Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive221

les garland
Les Garland was NOT co-founder of MTV he was hired as Talent and Acquisitions after Carolyn B. Baker that is me was a co-founder with John Sykes who was part of the team also. Les Garland came to MTV after it was on air a year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTV  As programming chief, Robert W. Pittman recruited and managed a team for the launch that included Tom Freston (who succeeded Pittman as CEO of MTV Networks), Fred Seibert, John Sykes, Carolyn Baker (original head of talent and acquisition),[14] Marshall Cohen (original head of research),[15] Gail Sparrow (of talent and acquisition), Sue Steinberg (executive producer),[16] Julian Goldberg, Steve Lawrence, Geoff Bolton; studio producers and MTV News writers/associate producers Liz Nealon, Nancy LaPook and Robin Zorn; Steve Casey (creator of the name "MTV" and its first program director),[17] Marcy Brahman, Ronald E. "Buzz" Brindle, and Robert Morton. Kenneth M. Miller is credited as being the first technical director to officially launch MTV from its New York City-based network operations facility.[17] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C52A:2900:2092:45EC:24B9:94E6 (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, there are reliable sources out there (including, for example, this one and this one which predates our article) which refer to him as a co-founder of MTV. There are many problems with the Les Garland article, one being its length without inline references but a spate of end-of-article references, which means that it would almost certainly survive an attempt to delete it and start over, but also means that someone is going to have to take the time to work through them one at a time, properly provide inline references, and cut out all the puffery. Part of the problem is that co-founder is a fairly elastic term. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I am a quack vs my work is regarded as quackery
I've just run into an interpretation of BLP that is new to me. I'm intentionally writing in the abstract to focus on the principle without focus on that particular content dispute. If other eds from that other dispute come over here, hopefully they will agree to discuss the principles in the abstract rather than make WP:MULTI problems by hijacking this thread to continue that content dispute.

In the abstract then....

As I understand WP:BLP, even though it is true, an article about me can not say
 * 1. NewsAndEventsGuy is a quack. cite my wife, the world's most reliable source on such matters

Now let us suppose that at least half of my notability derives from my Wikipedia work. Since BLP prevents me from being directly called a quack, is it ok to instead write
 * 2. NewsAndEventsGuy's wikipedia work is regarded as quackery? same cite

But wait. Let's add inline attribution to #2
 * 3. NewsAndEventsGuy's wikipedia work is regarded by his wife as quackery? same cite

Finally, let's say instead that we have competing sources. Some reliable sources speak of my wikipedia work as reasoned and useful, but my wife and others still thinks it's quackery. Can we say
 * 4. ''NewsAndEventsGuy's wikipedia work is regarded as valuable by the famous JoShmo, and by his wife as quackery.  same cite plus one from JoShmo

Thoughts? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC) {{od} Discussion 1. No (obvious) 2. No ("It is our choices that define us." - Albus Dumbledore.) 3. Probably. Inline attribution seems to cure the problem in #2. 4. Fine, it's stated with good in line attribution and citation. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment by NAEG


 * Depending on what reliable sources say, either 2, 3, or 4 can be acceptable. If multiple sources define your work as quackery, and the only sources supporting your work are Time Cube guy and Silver RavenWolf, then 2 is totally fine.  If very little is written about your work, but again, no mainstream sources support it, 3 might be better.  If there are variety of views in reliable sources, then 4 would probably be best.
 * There are some cases where 1 could be acceptable, in extreme cases of 2 where the sources explicitly call you a quack because of your work being quackery. For example, Mark Dice, David Duke, and Alex Jones (radio host) are explicitly called conspiracy theorists, and Duke is also called a Neo-Nazi.
 * Of course, 4 can also be completely inappropriate. For example, if someone added to the Barack Obama article that some Fox news host thinks he's a Muslim, but Obama says he's Christian, that'd be WP:BLP-violating case of WP:GEVAL.
 * TL;DR: it is entirely a case-by-case issue. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * 4 seems best given what you describe, but it's a case by case basis. However, there are some rules of thumb. If there is a large number of reliable sources that overwhelmingly say A is a quack, then 1 is OK. Same for 2, if a large number of RS state so, then it's OK. If a small number, and/or if sources are not iron-clad, then 3. (Large and small here should be considered with reference to how notable a person is; e.g. Many more people write about Obama, than write about Michel Camdessus, so the number of RS necessary to show a consensus of reliable opinion would be less for the latter.) If sources are mixed, then 4. But Ian is right, always be mindful of due weight WP:DUE. LK (talk) 03:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, Can I ask your opinion about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Edward_Griffin It says in the lede he has a view regarded as quackery. I asked on the article talk page how appropriate it is to use term "quackery". I suppose it just depends on reliable sources? Popish Plot (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That guy? If any of the sources call him a quack directly, I'd recommend following suit.  Otherwise, calling his work quackery is fine. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think they call him a quack and also say his work is quackery. Either way I guess quackage in some form is worthy of being in the lede. And not a major issue. Thanks. Popish Plot (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Musad Mohammed Al aiban
Article contains a lot of factual inaccuracies and mistakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:e000:99c2:3e00:d997:5ef3:bc3e:5db6 (talk) 03:50, 10 April 2015‎ (UTC)


 * Please specify your concerns. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Judith Miller
The name "Wilson" is invoked, in regards to having written a New York Times editorial, as though he had been previously introduced in the article, which he hadn't been. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.76.125.122 (talk) 13:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean, maybe all it needs is to add "Joseph" in front of the name "Wilson", I am pretty sure that is the wilson being referred to. Shouldn't be a controversial edit in that case. Popish Plot (talk) 14:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've posted an edit request over at the article talk page on this. Just putting Joseph in won't fix it because that still doesn't answer the question of "Which Joseph Wilson editorial and why is it significant?" Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I see good point. Popish Plot (talk) 15:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

les garland
Les Garland was NOT co-founder of MTV he was hired as Talent and Acquisitions after Carolyn B. Baker that is me was a co-founder with John Sykes who was part of the team also. Les Garland came to MTV after it was on air a year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTV  As programming chief, Robert W. Pittman recruited and managed a team for the launch that included Tom Freston (who succeeded Pittman as CEO of MTV Networks), Fred Seibert, John Sykes, Carolyn Baker (original head of talent and acquisition),[14] Marshall Cohen (original head of research),[15] Gail Sparrow (of talent and acquisition), Sue Steinberg (executive producer),[16] Julian Goldberg, Steve Lawrence, Geoff Bolton; studio producers and MTV News writers/associate producers Liz Nealon, Nancy LaPook and Robin Zorn; Steve Casey (creator of the name "MTV" and its first program director),[17] Marcy Brahman, Ronald E. "Buzz" Brindle, and Robert Morton. Kenneth M. Miller is credited as being the first technical director to officially launch MTV from its New York City-based network operations facility.[17] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C52A:2900:2092:45EC:24B9:94E6 (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, there are reliable sources out there (including, for example, this one and this one which predates our article) which refer to him as a co-founder of MTV. There are many problems with the Les Garland article, one being its length without inline references but a spate of end-of-article references, which means that it would almost certainly survive an attempt to delete it and start over, but also means that someone is going to have to take the time to work through them one at a time, properly provide inline references, and cut out all the puffery. Part of the problem is that co-founder is a fairly elastic term. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I am a quack vs my work is regarded as quackery
I've just run into an interpretation of BLP that is new to me. I'm intentionally writing in the abstract to focus on the principle without focus on that particular content dispute. If other eds from that other dispute come over here, hopefully they will agree to discuss the principles in the abstract rather than make WP:MULTI problems by hijacking this thread to continue that content dispute.

In the abstract then....

