman, former Interim Chair of the School of Journalism at Ryerson University, now retired. The photo was taken on January 27, 2010, when I interviewed Mr. Ghomeshi for a lecture series sponsored by the Dean of the Faculty of Communication and Design. I do not think that publishing it connects me to the scandal -- it is clearly an interview in a public forum. So please relax, guys. I am not losing sleep over this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suanne Kelman (talk • contribs) 21:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Dr. Kelman. I linked this section from what seems to be the appropriate section of that talk page, they should be aware now. --GRuban (talk) 20:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Mark Udall
and are re-inserting this text in the BLP for Mark Udall:

The source is reporting this:

I have asked them to leave removed per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, as I believe this material is irrelevant/UNDUE to Udall’s bio, to no avail. I’d appreciate comments from uninvolved editors. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I restored the material exactly once after seeing it removed on a seemingly inapt policy rationale. You never mentioned anything about DUE; that explanation was supplied by another editor after the fact. That other editor removed the material again and I didn't revert, so perhaps this filing is just a teensy bit premature? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 16:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Cwobeel, including or excluding this is clearly an editorial judgment call: while the $458 tax lien strikes me as trivia, it is also factually accurate and supported by a reliable source. This is an ordinary content dispute (and a pretty darn minor one at that), and invoking BLP policy and BLPREQUESTRESTORE to remove it is swatting gnats with a pneumatic sledgehammer.  I would gladly express my opinion that this is a trivial matter unworthy of inclusion, and leave it to an ordinary article talk page consensus to determine.  If, contrary to my personal judgment, however, this has received significant coverage in Colorado or national media, I would change my position and defer to its apparent significance in the media.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I will keep swatting gnats with a pneumatic sledgehammer as one darn good metaphor. Sometime things get silly in silly season :) -  Cwobeel   (talk)

Jean McSorley
I stumbled across a misplaced complaint apparently signed by the subject of this article. I've moved the complaint to the talk page, but haven't attempted to answer it. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've responded. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Sharyl Attkisson
JamesMLane has re-added material which is a BLP violation. He is using Crooks and Liars as a source to basically claim that Attkisson is a liar. Arzel (talk) 22:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the information. Clearly not reliable sources for those claims. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Another manufactured controversy! I am so surprised! Viriditas (talk) 08:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? Arzel (talk) 14:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

nik wallenda
There are comments on Nik's character that are pure opinion and potential libelous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.4.10.37 (talk) 01:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Trimmed such stuff as names of minor children and excess infobox detail Collect (talk) 15:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

jojo binay
You would see in this page Jejomar Binay

Content has always been maliciously edited for example entering

"Jesus Christ Darth Vader Binay" word like "Roman Catholic Ejaculation"

These and other words has constantly ben inputed in the page to destroy the character of the VICE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES.

I in my personal capacity will now try to remedy these misrepresentations.

Please consider.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vpjojobinay (talk • contribs) 10:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Done: Vandalizing edits have been reversed by other users and the user responsible has been blocked by Edgar181.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 14:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * On a side note, I have blocked this user for having a username identical to the Vice President himself but I am fully willing to unblock him if he agrees to change his username. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   16:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

IP user repeatedly re-instating a self-published source and asserting otherwise unverified and potentially contentious information about the author of the comic. Special:diff/632091627 - 1Rabid Monkey (talk) 11:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Done: Reverted the edit, notified the IP user and added the page to my watchlist. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Christopher Ian Moulvi
Christopher Ian Moulvi (born 1993) is a British Entrepreneur & Businessman.

Born in Hastings, East Sussex he is the only son of Mark Munir Moulvi a Multimillion pound UK businessman and property developer.

Christopher is the Founder & CEO of Moulvi Industries Founded in 2014, is a forwarding thinking and robust Software Development & Marketing Company.

Founded to help B2B & B2C be able to have a presence on the World Wide Web and to also help them marketing themselves via today’s modern standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.46.122 (talk) 20:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Terry Buck
Terry Buck was an icon of Australian swimming as a former Olympian and a long-time coach of a string of successful Aussie swimmers in international competition. The current article is dominated by allegations of sexual molestation, never proven, but publicly made by one named accuser. The present article text has been stable for over a year. The present text regarding the allegations strikes me as disproportionate -- I would be grateful if several WP:BLP participants would review the present article text in light of our BLP policy and guidelines. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Text removed by Cwobeel.-- Auric    talk  20:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeon-mi Park
I was just approached via e-mail by a concerned editor about the article for Yeon-mi Park, who defected from North Korea. The concerns were basically that the article's criticism section is mainly concerned with who is listed as criticizing Park in the section, as few of the sources would be considered reliable sources. Only two, an article by The Diplomat and an article in The Korea Observer are even remotely usable. The others largely don't mention Park at all and are pretty much used to back up soapboxing and OR. The only other links that mention here are by a SPS, The Peace Wager. Basically what the editor stated to me is that they can't see where the criticisms section even really needs to exist in the article and I'm inclined to agree with them. Unless there are other RS out there, I think that this could probably be a 1-2 sentence statement somewhere in the article but not a whole section.

The reason I'm bringing it here is because I'm somewhat expecting an edit war over this and I'd like to have some people who are deeply familiar with the whole BLP thing watching the article, editing it, and contributing to any discussion over it on the article's talk page. It just seems that whenever we have a page about a defector from North Korea or China, there tends to be edit warring over the article to some degree and deep concerns over potential BLP issues, in this case one person using it as a soapbox for his viewpoints. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   16:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This whole article has so many issues with it I'm not even sure where to begin with the editing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   16:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This edit seems to be usable and has some decent enough sources that I notice were pretty heavily removed by later edits by an IP. If no one objects, I'm going to semi protect the page to prevent IPs and very new accounts from editing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   16:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've reverted it, but even then this still needs editing because it's still non neutral, only this time to be Park positive rather than negative. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   16:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm writing to say that it looks like there is still great cause for concern on the article, as we're getting accusations of censorship thrown around because we aren't including a specific person's work. I have school and it's getting busy so I can't give it the surveillance it needs now- plus I'm not as BLP savvy as others. I can check in occasionally but it REALLY needs constant monitoring from someone who is familiar with overall BLP issues and such. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Ned Colletti
Baseball-loving BLP watchers, I'd appreciate your attention to this article, where we have an SPA,, turning this article into a hagiography. I've reverted their massive and massively positive edits twice already (and cut some of the usual "Charity and community work" fluff), but not having all that much experience with that sport it would be nice if an expert or two could come along to work on that article. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Marisela