As I understand WP:BLP, even though it is true, an article about me can not say
 * 1. NewsAndEventsGuy is a quack. cite my wife, the world's most reliable source on such matters

Now let us suppose that at least half of my notability derives from my Wikipedia work. Since BLP prevents me from being directly called a quack, is it ok to instead write
 * 2. NewsAndEventsGuy's wikipedia work is regarded as quackery? same cite

But wait. Let's add inline attribution to #2
 * 3. NewsAndEventsGuy's wikipedia work is regarded by his wife as quackery? same cite

Finally, let's say instead that we have competing sources. Some reliable sources speak of my wikipedia work as reasoned and useful, but my wife and others still thinks it's quackery. Can we say
 * 4. ''NewsAndEventsGuy's wikipedia work is regarded as valuable by the famous JoShmo, and by his wife as quackery.  same cite plus one from JoShmo

Thoughts? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC) {{od} Discussion 1. No (obvious) 2. No ("It is our choices that define us." - Albus Dumbledore.) 3. Probably. Inline attribution seems to cure the problem in #2. 4. Fine, it's stated with good in line attribution and citation. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment by NAEG


 * Depending on what reliable sources say, either 2, 3, or 4 can be acceptable. If multiple sources define your work as quackery, and the only sources supporting your work are Time Cube guy and Silver RavenWolf, then 2 is totally fine.  If very little is written about your work, but again, no mainstream sources support it, 3 might be better.  If there are variety of views in reliable sources, then 4 would probably be best.
 * There are some cases where 1 could be acceptable, in extreme cases of 2 where the sources explicitly call you a quack because of your work being quackery. For example, Mark Dice, David Duke, and Alex Jones (radio host) are explicitly called conspiracy theorists, and Duke is also called a Neo-Nazi.
 * Of course, 4 can also be completely inappropriate. For example, if someone added to the Barack Obama article that some Fox news host thinks he's a Muslim, but Obama says he's Christian, that'd be WP:BLP-violating case of WP:GEVAL.
 * TL;DR: it is entirely a case-by-case issue. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * 4 seems best given what you describe, but it's a case by case basis. However, there are some rules of thumb. If there is a large number of reliable sources that overwhelmingly say A is a quack, then 1 is OK. Same for 2, if a large number of RS state so, then it's OK. If a small number, and/or if sources are not iron-clad, then 3. (Large and small here should be considered with reference to how notable a person is; e.g. Many more people write about Obama, than write about Michel Camdessus, so the number of RS necessary to show a consensus of reliable opinion would be less for the latter.) If sources are mixed, then 4. But Ian is right, always be mindful of due weight WP:DUE. LK (talk) 03:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, Can I ask your opinion about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Edward_Griffin It says in the lede he has a view regarded as quackery. I asked on the article talk page how appropriate it is to use term "quackery". I suppose it just depends on reliable sources? Popish Plot (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That guy? If any of the sources call him a quack directly, I'd recommend following suit.  Otherwise, calling his work quackery is fine. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think they call him a quack and also say his work is quackery. Either way I guess quackage in some form is worthy of being in the lede. And not a major issue. Thanks. Popish Plot (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Musad Mohammed Al aiban
Article contains a lot of factual inaccuracies and mistakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:e000:99c2:3e00:d997:5ef3:bc3e:5db6 (talk) 03:50, 10 April 2015‎ (UTC)


 * Please specify your concerns. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Judith Miller
The name "Wilson" is invoked, in regards to having written a New York Times editorial, as though he had been previously introduced in the article, which he hadn't been. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.76.125.122 (talk) 13:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean, maybe all it needs is to add "Joseph" in front of the name "Wilson", I am pretty sure that is the wilson being referred to. Shouldn't be a controversial edit in that case. Popish Plot (talk) 14:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've posted an edit request over at the article talk page on this. Just putting Joseph in won't fix it because that still doesn't answer the question of "Which Joseph Wilson editorial and why is it significant?" Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I see good point. Popish Plot (talk) 15:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Shanti Dynamite
This is a poorly written attempt to promote adult star on the wikipedia....

Anthony Watts (blogger)
''HOUSEKEEPING NOTE - This is part of a debate at Talk:Anthony Watts (blogger) which spilled over to other threads including
 * WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard
 * WP:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard
 * WP:Fringe theories/NoticeboardNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)''

We can use some more watchful eyes on Anthony Watts (blogger). The key issue in dispute is whether Watts should be described as a "skeptic" or a "denier". According to WP:WTW, the term "denier" should only be used if it's widely used by reliable sources. According to a random sampling of 10 reliable sources (including peer-reviewed journals), the vast majority used the term "skeptic":

These were the first 10 reliable sources randomly selected by Google. One could reasonably argue whether 10 sources is an adequate sample size (if so, just ask, and I can expand the sample size). But based on these results, sources refer to Watts or his blog as: I also performed a random sampling (as selected by Google) of sources not behind a paywall in Google Scholar, and here are the results: Google Scholar Totals: According to WP:WTW, the term "denier" should only be used if it's widely used by reliable sources. Based on two completely different random samplings of reliable sources, it seems pretty apparent that the overwhelming majority of sources don't use the term "denier". In fact, the total number is actually zero, let alone a wide majority. However, some editors editors are pointing to a single source, by an otherwise prominent and respected climatologist who uses the term "denier" as evidence that this term is widely used by every other reliable source (even if they don't). According to Wikipedia guidelines, the term "denier" should only be used if it's widely used by reliable sources. A single source, or small subset of sources is not a majority. I should also mention that the two subjects have criticized (Wattas and Mann) each other so neither is an independent, source about the other. In any case, the key issue is this: What do the majority of reliable sources say about the matter? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * PBS - "skeptic"
 * Scientific American - "skeptical"
 * American Thinker - "skeptic"
 * New York Times - "skeptics"
 * Scientific American - "meteorologist" Note that that the full article is behind a paywall, so I did not have access to the full text.  Perhaps this should be excluded from the sample set?
 * PBS - "skeptic"
 * LiveScience - Uses both "denial" and "skeptics".  In specific reference to Watts' blog - "skepticism"
 * Fox News - "skeptical"
 * USA Today - "skeptic"
 * The Telegraph - "science"
 * BBC News - No specific label in reference to Watts Up with That, but uses "sceptical" in general
 * 1) Skeptic (or some variation thereof) - 9 sources
 * 2) Meteorologist - 1 Source
 * 3) Science - 1 Source
 * 4) Denier - 0 Sources
 * IOPScience - Cross-national comparison of the presence of climate scepticism in the print media in six countries, 2007–10 "sceptical".
 * The Changing Role of Blogs in Science Information Dissemination - No descriptor used.
 * Global Warming And Climate Change "retired television meteorologist"
 * Constructing “Climategate” and Tracking Chatte r in an Age of Web n.0 "conservative".
 * Chapter 3: Covering Controversial Science: Improving Reporting on Science and Public Policy "“science” (in quotes) and "anti-climate science, conservative"
 * Discourses of Women Scientists in Online Media: Towards New Gender Regimes? "Skeptic"
 * Exploring Argumentative Contexts "science blog"
 * Will Replicated Global Warming Science Make Mann Go Ape? No descriptor used.
 * The Routledge Handbook of Environment and Communication "science skeptic" (in quotes) and "Meteorologist"
 * Science Denial and the Science Classroom "skeptic".
 * 1) Skeptic - 3 times.
 * 2) Meteorologist - 2 times
 * 3) Conservative - 2 times
 * 4) Anti-climate science - 1 time
 * 5) Skeptic (in quotes) - 1 time
 * 6) Science - 1 time
 * 7) Science (in quotes) - 1 time
 * 8) Denier - 0 times
 * An involved editor has started a discussion on the the WTW talk page which could result in removing "denialist" from the list of words to watch. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The proposal is abmiguous, but if I understood it correctly, I think it does something else for reasons stated in that thread. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Can we please get more uninvolved editors to add Anthony Watts (blogger) to their watchlist?
We still have editors edit-warring WP:BLP violations back in the article. A handful of volunteers is not enough. Can we please get more uninvolved editors to add Anthony Watts (blogger) to their watchlist? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I've removed both WP:BLP violations. Can we please have more editors watch this article?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'vae had a close look, and I've concluded that you were mistaken in perceiving a BLP violation. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Based on what I know I agree, but AQuestForKnowledge might yet provide an answer to my request for his methodology details. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I've been trying to extricate myself from the discussion for several days now, but I believe that you are asking in good faith, so I will try to reply in good faith. WP:LABEL states that "Value-laden labels—such as ...[denialist]...—may express contentious opinion and may be best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources."  Based on the best available evidence, not only is the  term "denier" not widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, it's very, very rarely used.
 * Wikipedia policies and guidelines provide no guidance as to how to determine whether a contentious BLP opinion is widely used. Presumably, Wikipedia editors are expected to read each and every available source on a subject and then base their conclusions on that.  However, this is not practical.
 * Instead, I examined 10 reliable sources randomly selected by Google and the majority used the term "skeptic"; not a single one used the term "denier". Then I did a second random sampling of scholarly sources, and again, not a single scholarly source used the term "denier".  Now, it's reasonable to argue whether or not 20 reliable sources randomly selected by Google is sufficient sample size (and I've offered to increase the sample size, but there have been no takers), but this is the best, indeed the only, objective evidence provided so far.
 * If we assume that reliable sources are evenly split (which is generous), then I will make the following analogy. What are the odds of flipping a coin 20 times in a row and always getting the same outcome?  Sure, it's mathematically possible, but highly unlikely.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And yes, it's a WP:BLP violation. We are not supposed to cherry-pick a tiny, small fraction of sources which provide the most damaging BLP content about a person while simultaneously ignoring the vast majority.  This is classic WP:UNDUE and is absolutely a WP:BLP violation.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the AGF, and we're making progress.
 * (1) Previously I pointed out that BLP policy for public figures says we include significant minority RSs
 * (2) Your replied saying 1 or more (I forget) of the RSs are an in significant one
 * (3) I asked you how we tell significant from insignificant minorities?
 * (4) QUESTION, are you saying that the only minority views that are significant minority views are ones that are "widely used"?
 * (5) QUESTION, are you saying that to determine "wide use" we simply count, without regard to WEIGHT type questions like the type of source (pop media, journals, books, experts' opeds), or rep for fact checking, etc?
 * (6) QUESTION, since we have sources that say these terms are being inappropriately used in common media, and your winner-take-all counting methodology presumes the word choice in common media is perfect, would you agree the hit-counting all or nothing approach simply can not prove nonexistence of a significant minority viewpoint, and thus to comply with BLP for public figures we use inline attribution of the best sources for both persepctives? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * (7) Please list any sources you know about which explore the criteria which distinguish genuine scientific skepticism from Denial and then apply either one to Watts? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Justin Lin needs correction.
On the page for Justin Lin the director it says "Justin Bieber" in the first sentence. Can someone correct this?
 * Reverted by, I revdele'd the three revisions because it wasn't exactly petty vandalism. § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Jon Hamm
I've reverted several user attempts to add a blurb about a gossip magazine's recent revelation that Jon Hamm was arrested in 1990 when he was in college. Yes, the material can be sourced, but it seems like trivial gossip to me that likely violates WP:WEIGHT and possibly violates WP:BLP. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't call allegations of violent criminal acts trivial gossip. But seeing as how there was no conviction and the case was dropped, I would say it was non-notable for those reasons. Now, if the civil suit results in a judgment against Hamm, that should certainly be included. But that, if it even happens, could be years from now.--Tenebrae (talk) 03:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Infobox technical request
I'm not sure this is the right venue, but it seemed the closest from the list. Some time ago, consensus was reached to deprecate the "Influences" and "Influenced" fields in Template:Infobox person since they had a long history of being abused by fans and others; the template now says "No longer supported."