A stubborn very new user keeps adding unsourced material and fan cruft to this article. I should have left a message on their talk page when I first reverted them, but I didn't. In my last revert, I did, but the editor doesn't seem to care much. The article has few page watchers, so no one else is paying much attention to it. I've already reverted more than I should.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Subhas Chandra Bose
The British Raj, though never seriously threatened by the INA, was to try 300 INA officers for treason in the INA trials, but was to eventually backtrack in the face of its own end.[26]..The British Raj, though never seriously threatened by the INA, was to try 300 INA officers for treason in the INA trials, but was to eventually backtrack in the face of its own end.[26].. .....this information your website is totally wrong SIR...even in a recent poll regarded it The Kohima war between British army and AJADHIND FAUJ is most toughest one...also there is in an interesting info the BRITISH PRIME MINISTER CLEMENT ATTLEE SAID THE MOVEMENT OF GANDHI END IN 1942... SO YOUR INFORMATION ABOUT THE MOVEMENT ASA FUTILE ONE WAS COMPLETELY MISGUIDING... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.205.160.174 (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Whatever the merits or negative consequences of Bose's INA movement might be, Bose has been dead since 1945 -- 69 years ago. This is a noticeboard for dealing with problems related to the biographies of living persons per our WP:BLP policy and guidelines.  The correct place to initiate a discussion regarding the long-dead Bose and his movement will be the article talk page here: Talk:Subhas Chandra Bose.  Good luck.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit conflict
I am the author of the first academic biography ever done on Maj. Gen. William "Bull" Nelson. I recently discovered the Wiki page I did no him had been grossly tampered with by persons who have an agenda to make Jefferson C. Davis standout in the article. There were also other issues I will not bore you with. For the past three days, I have been working on a rewrite of the piece that includes detailed documentation. Today was devoted to the final sections and all of that work. When I attempted to post it late this evening there was notice that someone else had done a new edit while I was doing mine. All of my work was lost! It would require days to recreate the documented entry. It is now obvious to me why people think Wiki is a bad source.I no longer feel obliged to try and set record straight in a place where "history buffs" indulge writing history as they want to see it rather than rely on diligently researched interpretation that has been carefully reviewed by academic peers.

In short I feel like a fool for having believed in Wikipedia. I also realize one fool is not going to change anything. Quarterdeckgeneral (talk) 02:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you had this experience. It seems that you experienced an WP:EDITCONFLICT. It's an unfortunate consequence of contributing to an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. There are ways to work around potential edit conflicts that most of us eventually learn to avoid what you went through. I hope you won't give up on editing. We can use more editors such as yourself!- MrX 02:50, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if I understand correctly. You are unhappy at Wikipedia because it lost your work before you posted? Isn't that something any word processor program could have done? They're notorious for it, in fact. People tend to work around that by either posting often, in small steps, or by saving a copy either offline or in their user space, where others are unlikely to edit, until the work is complete and ready to post; so if the post fails, there is a copy elsewhere to try again with. --GRuban (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Hafiz Mujeeb Rahman
Could this page for a non-notable musician possibly be salted? SPAs seem hellbent on recreating it, was deleted 2 days ago, and 2 days before that. Cannolis (talk) 04:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've indeffed the latest sock and extended the master's block to 1 week. I figured he deserved a final chance, but we'll see. If it gets recreated again we'll salt it. Sometimes it's easier to keep it in the watchlist and get wind of it being created again. § FreeRangeFrog croak 04:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Another Touré query
Hello again, I'm back with a second request for assistance on the biographical article about the journalist Touré, this time for input on some material currently included in the Television section. The concern I have with this section is that more than two thirds of the text focuses on a few small "controversies". While the individual events each did receive some news coverage, albeit primarily in online sources that cover the minutiae of personalities in the media, even here the coverage was very short-lived. I wouldn't argue they deserve no mention, but I would make the case that it is unambiguously WP:UNDUE weight. This is why I am proposing that the details be reduced to a one or two sentence summary and would like editors here to take a look to see if this suggestion is reasonable. My full request is on the article's Talk page. Any help would be appreciated. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 15:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Emily Schooley
Could use some extra eyes. Just reverted replacement of lede image with a partial nude photo and some unsourced content about self cutting. Apparently she is somehow targeted by something gamergate-ish on Twitter. VQuakr (talk) 16:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Dr. K. Loganathan
Some IP editors are repeatedly adding a few sentences that call this person a "crackpot" and a "lunatic". I've reverted the addition for now, but extra eyes on the page would be helpful. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I hate semi'ing an article at AFD when the majority of contributors are IPs or not autoconfirmed, but those edits were really problematic so I did protect it. Please keep it in your watchlist and we'll see if anyone makes an edit request, since we're potentially preventing it from being rescued. I also left a note in the talk page of the one other non-IP/non-autoconfirmed contributor. § FreeRangeFrog croak 00:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Terry Buck
Terry Buck was an icon of Australian swimming as a former Olympian and a long-time coach of a string of successful Aussie swimmers in international competition. The current article is dominated by allegations of sexual molestation, never proven, but publicly made by one named accuser. The present article text has been stable for over a year. The present text regarding the allegations strikes me as disproportionate -- I would be grateful if several WP:BLP participants would review the present article text in light of our BLP policy and guidelines. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Text removed by Cwobeel.-- Auric    talk  20:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeon-mi Park
I was just approached via e-mail by a concerned editor about the article for Yeon-mi Park, who defected from North Korea. The concerns were basically that the article's criticism section is mainly concerned with who is listed as criticizing Park in the section, as few of the sources would be considered reliable sources. Only two, an article by The Diplomat and an article in The Korea Observer are even remotely usable. The others largely don't mention Park at all and are pretty much used to back up soapboxing and OR. The only other links that mention here are by a SPS, The Peace Wager. Basically what the editor stated to me is that they can't see where the criticisms section even really needs to exist in the article and I'm inclined to agree with them. Unless there are other RS out there, I think that this could probably be a 1-2 sentence statement somewhere in the article but not a whole section.

The reason I'm bringing it here is because I'm somewhat expecting an edit war over this and I'd like to have some people who are deeply familiar with the whole BLP thing watching the article, editing it, and contributing to any discussion over it on the article's talk page. It just seems that whenever we have a page about a defector from North Korea or China, there tends to be edit warring over the article to some degree and deep concerns over potential BLP issues, in this case one person using it as a soapbox for his viewpoints. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   16:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This whole article has so many issues with it I'm not even sure where to begin with the editing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   16:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This edit seems to be usable and has some decent enough sources that I notice were pretty heavily removed by later edits by an IP. If no one objects, I'm going to semi protect the page to prevent IPs and very new accounts from editing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   16:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've reverted it, but even then this still needs editing because it's still non neutral, only this time to be Park positive rather than negative. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   16:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm writing to say that it looks like there is still great cause for concern on the article, as we're getting accusations of censorship thrown around because we aren't including a specific person's work. I have school and it's getting busy so I can't give it the surveillance it needs now- plus I'm not as BLP savvy as others. I can check in occasionally but it REALLY needs constant monitoring from someone who is familiar with overall BLP issues and such. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Andrew P. Thomas, Prosecutor
I am the subject of this Wikipedia entry. My repeated efforts to resolve these disputes with the apparent lead editor, FearofReprisal, have been unsuccessful. My request for mediation was denied, and I have been referred to this page. I am a novice and am unfamiliar with Wikipedia's procedures, and so have done my best throughout this process to file complaints and seek redress. While the article has been improved from the state in which I found it, it remains replete with bias. In my communications with him on the Talk page, FearofReprisal has admitted bias, and the article and his comments on the Talk page reflect this. The article as it now stands violates Wikipedia's policies against bias, the combating of which I understand to be a high priority of Wikipedia and its executive director.