However, there are dozens of subordinate templates for different professions. These can only be edited by admins, and propagating the change hasn't been gotten around to. Therefore, the original issue that the consensus was supposed to solve is still contentious in, particularly, articles about comedians. Could an admin please propagate this "Infobox person" change to at least Template:Infobox comedian? --Tenebrae (talk) 14:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Please provide links to the prior consensus, and diff(s) for the changes to Infobox person. Dragons flight (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Dragons flight, for addressing this. Admin Kww made the revision at 16:09, 22 July 2013 with the edit summary: "consensus on talk page is clearly to remove these parameters". The discussion and the extensive support to remove the parameters appears here: .--Tenebrae (talk) 23:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Stephanie March
Disagreement about BLP policy on the TP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stephanie_March#Biographies of living people. Also the article is on-the-verge of a 3rr, and some warring going on there-would appreciate some opinions pleas.e2601:C:6783:6A01:690C:F665:1BD2:6A08 (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It's been talked out at Talk:Stephanie March, and the edit this SPA wanted has stayed in, now that it's properly cited and the WP:PEACOCK phrasing removed. Please see my reply there for how this anon IP completely misinterprets both WP:VERIFY and WP:BLP, both of which I quote to demonstrate this. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * What is with calling every IP a SPA? If we are getting personal here-and you did, and you are wrong, what ever happened to AGF? Might want to try that. And in case I didn't make it clear, I think that you are editing destructively by removing easily verifiable content. 2601:C:6783:6A01:690C:F665:1BD2:6A08 (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

NPOV for Terry Richardson
There has been discussion in the past (Talk:Terry Richardson) over the contentious issue of the photographer Terry Richardson's allegations of sexual misconduct. (None of which have been allegations of non-consensual behaviour, but rather suggesting he has used his 'influence' to convince models to do things they might otherwise not have done.) In recent history the editor has been engaging in WP:Disruptive Editing behaviour (and seems to have a history in doing this on other articles as well). We could use more voices in this discussion. Thanks. CaffeinAddict (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I semi'd the article and merged one paragraph preserving the sources. That seems widespread enough (in a Bill Cosby kind of way) that we should definitely be including it. § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd like some more opinions on whether "5 Reasons Why Terry Richards Is a Fucking Scumbag" is an acceptable source for the claim "Richardson has been accused of using his influence to coerce models to engage in undesired sexual behaviors and poses during fashion shoots, including engaging in sexual acts with Richardson himself." Rhoark (talk) 02:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course not. We need a much better source for anything like that. That said, though, there are such sources, such as The Guardian. --GRuban (talk) 14:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That was my feeling as well, but I wanted a sanity check that my impression and BLPN were in synch. Rhoark (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Maajid Nawaz - PUBLICFIGURE issue strip club video released during election campaign
A politician visited a strip club before his wedding in July 2014, and the strip club's owner has recently released a video to discredit him during the election campaign.

I've argued on the talk page that the level of reliability needed for public figures is higher than what the Daily Mail offers - especially given that all of their reporting is based on comments from the strip club's owner - and his employees.

I also argue that the fact the Daily Mail received the video only during an election campaign (months after the event) suggests a POV slant in the reporting. Thousands of men are ejected from strip clubs every year - reporting on alleged policy violations of a politician who left of their own volition seems tendentious at the least.

Question - is there a reasonable expectation of privacy for a politician visiting a strip club? Does PUBLICFIGURE mean that events alleged to have occurred in private spaces need multiple reliable third-party sources, more than in public places?