The bias falls into two main categories: (1) suppression of any and all information that challenges the legitimacy of the actions taken against my law license, even though many independent and reputable parties, including some of my critics, questioned those events (I have provided related citations); and (2) Wikipedia's disparate treatment of my disbarment and related issues and the same events in the life of President William J. Clinton. The bias appears to be both personal and political in nature.

The Talk page on my Wikipedia article lays out 39 specific disputes over content and bias. FearofReprisal refuses to address substantively my proposed changes and concerns relating to bias, and gives no timetable for addressing them.

As throughout this process, I would appreciate guidance and assistance in resolving these matters. --Royalslongbeach1 (talk) 22:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Wait -- you want to be treated the same way as a US president?? Also: when you post criticism of another editor, you're supposed to let them know.  So: .  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

My suggestion in talk page was for Andrew Thomas to identify the top five issues that he wants assessed for NPOV, as we will be hard pressed to respond to the thirty-nine edit requests he has made. Five at a time may be doable and allow editors interested to participate. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Royalslongbeach1 didn't mention that it was I who actually referred him here.
 * Royalslongbeach1 (AKA Thomas is a politician), and his motives here are, by all appearances, political. It's not bad - it's just something to be aware of.
 * So far, I've made 26 article edits in response to his requests, none of which he has complained about (but none of which he gives me credit for here.)
 * Of his "39 specific disputes over content and bias," only 4 seemed to be about actual inaccuracies in existing article content -- and I've already dealt with those. The rest seem to be largely where he doesn't like what the article (and the citations) say.
 * Because of the mass of his requests, I've offered to deal with each one at a time: "I'm willing to discuss inaccuracies, one at a time. As soon as you say all the inaccuracies are dealt with, I'm willing to discuss bias issues, one at a time." I think this is the only way to be sure that each and every concern of his gets a fair hearing, and proper consideration. Fearofreprisal (talk) 02:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The main real issue appears to be one of undue weight - like far too many BLPs, this one would be vastly improved by reducing its length by half or more - the current version is unreadable, repetitive, and contains trivia where broader statements properly sourced would create a much better biography of a living person. Collect (talk) 02:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. My goal was to *first* correct any inaccuracies and bias problems, before tackling the task of tightening up the article. But, if someone else wants to do it now, I'm all for it. The thing is -- it actually takes some careful research and thought to do right. What do you include or exclude? MACE, Court Tower, RICO, DOJ? The list goes on and on. Fearofreprisal (talk) 02:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I would disagree for the need to reduce the length of the article. If you take the time to read it, you will see that the material covered is wide ranging given his profile and the actions he undertook. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  03:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I actually found the article very informative and quite readable. Of course, there is always room for improvement. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  03:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Cwobeel - thanks for cleaning up some of the article content, and adding a bit of rigor to the talk page. Fearofreprisal (talk) 08:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Side issue: shouldn't the article be moved to Andrew Thomas (politician)? --ukexpat (talk) 16:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point. I'll move the article. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

As I stated above, please note I'm a novice and am trying to navigate this process in Wikipedia, which for outsiders is not easy. I'm not sure how to proceed at this point other than to try to respond to some of the comments made above.

Unlike President Clinton, I was not, of course, twice elected president of the United States. However, I was twice elected to run the fourth largest prosecutor's office in the country. In that position, I arguably had more impact on national policy (i.e., immigration) than any other elected district attorney, before or since. The current entry is very one-sided, especially when compared to Wikipedia's very favorable treatment of President Clinton and his two terms in office. He spent his second term embroiled in scandals (the fairness of which I set aside). He had many fights with the Republican-led Congress, was impeached, and ultimately was disbarred by the U.S. Supreme Court and all-but-disbarred by the Arkansas Supreme Court. These are not irrelevant points. President Clinton is a Yale Law graduate; his first job was as a law professor in Arkansas; his first elected office was attorney general of Arkansas, the first step on his eventual rise to the White House.

On the Talk page, FearofReprisal at one point acknowledged Clinton's disbarment, like mine, was a "footnote" to his legacy. Wikipedia treats Clinton's disbarment that way but not mine.

I have not seen any response to my other central point. Any and all information about the fairness of the proceedings surrounding my disbarment--a highly politicized and unusual process which was criticized by many independent and reputable authorities, including my political detractors at the Arizona Republic--has been systematically and completely omitted from the entry. That is like failing to mention the fact that the U.S. House of Representatives was controlled by Republicans when its majority impeached President Clinton.

Regarding inaccuracies, the remaining disputes I have regarding my entry are either based on bias or claims inextricably intertwined with bias. Particularly when contrasted with the Clinton entry, the bias is self-evident and in conflict with Wikipedia's policies. --Royalslongbeach1 (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ All your edits requests have been evaluated and responded in talk page. Please respond there as there are still a few edit requests that require your input. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Ned Colletti
Baseball-loving BLP watchers, I'd appreciate your attention to this article, where we have an SPA,, turning this article into a hagiography. I've reverted their massive and massively positive edits twice already (and cut some of the usual "Charity and community work" fluff), but not having all that much experience with that sport it would be nice if an expert or two could come along to work on that article. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Subhas Chandra Bose
The British Raj, though never seriously threatened by the INA, was to try 300 INA officers for treason in the INA trials, but was to eventually backtrack in the face of its own end.[26]..The British Raj, though never seriously threatened by the INA, was to try 300 INA officers for treason in the INA trials, but was to eventually backtrack in the face of its own end.[26].. .....this information your website is totally wrong SIR...even in a recent poll regarded it The Kohima war between British army and AJADHIND FAUJ is most toughest one...also there is in an interesting info the BRITISH PRIME MINISTER CLEMENT ATTLEE SAID THE MOVEMENT OF GANDHI END IN 1942... SO YOUR INFORMATION ABOUT THE MOVEMENT ASA FUTILE ONE WAS COMPLETELY MISGUIDING... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.205.160.174 (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Whatever the merits or negative consequences of Bose's INA movement might be, Bose has been dead since 1945 -- 69 years ago. This is a noticeboard for dealing with problems related to the biographies of living persons per our WP:BLP policy and guidelines.  The correct place to initiate a discussion regarding the long-dead Bose and his movement will be the article talk page here: Talk:Subhas Chandra Bose.  Good luck.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit conflict
I am the author of the first academic biography ever done on Maj. Gen. William "Bull" Nelson. I recently discovered the Wiki page I did no him had been grossly tampered with by persons who have an agenda to make Jefferson C. Davis standout in the article. There were also other issues I will not bore you with. For the past three days, I have been working on a rewrite of the piece that includes detailed documentation. Today was devoted to the final sections and all of that work. When I attempted to post it late this evening there was notice that someone else had done a new edit while I was doing mine. All of my work was lost! It would require days to recreate the documented entry. It is now obvious to me why people think Wiki is a bad source.I no longer feel obliged to try and set record straight in a place where "history buffs" indulge writing history as they want to see it rather than rely on diligently researched interpretation that has been carefully reviewed by academic peers.