Is Citogenesis an issue here, and if so, should the Daily Mail reference be removed? Posting here because I don't want an edit war, but also don't want Citogenesis of bad information. -- Aronzak (talk) 11:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no reasonable expectation of privacy for a politician visiting a strip club. But if the Daily Mail is the only source, then nuke it -- there is a widespread view here that the Daily Mail is not a good source particularly for sensitive BLP issues.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If it was only the Mail, we'd remove it. But it's also on International Business Times, Metro, and Daily Mirror, not to mention the original Daily Mail article being mostly confirmed by the subject himself. I'd remove the "altercation" language, as that doesn't seem justified by the sources. --GRuban (talk) 17:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's gone international. Il Messaggero Il Gazzettino . --GRuban (talk) 17:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Use of Twitter as a source for BLPs
Is the use of Twitter as a source for a BLP acceptable in these two cases: I have removed this usage, however I have been reverted multiple times by. Note for full disclosure, cite twitter was nominated for deletion by me, however this query is independent of that discussion. Regardless of what happens with that template (and the prevailing consensus after a few days is to keep it), Twitter is not an appropriate reference in these two cases. --kelapstick(bainuu) 13:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The article Vitiligo - For inclusion of a "notable case".
 * Noting a prison release date at Rome Fortune.
 * WP:SELFSOURCE, for Vitiligo, I'd say it's WP:UNDUE, but no BLP violation. It's a verified twitter account, so there is no doubt about it's authenticity. For Rome Fortune, assuming that there is no doubt about the authenticity of the twitter account the issue I see is WP:OR. The cited tweet doesn't say when he was released. — Strongjam (talk) 13:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Per WP:No original research, "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." So far, I see no contradictions. As far as Kelapstick's claim "this query is independent of that discussion", I find it very hard to believe since all these are aimed at discrediting Twitter from being used on WP altogether. Strongjam, by reverting back his edits you enabled his pattern of pushing a personal agenda, which, in my honest opinion, should not be encouraged. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 15:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * , I mean it is independent as I don't want to discuss the merits of the template here, as that discussion is ongoing at TfD. I am specifically discussing these two instances of sourcing via twitter here, regardless of which template is used.--kelapstick(bainuu) 16:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * For Rome Fortune, we could easily keep the statement without the date. After all, somehow the statement about him turning himself into police custody is still there, without a specific citation. For Vitiligo, if the person is notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia, and he came forward with having the disease, he should be mentioned along with other notable people who have it. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 15:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The tweet did not say when he was released, instead, requiring inference from the publication date. The tweet could have been published days after he was released. If you want to re-word to be in-line with policy go ahead, but as-is it is WP:OR.
 * It's not a list of notable people with Vitiligo, it's a list of notable cases. If you think it's a notable case, find a source that says so. — Strongjam (talk) 15:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:Twitter -- Moxy (talk) 15:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "This list is only an aid to ongoing discussion surrounding the use of these sites, final consensus is yet to be determined." EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 16:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Elizabeth Warren RfC is being fought over, please give input on ground rules
Starting a few days ago, contentious wholesale changes have been made to a section in the Elizabeth Warren article. I felt the changes were being pushed through despite objections, and that the changes were poorly sourced, against previous consensus, and potentially libelous. I reverted to a stable version from a few days ago before the back and forth, and called a RfC to establish consensus. Unfortunately the RfC process itself is now being disputed. It would help if the people from this board, who are more experienced in BLP RfCs, could comment on the article talk page and lay down some ground rules, as the whole thing is just a mess right now. Much thanks, LK (talk) 03:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You might consider contacting an admin for a neutral review of the current RfC. There's a lot of crap flying around and frankly it needs the attention of someone very familiar with BLP.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 03:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but surely there are some BLP-interested admins here? Could one drop by and lay down some ground rules? LK (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I've full protected Elizabeth Warren for the next three days. Dragons flight (talk) 03:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you . There are some concerning comments on the talk page if you have time. If not, no problem. I think the page protection sends a message that recent behavior/edit warring in general was unacceptable and hopefully that will translate into something at the talk page. Cheers!  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 04:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What was truly unacceptable was dropping an RfC into the middle of a dispute, and coming up with a three-option multiple choice for it and asking editors to choose from: one option, the so-called "stable" version (of an entire section)and two "disputed" versions, leading to valid complaints that those aligning with the "disputed" versions will have their !vote split. Then, rolling the section back to the "stable" version and then insisting no one touch it, potentially for a month, as this half-baked RfC is hashed out was just icing on the cake. That it became a "mess" was completely forseeable and I hope anyone interested in learning how NOT to do an RfC will take a look at it and learn.  Marteau (talk) 05:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Above editor has been told multiple times he is welcome to submit his own favorite revision as an option and ignored every single one of them. Other editors have submitted their choice revisions. &#8213; Padenton &#124;&#9993;  01:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Use of YouTube and Blogs as references in Julia Galef
This BLP article has references to Blogs and Youtube. I think that could be delicate for a BLP article, and so I placed a tag there. But, in the article's talk page, the authors have provided good reasons to add those as references. But I'm not convinced. Could someone go through the references and give reasons to remove/keep the tag and update me on what have I mistaken here!!? -- &dagger;&atilde;&atilde;&#114;&oslash;&#110;&#57;&#53; &reg; 11:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think in this day and age, blogs and youtube can't be dismissed anymore, internet is here to stay. I'd say the sources are good but what about notability? That I'm not sure of. I'd say take out the nowiki questioning reliable sources but add one to question notability and then discuss it on talk page, get consensus if possible. Popish Plot (talk) 13:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * While that may be true one day, at this time, Wikipedia still wants reliable sources,   youtube and blogs  don't serve (usually) as reliable sources and as a rule, should be kept out of BLP's. KoshVorlon   R.I.P Leonard Nimoy  "Live Long and Prosper"   15:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's wrong to say never use youtube or any blog as a rule. It depends on what the video is on youtube and or who is writing the blog and how notable or reliable the person is. For example I see some of the youtube videos for Julia Galef are videos of her herself saying something. That is then a primary source. If that is all there are, primary sources, that's not enough to be considered notable. Notability is the key here I think. Is Julia Galef notable enough to have a wiki article? That I don't know. Popish Plot (talk) 16:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The way you figure notability out is by seeing if there are reliable sources. Per the notability guideline regarding people: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." (Footnotes omitted.) We don't look at notability first and then look at sources, whether for people or for other articles, it's the other way around (take a look at a few listed cases over at Articles for Deletion). I agree with KoshVorlon that blogs and YouTube are ordinarily questionable sources about living persons, but I also agree that it is possible for them to be reliable. In many if not most cases, however, they're going to be self-published sources and are only going to be usable when published by the person the article is about. For example, this YouTube video and video page is used in that article to support the assertion that the subject of the article, Julia Galef, was the keynote speaker at the 2013 HCCO 2013 Winter Solstice Banquet. The video was published on YouTube by the Humanist Community of Ohio and that community's YouTube user page states: "We are an all-volunteer organization." That video is, therefore, clearly self-published by the Humanist Community of Ohio and under the policy on self-published material here, "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." This video and video page are, therefore, not an acceptable source about Ms. Galef's participation in that banquet since Ms. Galef is a third party as to the Humanist Community of Ohio. Had she been a member, officer, or owner of the Humanist Community of Ohio and speaking in that capacity, this might have been a more difficult question. I go through that to illustrate that this is the kind and degree of analysis which must be applied to each of the YouTube and blog references in that article in order to properly answer the poster's inquiry, rather than just stating generalities about those kinds of sources. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your valuable answer!!! So, I guess, I did the right thing by tagging the article with ... Right? Thank you!-- &dagger;&atilde;&atilde;&#114;&oslash;&#110;&#57;&#53; &reg; 18:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Like a lot of articles here, it appears to have a lot of sources which are probably fine and a lot which are less certain. The tag was probably okay, but I have to say that I'm not much of a fan of tags and positively opposed to fighting over them. The best practices approach is to examine the refs that you think questionable and remove the ones which you do not think are reliable. If your removal is reverted, then discuss them one by one at the article talk page and seek help through a specific opinion here and then through dispute resolution if the discussion becomes stuck. If you're not interested in putting that much work into the article, yourself, tagging is about your only option but the odds of it actually getting the references improved are pretty slim since at the present moment there are 84,436 articles with that tag. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * thanks for that great reply. Popish Plot (talk) 03:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi I've made an edit in the BLP Julia Galef and removed the YouTube links which I think violates WP:SPS, you can see them in this diff. Can you please check if I've done a mistake? And Hi, by looking at the references, I think the Subject is quite notable, and would meet WP:N! Cheers! -- &dagger;&atilde;&atilde;&#114;&oslash;&#110;&#57;&#53; &reg; 09:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Jaaron yes so she has reliable sources? And is notable? And Transporterman gave an epic great reply full of great tips that I can use in the future? All in all a nice example of wikipedia working well. Popish Plot (talk) 13:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Jaaron95, I'm not going to have time right now to go through all the deletions and make the kind of analysis that I made above. I will note that when I was writing my 17:49 post above, I initially drafted that reply using this source from among those that you subsequently deleted and diff'ed to above:
 * * 2011:The Straw Vulcan at Skepticon 4

but then changed to the Humanist Community of Ohio one because I thought that the result in the Skepticon one wasn't crystal clear like the result in the Humanist Community one. Why? Because Hambone Productions (which is actually just a single person) on its YouTube author's page claims to be the official videographer of Skepticon and also claims to have been executive producer of some legitimate documentary. That could at least give some weight to an argument that Hambone is a third-party reliable source. Frankly, I think that would be nonsense — as Skepticon's official videographer there's virtually no chance that Hambone is a third-party source and I'd be amazed if anyone can come up with any proof that Hambone has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy — but there's at least enough there for someone to argue about it, so I didn't use it as my example. So I think that the Skepticon ones, at least, are probably good edits though with some room for a probably-losing argument, but that's about all I can say right now. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Federal sex scandals
FYI, I've started a talk page discussion about BLP problems with this article at Talk:List of federal political sex scandals in the United States.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Soukaina Boukries
I hope that Soukaina Boukries's page will be protected or semi-protected from the subversion of its informations.