In short I feel like a fool for having believed in Wikipedia. I also realize one fool is not going to change anything. Quarterdeckgeneral (talk) 02:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you had this experience. It seems that you experienced an WP:EDITCONFLICT. It's an unfortunate consequence of contributing to an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. There are ways to work around potential edit conflicts that most of us eventually learn to avoid what you went through. I hope you won't give up on editing. We can use more editors such as yourself!- MrX 02:50, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if I understand correctly. You are unhappy at Wikipedia because it lost your work before you posted? Isn't that something any word processor program could have done? They're notorious for it, in fact. People tend to work around that by either posting often, in small steps, or by saving a copy either offline or in their user space, where others are unlikely to edit, until the work is complete and ready to post; so if the post fails, there is a copy elsewhere to try again with. --GRuban (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Hafiz Mujeeb Rahman
Could this page for a non-notable musician possibly be salted? SPAs seem hellbent on recreating it, was deleted 2 days ago, and 2 days before that. Cannolis (talk) 04:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've indeffed the latest sock and extended the master's block to 1 week. I figured he deserved a final chance, but we'll see. If it gets recreated again we'll salt it. Sometimes it's easier to keep it in the watchlist and get wind of it being created again. § FreeRangeFrog croak 04:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Another Touré query
Hello again, I'm back with a second request for assistance on the biographical article about the journalist Touré, this time for input on some material currently included in the Television section. The concern I have with this section is that more than two thirds of the text focuses on a few small "controversies". While the individual events each did receive some news coverage, albeit primarily in online sources that cover the minutiae of personalities in the media, even here the coverage was very short-lived. I wouldn't argue they deserve no mention, but I would make the case that it is unambiguously WP:UNDUE weight. This is why I am proposing that the details be reduced to a one or two sentence summary and would like editors here to take a look to see if this suggestion is reasonable. My full request is on the article's Talk page. Any help would be appreciated. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 15:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Emily Schooley
Could use some extra eyes. Just reverted replacement of lede image with a partial nude photo and some unsourced content about self cutting. Apparently she is somehow targeted by something gamergate-ish on Twitter. VQuakr (talk) 16:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Dr. K. Loganathan
Some IP editors are repeatedly adding a few sentences that call this person a "crackpot" and a "lunatic". I've reverted the addition for now, but extra eyes on the page would be helpful. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I hate semi'ing an article at AFD when the majority of contributors are IPs or not autoconfirmed, but those edits were really problematic so I did protect it. Please keep it in your watchlist and we'll see if anyone makes an edit request, since we're potentially preventing it from being rescued. I also left a note in the talk page of the one other non-IP/non-autoconfirmed contributor. § FreeRangeFrog croak 00:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Peter Gelb
Several IPs have been repeatedly attempting to add these inappropriate categories to the article,. Even for the second category addition, there is zero material in the article to support it. Background: the Metropolitan Opera, of which he is the general manager, has recently performed the controversial 1991 opera Death of Klinghoffer. The article needs more eyes. I'm at my second revert in 24 hours. Voceditenore (talk) 06:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I can semi-protect the page for a short period of time and see if that deters them. I'll only do it for 24 hours though, since the page didn't receive enough additions to entirely warrant it for longer. Yet. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   06:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Tokyogirl79. The opera is running for 3 more performances, November 8, 11, and 15. I imagine they will keep it up until the end of the run at least, but as long as more editors have Peter Gelb on their watchlists, it may be enough once semi-protection expires. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Mike Scully
Content including marriage and children are incorrect. Scully was married from 1983 to 1991 to Nancy O'Neill.They have two daughters together. He has a daughter with his current wife Julie Thatcher. They would be three children that Scully has. Thatcher has two daughters from her first marriage. There have been numerous attempts to correct this omission, including sources. What proof would suffice?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mike_Scully#Outraged.21 Louseblunt (talk) 22:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * See my answer on the talk page to what appears to be another account you have used. Edit warring over the inclusion of badly sourced material on a BLP article is not a good idea. If its not properly sourced and in any way controversial we don't include it. There is no history of engaging with other editors on the talk page about the matter until today. You should refrain from trying to add content unless it can be reliably sourced. If you think other content is incorrect and should be removed then that is another matter entirely, which should also be discussed.


 * On a side note, it would appear that a string of different SPA accounts and IPs have been trying to insert this information for some time, i would assume that the latest IP, and likely the previous users are also you or someone you know. This account you have used to post this has no previous edits but somehow is jumping in on a noticeboard to complain. Please read our policies on sock puppetry and tag teaming.  Mfield (Oi!) 23:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

William Lane Craig
I would like to add a critical section of him into this article by starting with this text: "The philosopher Stephen Law debated William Lane Craig in 2011 and was suggesting that one can use parallel versions of Craig's arguments to prove the existence of an evil God. In a follow up debate, Law alleges that Craig repeatedly misrepresented Law's position by suggesting that Law's objection relies on a presumption that Christians conclude God's perfect goodness is obvious from evidence in the world when Law's argument only relies on the theist accepting that God is good, not necessarily perfectly good, and that theists conclude God's goodness from facts about the world, not that they conclude his perfect goodness from those facts. Law states that Craig has repeatedly misrepresented numerous parts of his argument." With source http://stephenlaw.blogspot.kr/2011/11/craigs-website-response-re-our-debate.html. I know that's only a blog, but I think it's acceptable because it is clear that this is Stephen Law's blog and when that's the only source where he expressed critisim of Craig that should be ok as reference. There is absolutly no critism in Crag's article and if the only critisism is made in the blogs of the people he debated, then how in the world could anyone have a neutral point of view and incorporate some critisism? What if Einstein had posted his theories in his blog? Would that also not count as a source? It's ridiculous if you can only use none blog sources if the content you need is only expressed in blogs. Otherwise I could write a critic section with this source http://infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/craig.html by the Internet InfidelsBut I'm not sure the "owners" of the article will accept it and revert every edit I make.--Lexikon-Duff (talk) 10:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Did you notify other parties, such as, , and when you started this BLP/N? Fearofreprisal (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I was not really a part of the discussion, but I don't see any reason why a BLP MUST have a "Criticism" section in order to be neutral. Most BLPs I've encountered don't have such sections.  Based on what he has said on the Talk Page, it seems to me that Lexikon-Duff is an angry atheist who really just wants to say that WLC is simply a jerk.  And in many blogs, that's exactly what you'll find (except more colorful language is used).  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If the only criticism is in the blogs of people he debated, then why should we consider that criticism significant? --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * While a good article will put a thinker's thoughts in context of what others have thought of them (how is that for language mangling!), we certainly do not go to blogs to find such context, particularly in an article about a living person. Since posting here, the OP has suggested RELIGIOUS STUDIES in 1992 (Volume 28, pp. 347-350), on the Craig article talk page and such a source is a much better platform to begin discussing how to put Craig's thoughts into the context of modern religious belief. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * @NatGertler: Because the critisism is from people like Stephen Law (and not some random guy) for example, @Bill the Cat: It seems like you are an angry theist who really just wants to block critisism of Craig.--Lexikon-Duff (talk) 23:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Just in case you will miss it, I'll repeat it here: Here is another source which was published: http://infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/empty.html in Journal of Higher Criticism 8:2 (Fall 2001), pp. 251-93. Here is another source http://infidels.org/library/modern/arnold_guminski/kalam.html published in the Fall-Winter 2002 issue of Philo (Vol. 5, pp. 196-215) Here is one: http://infidels.org/library/modern/graham_oppy/reply.html Published in "Reply To Professor Craig", Sophia 34, 2, December 1995, pp.15-29] I bet there are others, I will gather them. --Lexikon-Duff (talk) 00:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Just to seperate this from the other comments I gathered all the critical and published sources that were referred to on this infidel site: (Revised 2014), Arnold T. Guminski, Philo (Vol. 5, pp. 196-215)[6 ] These are all critical papers--Lexikon-Duff (talk) 13:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Why I Am Not a Christian (2000), Keith M. Parsons, Atlanta Freethought Society in 2000. [1 ]
 * Two Ways to Prove Atheism (1996), Quentin Smith, Atheist Alliance convention in Minneapolis, MN on April 6, 1996[2 ]
 * Review of Reasonable Faith (2007), Chris Hallquist, Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books. 350 pp[3 ]
 * Reply To Professor Craig (1995), Graham Oppy, Sophia 34, 2, December 1995, pp.15-29[4 ]
 * Quantum Cosmology's Implication of Atheism (1997), Quentin Smith, Analysis 57.4, October 1997, pp. 295-304[5 ]
 * The Kalam Cosmological Argument: The Question of the Metaphysical Possibility of an Infinite Set of Real Entities (2002)
 * Inverse Operations With Transfinite Numbers And The Kalam Cosmological Argument (1995), Graham Oppy, International Philosophical Quarterly, 35, 2, pp.219-221[7 ]
 * Historical Evidence and the Empty Tomb Story, A Reply to William Lane Craig, Jeffery Jay Lowder, Journal of Higher Criticism 8:2 (Fall 2001), pp. 251-93[8 ]
 * God (1997), Jan Narveson, Reason Papers, #22 - Fall 97, pp. 109-118[9 ]
 * The Anthropic Coincidences, Evil and the Disconfirmation of Theism (1992), Quentin Smith, Religious Studies (journal) in 1992 (Volume 28, pp. 347-350)[10 ]
 * No one cares anymore, so I will write a critical section with all those sources in the future.--Lexikon-Duff (talk) 19:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Laverne Cox
There is an edit war to keep reinserting the male birth name of transgender actress/Emmy nominee/advocate/icon Laverne Cox. The only two sources appear to be THEMSELVES using Wikipedia as their main source for this information, since their wording is very similar to the Wikipedia language about Laverne's birth name. This qualifies as Original Research, since Wikipedia is now the main source for Laverne's birth name -- it is Wikipedia citing Wikipedia as a source in a feedback loop. Laverne has publicly said that she does not want to ever discuss her birth name, since that was never her real name.

Aroundthewayboy (talk) 01:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * There are numerous reliable sources for Cox's birth name. You have no evidence other than your own guess that this is WP:CIRCULAR and multiple reliable sources have now been presented.  Categorizing this as defamation is a dilution of the term. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * First time her birth name was added was August 3, 2014 in . It cites an article from June 19, 2014. That article was edited on September 04, 2014 in which her birth name was removed. However, an archived version from the Wayback Machine can be found here with her birth name mentioned. WP:CIRCULAR, the crux of Aroundthewayboy's argument, is impossible here as her birth name had not been added to the article prior to this.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 04:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia: "Cox was born in Mobile, Alabama as Roderick Leverne Cox."


 * Source 1, nationalpost.com: "Born a twin, Roderick Laverne Cox grew up in Mobile, Ala. under the constant scrutiny of bullies."


 * Source 2, USA Today: "And none of it is lost on the Mobile, Alabama, native, who was born Roderick Leverne Cox."


 * You're right, Aroundthewayboy, they do all mention the same name and city, as well as using the word "born". Good eye, I would have missed that. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Before you start tossing out accusations and attacks, I suggest you carefully look through my edits on the article and talk page. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 08:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Loretta E. Lynch
The inclusion of connections with Al Shartopn on this page seems to have a political motivation, since Al Sharpton is a polarizing figure. The inclusion as a headline suggests connections with a notorious person. This is not included with other similar pages. There are also no headline sections of connections with other persons, including people who might be less polarizing or who are moderate or conservative on the political spectrum. Finally, the language in this text saying that Al Sharpton helped pick the AG is absolutely not supported by the link provided and should immediately be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.137.210.129 (talk) 17:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Removed the pure speculation - we can wait until we reach the WP:DEADLINE here. Collect (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protection?
In light of the Whitewater case confusion with another Loretta Lynch, and despite that it was rather quickly removed, I ask that semi-protection be considered for Attorney General candidate Loretta Lynch's entry, per her biography of a living person, who is bound to be very much in the news in the coming weeks. I think the semi-protection should hold at least until it is determined when she will be up for Senate confirmation. -- Valsadie (talk) 00:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