 * Make requests for page protection here, but you'll have to clearly state why you believe it to be needed. Be sure to sign your posts with four tildes: ~ . Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Vernon Jones
This article is in serious need of attention by editors who understand BLP policy. A paid editor came to the Teahouse asking for help. I do not have much time this evening, so please take a look if you can. Thanks so much. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Two of the links to ajc.com are dead, one of which is regarding a rape allegation. That should be resolved quickly or the claim removed. Apart from that the sourcing seems strong enough for the claims that are presently on the page. Rhoark (talk) 16:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Navid Khiabani
See Articles_for_deletion/Navid_Khiabani

As you can see from the two comments posted on my talkpage by two WP:SPA accounts that have created this article (a third has now appeared) there is clearly some conflict in regards to this person. I would appreciate an experienced editor having a look at this and please also consider commenting at the deletion discussion. Govindaharihari (talk) 17:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Govindaharihari I really know the Navid khiabani, since 2000 i am chasing his life in and his activities in hidden manner, during 2004 to 2007 he has office in Iran address: No: 178 Africa Ave.Tehran-Iran Now he is living in Mc Lean Va USA 22102 this article should not be removed as i am adding new information about his education and political activities with references.Special:Contributions/Jeanthefact

Please do not delete the navid khiabani page, we a group of free reporters and chasing the guy soon we will give more info with references give us time for one month or two.Special:Contributions/Remot_sam

The new account is Special:Contributions/Ahmadreza1342 - Govindaharihari (talk) 17:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Jeanthefact and Remot sam, if you wish to weigh in on whether the article will be deleted, you must do so at Articles_for_deletion/Navid_Khiabani. Statements you make here will not be considered. Govindaharihari, editors interested in participating in deletion matters generally monitor those pages. Making a case here for retention (or for other editors being SPA accounts) will not be taken into consideration unless you also make those arguments at the deletion page and doing so and asking for help here may be seen as canvassing. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I posted here as I consider there are WP:BLP issues with the current content in the article and I have removed them once already and the three WP:SPA accounts have replaced them. Is it canvassing to report WP:BLP concerns here, did you even look at the article User:TransporterMan? Govindaharihari (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Where, exactly, above did you say that there are BLP issues with the article? And what are those issues? This forum isn't for the purpose of just saying "article X is about a living person and it stinks." It's for working out particular issues. Feel free to ask about specific issues. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Update
I just found this thread. I've warned all four of these "free reporters" (see User talk:Jeanthefact), deleted several drafts here and there, suppressed a draft at a talk page, and nominated the image for speedy deletion at commons. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Caroline Hoxby
I request that the final sentence of the Research section be deleted. It reads, "Hoxby alleged that Rothstein's allegations were baseless and represented 'race and gender bias.'" This sentence was extensively discussed in 2012, as the Talk page indicates, and the consensus of editors was that it did not belong in the article. It has recently been reintroduced without dicussion. There are several reasons to eliminate it. First, the BLP guidelines state, "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source; . . . or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards." The sole source for this charge was a school newspaper, and Hoxby wrote a letter to the editors specifically disclaiming the charge and accusing the paper of engaging in sensationalism and tabloid journalism. That published letter is linked above in the Talk page for 2012. The guidelines state that care must be taken to be fair not only to the subject of articles but to anyone named incidentally in them. Retention of this sentence is unfair to Rothstein's reputation because even Hoxby clearly did not wish to make such a charge. The guidelines for BLP furthermore state that "Wikipedia is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities. Experience has shown that misusing Wikipedia to perpetuate legal, political, social, literary, scholarly, or other disputes is harmful to the subjects of biographical articles, to other parties in the dispute, and to Wikipedia itself. Therefore, an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual – whether on- or off-wiki – or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest. More generally, editors who have a strongly negative or positive view of the subject of an article should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally, if they choose to edit it at all." The only reason for including this sentence could be to perpetuate a scholarly dispute. Wikipedia should be a balanced encyclopedia of record, not a site for gossip.Rubric6 (talk) 18:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The Harvard Crimson, although obviously not on par with the New York Times, shouldn't be dismissed as a mere 'school newspaper'. That said, if Hoxby has denied that she stated that Rothstein's allegations are baseless, and that they represent 'race and gender bias', then we should at the least include Hoxby's statement in the article. Is there a Reliable Source for Hoxby having denied making that statement? BTW, this discussion should be on the Talk page of the article and not here. LK (talk) 04:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Another editor posted at least once reliable source on the talk page a few years ago, when the sentence was disallowed:

I found the letter to the Crimson in which Hoxby said she had been misquoted regarding "race and gender bias": http://www.thecrimson.harvard.edu/article/2005/7/15/hoxby-article-presents-slanted-veiw-of/. I don't think the Wikipedia article should repeat a quotation by a student reporter if the originator of the supposed quotation claims to have been misquoted. --Orlady (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC) Rubric6 (talk) 04:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Anal jihad
Anal jihad appears to be based on a single source with a COI slandering the Muslim Brotherhood. More input and watchers are needed on the page. Rhoark (talk) 01:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If someone starts an AfD, I will !vote to delete, but I must admit that's kinda funny. IMHO, in the absence of an identified individual person (or persons), however, I don't see how this is a WP:BLP issue.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Graeme Morrice
Page is being edited with incorrect content. Requesting a block on all edits for brief period of time until culprits stop trying to provide false information to the page.

Thank You.


 * As nobody else seems to have looked at this yet, I have warned the user adding unsourced content. I'll also try to keep an eye on this --nonsense ferret  17:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Jeff Stilwell
Article is a tremendous puff piece. Appears to have been fairly well owned by a single account for many months, during which time it's accumulated a rich patina of promotional content, blurbs, and primary sourcing. Extra eyes requested. Thanks, 2602:302:D89:D609:B15C:85A5:7132:56FD (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I suspect the last halfway-neutral version goes back to 2013, and even that listed a series of plays of unsupported notability. 2602:302:D89:D609:B15C:85A5:7132:56FD (talk) 18:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Jon Bounds
This article includes 'evidence' from web pages that no longer exist, uncited info that could seemingly only come from the subject, and info with only citations to the subject's own website as evidence. Therefore I edited it so it was accurate and reflected Wikipedia's policies on living persons. Another user has reversed this change twice and I would like third party feedback to resolve the dispute. Thanks, User:Journotracker


 * Unsourced or poorly sourced material in BLPs can be removed and only restored if sources are forthcoming. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As I previously commented on your talk page (where you have yet to do me the courtesy of replying), I reverted your edits because you removed material with valid citations to reliable sources; and you removed a recoding of the subject's voice. Your edits summary in doing so did not mention these removals. Furthermore "Web pages that no longer exist" are still acceptable as citations; your 'scare quotes' not affecting that. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 06:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Phoenix Global / Mick Featherstone
Hi, we really need more eyes on this article. There is apparently a big scandal breaking in Queensland, Australia involving possible police corruption and we have a slew of inexperienced editors wanted to load up the article with allegations. Additionally an IP claiming to be the son of one of one of the principals has been running amok as well. Am cross-posting at ANI. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 03:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Liz Cheney
A sock/meatpuppet brigade is intent on a matter at Liz Cheney that I removed, inserting unsourced material regarding the subjection's connection to an apparent Iranian oil magnate, Navid Khiabani. If there's meat to the story, then it needs actual sourcing. Tarc (talk) 04:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Watchlisted. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Quoting inflammatory/controversial comments
Has there been any discussions in the past about when there's a BLP subject said something controversial, and placing an exact quote of what was said? Hypothetical example:
 * "John Doe came under fire for making comments described as sexist towards a coworker"

vs
 * John Doe came under fire for describing his coworker as "worthless waste of time" and that he "would rather gouge out his own eyes".