✅ Requested semi protection at WP:RFPP. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Photograph of naked, pregnant five-year-old Lina Medina
Opinions are needed on a potential BLP concern on the Lina Medina article regarding a photograph of naked, pregnant five-year-old Medina. BLP concerns raised here: [] and other relevant discussion can be found on talk:Lina Medina --BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Bobo and I are involved in this article so I'll try to keep responses minimal to allow uninvolved editors to see the overall situation and comment. I aver that it's an encyclopedic benefit to see the only mother at 5 years old (ever) and that it's a first in documented medical history to view such an image. Bobo I believe avers however that it's a BLP violation considering that the subject never consented to such an image displaying on the article. That's why it's at this noticeboard--at least that's what I've gleaned. Tutelary (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * BLP concerns here trump any encyclopedic value the image has. The child, whose face is identifiable in the image, could not have consented to the image at the time and there's no record to her consent now. Unlike other medical images of children, there is no effort to protect her identity. Image is violation of WP:AVOIDVICTIM  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 21:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Please stop speculating. The photo is 80 years old, from a country, time, legal structure and culture most of us know little about. The photo exists. It's a medical photo, not child pornography, as another editor unethically suggested on the article's talk page. It has been published elsewhere. We cannot possibly guess at its legal status. We really have no idea about how (or whether) permission was granted for the original photograph. So please, no more speculation. HiLo48 (talk) 21:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The laws of the country of origin don't matter. WP is bound by US law. Regardless, WP:AVOIDVICTIM still applies here. The encyclopedic value does not outweigh the fact that it's a nude picture of a child with no attempt at protecting her identity.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 21:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I came here to ask the child pornography question. Is there a situation in which we're allowed to host images of naked minors? Ivanvector (talk) 21:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * n/m, the legality issue seems to have been addressed on the talk page. Ivanvector (talk) 21:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * See Nevermind, and see also http://www.amazon.com/Nevermind-Limited-Bonus-Tracks-B-Sides/dp/B005PXXDP6. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * BLP and the rights of the subject must always be above the perceived historical importance of the image, or the value it adds to the article. I have no problem with it being removed. § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * We don't know the legal situation regarding the rights of the subject. We don't know how (or whether) permission was granted for the photo to be taken and used. There is no evidence that there is a BLP issue here. HiLo48 (talk) 21:58, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I find that I agree with Bobo. The subject is alive so the article is in the scope of WP:BLP. Normally I would say it's ridiculous to seek consent from every BLP subject before we use their apparently freely-available photos. However, there is evidence that the subject seeks to avoid media attention, refuses interviews and has refused offers of money related to this. Since we can easily draw the conclusion that she does not want attention for this, we have to follow WP:AVOIDVICTIM and exclude the image. Just because it exists is not a good enough reason to include it, we are not a tabloid. Ivanvector (talk) 22:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Omit Regardless of whether they had a concept of informed consent then, we do now. We don't need a picture to document the fact or to allow us to visualize such a thing.  Isn't our formal motto "Don't Be Evil"? μηδείς (talk) 22:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * What does this have to do with being evil? HiLo48 (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's Google's motto.-- Auric    talk  02:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * With not being evil. μηδείς (talk) 02:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:NOTCENSORED, and if the image is freely available we should not omit it from the article as it will not be a BLP violation. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not free, it is under copyright apparently (or it should be on commons). I don't (yet) have an opinion on the rest. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The copyright status is unknown. I refer everyone to []. And can everyone please remember that copyright law varies extensively around the world. It's not all the same as that in the USA. HiLo48 (talk) 22:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Copyright law varies extensively, but Wikipedia is bound to US copyright law. Ivanvector (talk) 22:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Really? For a photo not taken in the USA, by someone who was probably not American, and first published in a non-American journal? I don't believe that. HiLo48 (talk) 23:58, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The US rules for foreign works are complicated, but in the majority of cases it boils down to: Works published overseas by foreign nationals in countries that signed the Berne Copyright Convention (and eligible for copyright protection in the country of origin) are protected in the US for the same duration that they would be protected for if the work was first published in US by a US citizen.  In general, the Wikimedia Foundation asks that images be free from copyright constraints under both US law and the law of the country of origin.  Dragons flight (talk) 01:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:NOTCENSORED applies more to pages like anal sex. WP is indeed censored when it comes to BLP.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 22:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Omit  Wikipedia is supposed to serve the readers, and I see no benefit to readers by including an image of this nature here. I also note that using pictures of naked children where any possible sexual inference might be drawn is, in fact, legally problematic in the US. As it may well be wrong to include it on such grounds, and there is no logically compelling reason to include such an image, the tie-breaker is whether the readers need it. They don't. Collect (talk) 22:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This cannot possibly be covered by "pictures of naked children where any possible sexual inference might be drawn". It is a medical photo. HiLo48 (talk) 22:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Omit per Ivanvector and Collect. This should be a matter of common sense: a naked photo of a pregnant 5-year-old? Who is still living? Really?? Please read the article: her parents rejected an offer of $5,000 to film her giving birth in 1939 -- and that sum would be worth five to ten times that today in inflation adjusted dollars. As an adult, the woman has avoided all interviews and interaction with the media. The 1939 images that were taken of her were ostensibly for scientific purposes, and not for dissemination among newspapers and other mainstream media, but for medical and other scientific texts. No one could have imagined the internet in 1939, and that photos permitted for the limited purpose of medical text books and the like would ever find their way into general circulation. Moreover, apart from the bald assertion of "scientific interest," can anyone explain the scientific benefit to disseminating this photo, apart from curiosity about what a pregnant 5-year-old might look like? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:36, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Ivanvector's and Collect's reasons are negated above, so that post is null and void. Oh, and BTW, the purpose of an encyclopaedia IS to satisfy the readers' curiosity. HiLo48 (talk) 00:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Omit According to the Image use policy, pictures of children normally require consent. According to the Image use policy, identifiable pictures of nude people not taken in public normally require consent. Do we have any of that? No how. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:66%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  22:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * What makes you think no consent was given? HiLo48 (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There's no proof there was consent, and WP plays caution to legal issues like this, taking the safe road. --M ASEM (t) 00:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Omit - As stated above, BLP trumps WP:NOTCENSORED (which does not apply unconditionally to BLPs) and any concerns about making the encyclopedia more accessible to readers. WP is bound by US law and it not clear this image is even used legally. The laws of the time and location of the image's capture do not apply. Because the image is of a child who is still living, there are multiple levels of heightened scrutiny. As Elaqueate said, images of children typically require consent, and it's unclear if any consent is given by the living person then or now. Moreover, there are and were no efforts to protect the identity of the subject of the photo; identifiable features remain. In sum, we have (1) a nude image of a living person (2) when they were a child (3) that was not altered to protect their identity/privacy. (4) The image's legal use on WP is unclear. (5) It is unclear if consent was given to use the photo, either at the time of its creation or retroactively by the subject. That's 5 strikes against this image. We must omit it.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 23:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Omit - I am at present unconvinced of the need for WP:NFCC purposes, and the Image use policy privacy issue is well taken, and so is WP:BLP protection. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Omit for several reasons. First, there is no good reason the violate the dignity of someone and publish a naked image of them without their clear consent especially a vulnerable child. It is not as if we are educating medical clinicians about what it looks like to see a pregnant child with this image. And that leads into the second reason, that it is not freely licensed and there should not be used on Wikipedia. I don't see a valid fair use reason for the image other that we want to see it because it is sensational. Sydney Poore/FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 00:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Convince me it's violating someone's dignity. And it's a narrow view to say that "we want to see it because it is sensational". You cannot read everyone's minds. HiLo48 (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Can those opposing inclusion of this image please look at Indigenous Australians. There are photos of naked people. In many cases we don't know when they were taken. We don't know if the subjects are still alive. We don't know if permission was given. I probably need to tell editors that, if the subjects of the photos have died, to show an image of a dead Australian Aboriginal person can be very offensive to descendants of and other people involved with that person. Should all those images be removed? HiLo48 (talk) 00:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Which images are you referring to - the one or two without faces or names shown from a distance? Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant question. HiLo48 (talk) 01:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't play stupid HiLo48. Of course that's relevant. Identifiability matters.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 02:27, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Omit - Better to err on the side of caution in this case, if in fact there is any error. The argument that there is no sexual inference is particulary inane. 1. She is pregnant. 2. In vitro wasn't invented until the late 1970s. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:26, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Of course there has been sexual activity. Nobody has denied that. I have strongly argued against the ridiculous suggestion that it is child pornography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiLo48 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Your words: This cannot possibly be covered by "pictures of naked children where any possible sexual inference might be drawn". Think about it. You might as well add the caption, "Five-year-old girl who had sex within the preceding nine months". And you can't argue that it is not child pornography without providing compelling evidence that no one in the world would be sexually aroused by it; whether you are, or anyone you know would be, is completely beside the point. That is the basis and criterion for child pornography law. I know you can't do that. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:41, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Of course she had sex. That doesn't mean the image is sexual. It might be to perverts, but not to most of the population. Your post seems to be suggesting that any image of a naked person is pornography because it might arouse someone. That is simply wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 02:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, I give up. Let's try this tack instead. You have presented your arguments articulately, they have been read and understood, you remain in the clear minority on this, and that seems very unlikely to change. Consensus wins, as wrong as you feel it may be. That's how Wikipedia works. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, consensus should always "win", but we don't determine consensus by counting votes. Quality of argument counts for much more. When the opposing votes include allegations of child pornography, those "votes" are so stupid and bigoted they MUST be ignored. So should several others which made unjustified assumptions. HiLo48 (talk) 03:19, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * HiLo, your arguments here have gone from the patronizing, to the fallacious, to the absurd:
 * The photo is 80 years old, from a country, time, legal structure and culture most of us know little about. I.e., "A long time ago (1930's) in a galaxy far, far away (Peru)"? Habla por ti mismo.
 * We cannot possibly guess at its legal status Then we don't guess that we have the legal right to it
 * We really have no idea about how (or whether) permission was granted for the original photograph. I.e., you don't know the truth, s you challenge us to prove a negative.
 * We don't know the legal situation regarding the rights of the subject. You don't know, it is you who needs to prove the positive, not anyone else a negative.
 * We don't know how (or whether) permission was granted for the photo to be taken and used. Nor do I know if this drunken college student would mind if I took some nude pics?
 * Of course she had sex. No, she was raped, period. No legal code on Earth from Sharia to the Napoleonic allows sex with 4 year olds or assumes they can give consent.
 * Convince me it's violating someone's dignity. You've obviously read DirtLawyer1's comment on the family's and the victim's refusal to take money for filming or to seek publicity or give interviews.
 * You cannot read everyone's minds. Nor can you read anyone ' s mind.  But do please reread DirtLawyer1 above.
 * Please stop telling us we know nothing of the strange place, time and people, HiLo. Please stop telling us you know the girl "had sex" but we don't know if her dignity was violated.  Please stop demanding the proof of a negative.  If you want the victim's consent, compose a brief polite letter explaining your case to her, and I will translate it into Spanish at no cost, and you can mail it to her and reopen this case once we get her gracious permission. μηδείς (talk) 03:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * In several of those posts above I was expressing uncertainty, where several of the rest of you were completely certain you knew everything about this case. I did not ask for many of the things you say I asked for. When My position is so badly misrepresented, I know I have the stronger argument. HiLo48 (talk) 04:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * HiLo48, you misunderstand the process. You can counter my arguments, and I can counter yours, but calling your opponent's argument stupid and bigoted is not a counter. If that's fair play, all of us who !voted Omit hereby declare all of your arguments stupid and bigoted (or something equally imaginative) and we can close this discussion and go home. In theory, at least, the uninvolved closer of a discussion weighs the strengths of the arguments and declares the consensus, if any. Absent such a closer, yes, it's pretty much just a vote, although any vote with no argument at all should be ignored. In any case, it can't work if each side gets to rule on the quality of the other side's arguments, that much should be obvious. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I won't apologise for saying that someone calling this child pornography is bigoted. It's one of the least helpful comments made in this discussion. Until those wanting this image suppressed criticise the child pornography posts, they are accepting support from someone who is way off beam. That's very unethical. It implies that those supporting use of the image are supporters of child pornography. A very nasty thing to say. Do you think the image is child pornography? If not criticise the person who said it was. HiLo48 (talk) 04:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I already stated my position on the CP question, and it appears you didn't hear me. You also didn't hear what I said in my previous post. When I can see that the other party isn't even listening to me, that's when I conclude that my time is better spent elsewhere, so I'll leave now. Thanks for the stimulating discussion up to now. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, you argued that if anyone anywhere "in the world would be sexually aroused by it", it's child pornography. And you asked me to prove that there was no such person. That IS stupid. And completely unhelpful. When those who disagree with me say such idiotic things, I know I have a the better argument. HiLo48 (talk) 04:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Keep - (not sure when this became a !vote) Low quality image of significant interest. If necessary, it can be replaced with the censored version, or with one of the several other images of her available.-- Auric    talk  02:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Delete - at least until her consent is obtained. It's a simple matter of respecting a living private individual's right to privacy, and that of her descendants. If she's willing, or not, we should respect her wishes.LeadSongDog come howl!  03:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Please write to her for her consent. HiLo48 (talk) 04:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete this is exploitative; it is an inappropriate image. This is a sexual abuse survivor.  This is a child.   WP:AVOIDVICTIM clearly applies.  BLP or otherwise,  we don't need to treat this person like she's a sideshow freak.  She's obviously suffered enough.  End of story.  Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  03:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * She was a child when it happened. She is no longer a child. The photo does not treat here as a sideshow freak. HiLo48 (talk) 04:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * HiLo, your penchant for replying and arguing with everyone here is really not helping your cause in the least. In fact, it's a bit creepy. Just saying.  Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  07:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as potentially damaging to subject's human dignity. I doubt we'd find a photo of an airport X-ray machine monitor that depicts someone's deformed genitalia as particularly worthy of inclusion in an article on the subject of a genital deformity even though it's clear the person consented to be x-rayed by stepping into the booth. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 04:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you please explain that analogy? I don't get it. HiLo48 (talk) 04:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Gladly. If you consent to having a regulatory search done, such as an airport x-ray, you clearly consent to having your genitals photographed, since there's no way for the search to take place without that happening. That's just the nature of backscatter x-ray machines. If you've consented, why shouldn't the image of your medical condition that's visible on the backscatter x-ray be useable in a textbook or government-funded study of such medical conditions? I mean, after all, you consented to having your picture taken in the same way this girl's parents evidently consented to having her photo taken (note: that's not nearly as clear here). —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 04:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow, you have an amazing mind. HiLo48 (talk) 05:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Exploitive and lacks dignity. The subject's dignity trumps anything on Wikipedia we think gives us right to do something like this. (Littleolive oil (talk) 05:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC))