Especially when the comments include slurs and/or swearing. Stickee (talk) 03:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd go with the first version as opposed to the second. Wikipedia isn't censored, but it's also not supposed to be sensationalized. In many cases we don't really need to list what someone said since it's usually easier and more efficient to summarize. The section Paula_Deen is a good example of how controversial remarks should be covered on Wikipedia. I know that sometimes if a specific slur word or quote is extensively quoted and we have confirmation that this is what was said, then sometimes we can include the phrase but it should be very, very carefully done because we don't want to be seen as having a bias in either direction. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Park Yeon-mi again
The article has been overrun by Park's unofficial PR team turning it into an advert, which has caused the opposition to reinstate their "she's a liar" campaign. More eyes and experienced BLP editors are needed. Thanks! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I second that. I posed also questions on which sources are considered reliable and which are not. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Virtually this entire article is troubling: Thrill killing
This article is deeply concerning. It does not appear to be based on any particular scholarly or other high-level source that encapsulates this as a distinct topic or identifies notable figures who are regarded in this way. Rather, it's built of news accounts of individual incidents plus, apparently, a WP editor's determination that a given incident fits the criteria stated for the article. To give a single troubling example, the article currently refers to the legal case of Chancey Allen Luna, who has been convicted of murder and is currently in the sentencing phase of his trial. I'm not a person to be overly alarmed by abuses of WP's supposed ability to influence people, but it seems outrageous that we'd have an article identifying this person as a "thrill killing" participant while his fate is still being determined, much less doing so without any real substantiation. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah)  (talk)  (contribs) 13:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. Very troubling article. The title also seems very tabloid, and an over simplification of the incidents reported. The article lacks any real psychological examination of it's subject and is ultimately just a list of horrific murders. 79616gr (talk) 14:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The article also appears to have contained a gross violation of WP:BLP policy since August 2013. In this diff is an assertion regarding the killing of Christopher Lane -specifically that three individuals named in the article killed him. As the title of the source cited made entirely clear, at the time the individuals had only been charged with the murder. Of the three, one was only convicted of being an accessory after the fact, a second pleaded guilty, while the third, Chancey Allen Luna, was only found guilty yesterday.  That the article should contain an assertion of guilt regarding an individual yet to face trial over such a period without anyone noticing the blatant violation is a disgrace to Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm getting the impression that this is a common problem among obscure, very narrowly drawn article topics.
 * Suggested rule of thumb: if clicking "View 500" in the edit history of an article implicating BLP reveals edits from 2004 and causes the "oldest" button to disappear — consider taking a closer look. Is there some kind of utility/bot/foo that could automate a search task like this? (The edit history profiling part, not the "implicating BLP" part.) Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah)   (talk)  (contribs) 16:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * From past experience, it is a common problem with articles on the topic of murder. Sadly, they seem to attract 'contributors' who have only the vaguest notion of such subtle concepts as actually holding a trial before pronouncing someone guilty. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Sam Holbrook
The bio page Sam Holbrook contains an entry for the recent Padres vs. Cubs game which cites unsourced information about the game and is written in an non-neutral tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.115.156.58 (talk) 15:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Unsourced content now removed. --nonsense ferret  15:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Went back a bit farther on the reverts. Gotta love baseball fans. Ravensfire ( talk ) 15:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Barclay Knapp
I recently came across this page while sorting through some other pages: Barclay Knapp. It had been left out of Category:Living people for some reason. Whenever I see that happen, I put it in the category and drop a note here on the principle that it might need tidying up or looking over (see also the tags that have been there since 2008 and 2010). Should we be worried that this article had the 'living people' category left off? Might there be lots of other articles with that category left off? Should BLPs be left tagged for that long? Oh, the 'source' (which I suspect this page was a copyvio of) is dead and there is some stuff in the talk page history as well. Carcharoth (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Instead, Wikipedia should have a goal of eliminating 90% of BLPs by year-end 2015. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Not every article has every category that would apply to them. Not a big deal. The source, why do you suspect it to be a copyvio issue? Articles stay tagged until someone fixes the problem. The problem here really seems to be that it exists. The Article was created by Knappish. This editor is why they tagged it to a major contributor seems to have a close connection to the subject. There is only one source used. Not only is it a primary source but it's also a self published source. wp:sps It doesn't meet these guidelines for use. The articles notability isn't established here. It would be best to either establish notability or list it at articles for deletion. I'd also suggest checking the speedy deletion criteria.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I thought previously (when spotting things like this) that most everyone at some point gets drilled into them that WP:BLP is a big thing, and hence it is important to have Category:Living people applied to ensure a BLP gets tracked by various mechanisms. Maybe I'm imagining that the category is vital to those BLP-tracking and vandalism-watching mechanisms? The suspected copyvio is because of the comment on the talk page that says "This is directly off his website. Obviously written by himself.". But that webpage no longer exists (he is no longer at that company). There are numerous other sources out there of varying quality. Another editor has provided one on the talk page: . There are other sources out there as well:, . Anyway, I looked at Notability (people) and Notability (organizations and companies) and I couldn't find anything covering businesspeople and CEOs and corporate stuff like that. I might try and do some more to the article later on today. Carcharoth (talk) 09:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

ken adelman biography
Perhaps an additional part of his story??? In the late 1990s and early 2000s, I seem to remember Ken Adelman as being associated with the Arms Control Association headquartered in Washington DC. Might be a relevant addition to the story as presented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.9.240.197 (talk) 07:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

List of only children
Not sure what to think of this new article List of only children but looks like it could be a BLP problem, it may not even be encyclopedic. MilborneOne (talk) 08:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Nexf they'll have List of former children. :-)  I'm not 100% up on the coverage differences between categories and lists, but this only child thing seems more appropriate as a category.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Per WP:DOAL: "Some topics (e.g. a list of all people from a particular country who have Wikipedia articles) are so broad that a list would be unmanageably long and effectively unmaintainable."Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Nominated for deletion here. Anyway, I'm not sure it's really a BLP issue.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments requested
The article for Randy Quaid is having issues related to this Talk:Randy_Quaid. Any input by members of this project, or anyone else, will be appreciated. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 20:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Peter O'Fallon
Came to this article to see maybe a filmography, some information about the man. This article reads like the man pitching himself to future employers, plenty of unverified material and opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreemDeem (talk • contribs) 13:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have reduced it to a minimal stub, as all content was unsourced. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Tom Apple
I posted a request for edit on the talk page of this article, since I have a conflict of interest and cannot do the edit myself. I also posted a request to PVMoutside to review the request for edit, which he declined. I am requesting a deletion of a sentence which uses 'weasel words' that was added by someone in July, 2014 to the article. The contributor has a significant conflict of interest. The sentence is "His tenure was marked by conflict with..." I believe I successfully showed why the contributor (MGMudel) has a conflict of interest, and provided sufficient citations to show that the slant put on the article by this contributor was not a balanced view. (Again, please refer to the posting I made on the talk page of the article.) Tom Apple's tenure as chancellor was no more marked by conflict than any other chancellor's. The deletion I am requesting is important not only to the accuracy of the article, but also to the potential for future employment of the person who was written about. Someone reading the article will get the negative slant which was intended by MGMudel. I am not requesting that you extol the praises of someone any more than you should smear his reputation with innuendo. Thank you for your attention to this matter. 76.93.196.67 (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Kukuinut — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.93.196.67 (talk) 20:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Not sure this person meets WP:GNG or WP:SCHOLAR. Tagged accordingly. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Brené Brown
I believe the Brené Brown biographical entry is in significant violation of the biographies of living persons policy. Specifically the Brené_Brown section, which consists of three paragraphs of entirely uncited material that serves no biographical function, and is seemingly promotional in nature. Eric Domb (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Removed, as inappropriately promotional, unsourced and possibly a copyvio of something. § FreeRangeFrog croak 22:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The Federalist (website): inclusion of the Neil deGrasse Tyson "fabrication" allegation.
The issue I present is not, I believe, a BLP issue. Editor believes it is, and is claiming BLP violation while twice reverting an edit of mine, which is why I write here.

Background: I added the following to The Federalist (website):

Cwobeel twice reverted, claiming on the talk page that this RfC applies. This RfC asked the question, can the issue of Neil deGrasse Tyson allegedly misquoting George W. Bush be added to the Neil deGrasse Tyson article? The result of the RfC was "no consensus" with one of the closers saying:

It is this RfC closure that Cwobeel believes prevents me from adding the text I quoted above to The Federalist (website) without gaining new consensus per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE

It is my position that the cited RfC does not apply in this case. Reading the invocation of BLP by the closer, it seems clear that they are addressing relative weight of the issue in Tyson's biography and it's relation to "Dr. Tyson's life and career". These issues are not present and not a factor in "The Federalist (website)" article.

In the RfC, it was claimed by some that the inclusion of this material in the Tyson article gave undue weight to what some considered a trivial thing and the other closer echoed that, questioning whether it had "the kind of depth and quantity that will make it a part of the lasting mainstream image of this personality."

These issues cited in the RfC were particular to the Tyson biography. Whether this issue is pertinent, trivial, or gives proper weight to the life story of Neil deGrasse Tyson or not is a completely different question from whether it is pertinent, trivial, or weighty enough to include in an article about a website. Claiming that the preclusion of text in the Tyson biography per this RfC carries over to "The Federalist (website)" article is, in my opinion, a complete misunderstanding of what the closer was saying and intending, and a complete misapplication of BLP and the RfC.

Furthermore, the RfC was crafted by the submitter to answer the question of inclusion in the Tyson article only. The submitter of the RfC requested in his RfC submission, "The only discussion I would like to have is on it's weight and if it is really important enough to include in this article." And both closers did just that, with neither saying inclusion of the issue elsewhere in the encyclopedia for a different purpose was precluded, only that consensus was not shown that it had enough weight to include in the Tyson article.

So I ask here: does the text I added violate the terms of the RfC at the Tyson article (which had a BLP aspect) as Cwobeel claims.