 * Please define dignity, in a global, universal way. Then explain the problem here. HiLo48 (talk) 05:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Drop the stick HiLo, if you don't get it, then ask the closest crisis pregnancy center. If you do get it, then stop being a troll.  Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  07:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, I get it. You think that a crisis pregnancy centre has something to do with this issue. You think that 21st century, first world values can be applied to this story. I disagree. HiLo48 (talk) 07:19, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Please, don't start with the first world paternalism straw man. It's unbecoming. If you want to debate universality, this is hardly the place, and your argument is hardly developed. Please read and  You might as well read some Finnis as well. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 07:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not a productive response to my comment. It does, however, highlight that a lot of posts here do not consider the differences between the time, place and culture in which this incident happened and modern western society. They are classic applications of our systemic bias. HiLo48 (talk) 07:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey, I can call your comment unhelpful just as easily. Let's see what the consensus of people on this page is. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 07:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Larry King
The problem is this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_King&oldid=633061473 to Larry King. It contains grossly insulting and degrading BLP violations in the edit itself and the edit summary. Cluebot reverted the edit, but an administrator will need to blank the edit summary and history for this edit. User talk:Andrew Solorzano which appears to be a vandalism only account, created the edit. Safiel (talk) 15:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Mark Paredes
Someone keeps trying to post slanderous, irrelevant content to my wikipedia page [Mark Paredes]. I have removed it several times, and it keeps reappearing. Please help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.50.126.207 (talk) 23:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * One of the sources for the additions is Paredes' blog! I'd hardly say that a subject can slander himself. I suggest that concerns about misrepresentation of the material be clearly explained at Talk:Mark Paredes so we can decide what, if any, of the content needs removed. —C.Fred (talk) 00:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * There's pretty blatant synthesis in the removed material. [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Paredes&diff=632835217 The first removed paragraph] cites a poll for the statement that American Jews vote Democrat, but uses this claim to argue against Paredes' position (when Paredes is not mentioned in the cited article at all). I'm not as sure about the rest, but it's disquieting insofar as it appears to be phrased to promote a political position without attributing it to any source. I think it ought to be removed again per WP:BLP and more generally per WP:BRD (given [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Paredes&diff=632754457 it had only been added a couple days before without discussion by a new account and evident SPA]). —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 02:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed it; the sources don't directly support the BLP contentions. There might be an argument for a SPI. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:66%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  16:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Retartist/8chanstuff
Every revision of the User talk:Retartist/8chanstuff page contains a particular claim that I deleted here. It's related to the Gamergate controversy and that particular claim has never been reliably sourced. — Strongjam (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It definitely should not be stated the way it was, although it could say, "According to Forbes, 'One YouTube commentator, Mundane Matt, had a video on the subject removed after receiving a DMCA takedown notice, apparently issued by Quinn herself.' "  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There's actually no real evidence it was done by Quinn (anyone could have plugged her e-mail address), and Forbes.com contributor bloggers are not reliable sources for BLP purposes - their work is not regularly edited or fact-checked. So no, it can't really be sourced to that. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you please expand upon the latter half of your sentence (i.e. what makes you think that Forbe's contributors aren't edited or fact-checked)? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Falls under WP:NEWSBLOG I believe. Relevant WP:RSN discussions here and here — Strongjam (talk) 19:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As per the below-linked CJR story - "Forbes contributors" are perhaps not even WP:NEWSBLOGS, because they are not fact-checked or edited by Forbes staff. They do not undergo an editorial vetting process, which makes them little more than an SPS as far as living persons issues are concerned. As reported by the Columbia Journalism Review, No matter their background or compensation, all (Forbes) contributors can publish their own work without so much as a cursory edit. As reported by the Poynter Institute, There is no traditional editing of contributors’ copy, at least not prior to publishing. If a story gets hot or makes the homepage, a producer will “check it more carefully,” DVorkin said. We have no evidence, much less a guarantee, that Erik Kain's articles have gone through any sort of editorial vetting process that we expect from a reliable source. I'm fine with citing his opinions, but any contentious claims about living people need a better source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No opinion about this specific case. But see this CJR article about (mis)attributing opinions of Forbes contributors to Forbes. Abecedare (talk) 20:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Thanks for the links, especially for the Columbia Journalism Review article.  I wasn't aware that there was a distinction between Forbes blogs written by Forbes staff (for example) and Forbes contributors (for example, ).  I wonder how many editors in the community know about this.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * In the area of video games, we are aware of the diff - as such in normal circumstances (like, on an article about a game) only a few Forbes contributors are considered reliable due to their past works, recognition by others, and so on - eg treating the work as effectively self-published. In particular Paul Tassi and Eric Kain tend to be the only ones we consider there as reliable without too much question. --M ASEM (t) 20:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Reliable for video games stuff, sure. Not reliable for disputed claims about living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree there. This is not an area where we should be using Kain as an RS even for opinion (unless his opinion is noted by others). --M ASEM (t) 03:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you please expound upon why you think Kain is reliable (i.e. what past works, recognition by others)? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * VG project's discussion is here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 8, where basically we call it a situational source and encourage replacement. --M ASEM (t) 03:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * To be clear, the source actually cited was NewMediaRockstars. It should have been phrased as an allegation, but otherwise does not seem to be an issue.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 21:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Rose McGowan
Controversies section - clear framing and lack of context around inflammatory quotes. Needs appropriate background and explanatory verbiage

"McGowan announced that gay people “fought for the right to stand on top of a float wearing an orange Speedo taking Molly” [MDMA]." She also described those that were boycotting the Dorchester in response to its owner, the Sultan of Brunei, making homosexuality punishable by stoning to death as “delusional idiots”.,." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.32.126 (talk) 20:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed the material for now. Maybe revisit it in a few months. --Malerooster (talk) 00:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)