Thank you. Marteau (talk) 02:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It is not a BLP issue to say that Tyson misquoted Bush. Everyone agrees to that, including Tyson. But it might be an issue to say that he "fabricated" the quote. Maybe he just mis-remembered the quote, and I would not call that fabrication. Roger (talk) 02:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. It could be simply a case of false memory. However, the Federalist used the word "fabrication" repeatedly, which is why I put it in quotes.  But I would have no issue using a different word or qualifying it or explaining it more fully.  I was going for tight prose, and don't think this needs more than one sentence. Marteau (talk) 02:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia can't be used to forward made up scandals by partisan websites. All I am telling you is that given the long RFC and its closing and concerns expressed in talk, you needs to seek consensus for adding the material. The burden is on you. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  02:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That the Federalist published those articles, and that it lead to controversy and criticism is not a "made up scandal", it's a well-documented fact. Furthermore, it is my position that the RfC for the Tyson article is specific to the Tyson article and it's preclusions do not carry over to the Federalist article, hence this. Marteau (talk) 02:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The Federalist publishes article daily. And yet, we don't report on a any of these. This was a storm in a teacup made up by a highly partisan website, and we are not here to advance their viewpoints, but to report on what secondary and reliable sources write about that website. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  03:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Unlike what the Federalist publishes daily, those articles published by the Federalist were mentioned in articles by numerous mainstream news organizations (two of which I cited, I could easily cite a dozen more), and the resulting backlash and controversy certainly is relevant in any discussion of The Federalist. Marteau (talk) 03:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Numerous you say? A couple of sources does not make this neither relevant, nor notable. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  03:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The partisan echo chamber does not count. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  03:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's a dozen that mention The Federalist by name:
 * 1) "Cosmically Dishonest" http://www.weeklystandard.com/keyword/Federalist
 * 2) "Does Neil deGrasse Tyson make up stories?" http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/09/22/does-neil-degrasse-tyson-make-up-stories/
 * 3) "Neil deGrasse Tyson’s Text-Burning Followers" http://www.nationalreview.com/article/388479/neil-degrasse-tysons-text-burning-followers-tim-cavanaugh
 * 4) "The Right’s War on Neil deGrasse Tyson" http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/19/the-right-s-war-on-neil-degrasse-tyson.html
 * 5) "Earth to climate-change deniers: Neil deGrasse Tyson's errors won't help you" http://theweek.com/articles/443513/earth-climatechange-deniers-neil-degrasse-tysons-errors-wont-help
 * 6) "Neil deGrasse Tyson finally kinda sorta admits he got that Bush quote wrong"

http://www.breitbart.com/blog/2014/10/02/neil-degrasse-tyson-finally-kinda-sorta-admits-he-got-that-bush-quote-wrong/
 * 7) "The Cult of Neil deGrasse Tyson" http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/10/the-cult-of-neil-degrasse-tyson-111540.html
 * 8) "Neil Tyson: Just Trust Me, OK?" http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2014/09/28/neil_tyson_just_trust_me_ok_342199.html
 * 9) "Conservative Website ‘The Federalist’ Targeted For Wikipedia Deletion After Criticizing Neil deGrasse Tyson" http://dailycaller.com/2014/09/26/the-federalist-targeted-for-wikipedia-deletion-after-criticizing-neil-degrasse-tyson/
 * 10) "Wikipedia wants to ban acclaimed conservative site the Federalist" http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wikipedia-wants-to-ban-acclaimed-conservative-site-the-federalist/article/2554032
 * 11) "Neil DeGrasse Tyson Enters into Dan Rather Territory" http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2014/09/27/tyson-dan-rather/#ixzz3Xoglitsn
 * 12) "Politico’s dopey climate denial: Global warming might be fake because Neil deGrasse Tyson did something dumb" http://www.salon.com/2014/10/03/politicos_dopey_climate_denial_global_warming_isnt_real_because_neil_degrasse_tyson_did_something_dumb/ Marteau (talk) 03:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Breitbart, the Daily Caller, The Washington Examiner, The Weekly Standard (realclearpolitics is a reprint from the Federailst)? remove the partisan websites and what are you left with? Some responses from the left-leaning media, a single article in Politico and and a single article in the WaPo. Not notable, and WP:UNDUE in the context of a LP.-  Cwobeel   (talk)  03:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "Not notable"???? To a small operation like The Federalist, this is HUGELY notable. I really am having a hard time believing you believe what you are writing here.  It's astounding. Marteau (talk) 03:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly, my friend. It is a small operation, and we have a stub in Wikipedia about it. Not notable, and WP:UNDUE to have a lengthy explanation about it (a short one will not do without wading into POV territory), in particular when it affects a LP. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  03:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The issue for me is that the The Federalist (website) article neglects to give the mainstream view when giving partisan one. Maybe:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuartyeates (talk • contribs)
 * Why we should promote The Federalist views on Tyson in Wikpedia? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  03:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not "promoting" any views. This is one proposed sentence to be added to an article about a website describing what they do and did. Their writing about the Tyson issue has been covered by a significant number of secondary sources, as demonstrated by my list of a dozen (above). This is completely relevant in any discussion about The Federalist. Marteau (talk) 03:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I like it. Good work. Marteau (talk) 03:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I just want to point out that the Volokh Conspiracy is not a reliable source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Neither is breitbart. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Reboot
OK, this discussion has veered off onto tangents which do not address the the question submitted here. Cwobeel has repeatedly cited the results of the Tyson RfC as being in effect for The Federalist article, and has used that RfC as a basis for insisting on the exclusion of the quotes issue from the Federalist article. The question is: Does the Tyson RfC, and the prohibitions of mentioning the quotes issue in the Tyson article, carry over to The Federalist?  Questions such as wording, sourcing, weight, notability, etc, can all be hashed out once the issue of this Tyson RfC and its applicability/inapplicability to The Federalist is addressed. Marteau (talk) 12:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The RFC was significant but not crucial for this discussion. Anyone can raise a good faith concern on BLP material as I did, so please address the concerns and seek to build consensus for inclusion. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  13:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Please do not side track the question at hand. The RfC, and it's applicability to the Federalist article, is the the issue here. It is not a simple issue and deserves to be directly addressed. If you want to talk about other issues pertaining to The Federalist as it pertains to Tyson, use the talk page at The Federalist.   Marteau (talk) 13:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Read the title of this section, and your opening paragraph. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  13:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * That is precursor and not the question. I said,
 * This is a valid question, the question I asked, it is not a simple issue, it is an issue you repeatedly cite, and it needs to be addressed. Marteau (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a valid question, the question I asked, it is not a simple issue, it is an issue you repeatedly cite, and it needs to be addressed. Marteau (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * When you bring an issue to BLP/N it is open to scrutinity, not only on your preferred framing. Just read the comments by uninvolved editors above. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Whether or not the Tyson RfC applies to the Federalist article needs to be addressed. So far, no one has been able to make any legitimate argument that it does, beyond simply going "RFC" or "BLP" and simply insisting it applies. I have made some legitimate points towards this isssue, but so far no one, including you, has addressed them.
 * It was my hope this issue of applicability could be addressed here. That may prove to not be possbile, particulary if discussions keep getting sidetracked, in which case it'll have to move on up the ladder. Marteau (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

, you are claiming the Tyson RfC applies to the Federalist article. The fact of the matter is, the Tyson RfC was specific to the Tyson article. Your saying it applies to the Federalist is not as immediatily apparant as you seem to think it is.... it is a leap of logic and its applicability is under dispute. You cannot just cite the RfC from a differerent article from different circumstances and say it applies to The Federalist article without explaination or without saying why. The burden is on you to make your case. Should you not wish to do so, and simply insist on saying that it does it does apply, without really saying why, I'll just move on to addressing the sourcing and fairness issues which have been brought up here and consider this matter at an end.

So I will ask you again. What does the Tyson RfC have to do with The Federalist article? Marteau (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Everything. The material you want to insert into The Federalist article, is exactly the same material that was negated at that RFC. What makes you think that it is any different? WP:BLP applies everywhere in Wikipedia. not just on BLP articles. You may need to refresh your understanding of WP:BLP: ''This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages'.' -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It is not the material, per se, that was the problem in the Tyson article. It is the weight of that material and whether it was notable for the Tyson article.  It was judged not to have enough weight and not be notable for the Tyson article, not globally throughout the encyclopedia.


 * As one of the closers put it, the question was whether the "threshold towards 'real' notability, and whether this coverage is of the kind of depth and quantity that will make it a part of the lasting mainstream image of this personality" (emphasis mine). THAT was the BLP issue. It was determined that this issue had not enough weight for the Tyson article.  It was determined that this was not 'notable' for the Tyson article.  Whether or not this is notable or weighty enough for the Tyson article is a completely different matter than whether it is notable or weighty for The Federalist and you simply cannot say that a finding of inappropriate weight and notability for one article carries over automatically to another article.


 * What is non-notable and not weighty enough for the Tyson article could be completely weighty and notable elsewhere. Marteau (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Per Talk:Neil_deGrasse_Tyson/Archive_7 - closing statement: Closing this as do not include on the basis of WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. It is clear that this is a contentious issue, so without excellent sourcing - which establishes the weight of this incident in the context of Dr. Tyson's life and career - the default of non-inclusion applies. What makes you think that without excellent sourcing is this material suitable for inclusion anywhere in Wikipedia? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course excellent sourcing is always required. But the closer in this issue was requiring more than just excellent sourcing... he was requiring sourcing to put this issue in proper context. The requirement to put an event in the context of a man's life and give it proper weight in the biography of that man, is proper.  That is what the closer was complaining about... that it was not given proper context and weight for the man's life story.  But the Federalist article is not dealing with the story of a man's life. The weight issues are completely different.  Completely different issues.  The issue, again, was not the material.  The issue was the weight of that material in the context of a man's life story. That's what the closer was saying. To say that we must frame this issue in the context of the man's career and and life in an article about a web site is ridiculous. Marteau (talk) 23:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I mean, really now. You are seriously saying that you think that the closer, while closing the RfC for a biography, was also intending that any future mention of this incident anywhere in any article in any context for any reason must also put it in the context of his "life and career"?   That you don't see that there are context and weight issues particular to the coverage of issues in a biography that would be different in an article about a website?
 * I don't know how much more of this I can take. Marteau (talk) 00:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I would have accepted your argument per WP:AGF, but it seems that you are overly keen in including this material somewhere, given your comments at Neil deGrasse Tyson talk page]: How anyone can seriously put forth the proposition that this does not even have enough weight for so much as one sentence is astonishing. Simply astonishing, so your attempts to diminish the RFC results to try and force inclusion of the rejected content in another article seem dubious to me. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  00:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I, on the other hand, will continue to assume good faith and will continue to debate, question, categorize and comment on only your arguments, and not your motives. Marteau (talk) 09:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You know what? Strike that.  The hilarity of you, of all people, accusing me of having a "keen" and "dubious" interest surrounding this issue, when it was YOU who submitted this article for deletion during the heat of the moment in the Tyson debate... an action which gained coverage and criticism of Wikipedia in the press (or, the "echo chambers" as you call them).  And then, the very same day your attempt to delete this article went down in flames and the result was "strong concensus to keep" you have the gall to propose that this article, the article that just survived the deletion you sought, be "merged and redirected" to "Ben Domenech#The Federalist".  The very same day.  Now that is "astonishing". So please do spare me the "oh, he has a keen interest in this issue, it seems dubious to me" business, mmmkay?  Pot, meet kettle. Marteau (talk) 10:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Zeena Schreck
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Writing style

This article sounds highly biased - it uses emotive language inappropriately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.76.8.19 (talk) 00:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I've scanned through it and it seems pretty average to me, some good, some bad, but nothing jumping out at me as needing to be urgently corrected. What, in particular, are you seeing that I'm not seeing? Better yet, this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit: why don't you just go ahead and correct the problems that you see. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Cathy Cooper page needs deleting
To an editor that can delete properly,

The subject herself "Cathy Cooper" has requested to have the page about her deleted entirely. She has emailed me and wants this done due to recent developing personal reasons. I have let her know if this bio page is to be deleted then another page will most likely not go up in the future (biography) because of the rules and editing involved with Wikipedia. Yes, I had allowed her to make an edit but she said the page needs to be deleted all together and she is fine with that.

Please let me know if this can be done.

Thanks

Shelyric (talk) 00:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest contacting WP:OVERSIGHT, who are far better to handle sensitive information than a page like this. You don't want her personal details to be public, so using the people appointed to handle sensitive issues quietly without need for public discussion would work better.
 * In particular, I don't think we should delete it without proof you're acting for Cathy Cooper: Obviously, it's probably not the case here, but we don't want to be in the situation where someone's rival can get a page on them deleted by claiming they're acting for that person, so a little safeguarding is called for, and that group can do it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Uh, on the Cathy Cooper page itself, in [| this] edit, you state in the edit summary that you are Cathy Cooper, yet here you say  you're working for her.  So which is it?   KoshVorlon    Rassekali ternii i mlechnye putiundefined  16:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Anthony Watts (blogger)
Can we please get more watchful eyes on Anthony Watts (blogger)? I've started a new discussion on the article talk page here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There's activity from a good range of people on that article; it's just that they disagree with you... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

ANDREW GEORGE Politician
There has been a long-running dispute about material relating to MPs' expenses in this article. The material is in fact false and arguably defamatory. Mr George was in fact completely exonerated by the Legge Committee over these issues and each time they have appeared you have stopped further recurrences for a while. Can you intervene again?

Many thanks

Graham Kerridge

91.125.158.224 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Given that the user added only half of the story, and omitted the exoneration by the Legge Committee, I've removed the text as not adhering to NPOV. I've advised the user who added the text to discuss the matter at the article's talk page if he really thinks it should be included. —C.Fred (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Eric Dott
" When game designer Oliver Jovanovic was accused in 1996 of sexual assault against a woman, Dott noted that Jovanovic's version of RuneQuest had not been published because the developers repeatedly missed deadlines.[2]"

strikes me as defamatory--and not necessarily all that relevant to Eric Dott's life, given that Dott published dozens of games, including a previous edition of Runequest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.163.95 (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Jillian Barberie
This discussion from 2004 was started by an editor who removed horribly sourced content, and an IP who actually copy-pasted material from aforementioned horrible source. I see the entire section as a BLP violation, and in my opinion, the section should be blanked. Thoughts? — Confession0791 talk 01:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Removed. § FreeRangeFrog croak 02:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Arianit Sllamniku
Arianit Sllamniku is born in 25.08.1978 in Gjilan - Kosovo.

Arianit Sllamniku is publicist, political scientist, politician and scholar of European integration issues.

His education began in his hometown in Gjilan, I followed under the care of parents, engineer Adnan Sllamniku and school teacher Ajshe Sllamniku. Primary schooling began in his hometown but the 8th grade he finished in Germany Metmmann thus also returned home to continue with secondary education in economics that resulted in the successful head.

The influence of his grandfather Ahmet Sllamniku who was the leader of several educational institutions in the country and that the profession was professor of Russian language, on the one hand and the completion of primary education in Germany, on the other hand made Arianit Sllamniku be oriented in studies of The German language and literature at the University of Prishtina which also was recorded in 1997 but the studies in question are not confirmed to be completed.

During the war in Kosovo which begun in 1999, due to increasing pressure from the Serbian army and police against the persons involved with foreigners, especially with OSCE staff, Mr. Sllamniku was forced to flee the country in terms of Macedonia. His activity during the time extends assistance to refugees who had need of such as the elderly, children and women who found camps in Macedonia and hundreds and thousands of them were transferred across different countries of the world but Mr. Sllamniku decided last contingent along with Dutch staff to fly to the Netherlands in order to continue the mission there. Social worker mission ended successfully in 2001 in Arnhem military building which was reserved as a Refugee Camp from where he returned home.

From 2009 Sllamniku was part of a political entity conservative orientation until 2012 where he headed the branch of the same subject. In the same year when he took the helm of a political entity, he ran for mayor in municipal elections face six other candidates. In the same year, Mr. Sllamniku began to deal with copyright writings of various topics of local, European integration issues, religious and social aspects.

Mr. Sllamniku after his resignation from political entity, at the same year in 2012 he was chosen as a President of Sports Fishermen Federation of Kosovo towards sports and recreation of the Republic of Kosovo, which was founded in 2003 but during the tenure of Mr. Sllamniku had about 13,000 members and over 3,000 sports fisherman which with his personal commitment in lobbying through official visits in numerous countries of Europe, came to within a short time during his term of internationally recognized by international institutions such as FIPSed (Interantional Federation Sports Peche au Doucet) and CIPS (International Confederation Peche Sports).

In 2012 as a member of the board of table 7 was invited to design the agenda of the Task Force of European Integration initiated by Kosovo's President Ms. Jahjaga.

In 2013 he graduated as BA in European Integrated Studies at college ISPE in Pristina. Shortly afterwards Mr. Sllamniku continued his studies at CIFE-VAE (Centre International de Formation Europeene) in Nice - France.

Is professionally engaged at the office of the mayor of Gjilan as Senior Officer for European Intergration.

He lives in Gjilan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arianitsllamniku (talk • contribs) 12:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Q. Wang(Artist)
I saw a notice on Q. Wang (Artist) page. I can not find the reason for it.

Q. Wang's painting is totally new. His artworks was published in many countries, in English, Russian, Arabic, Chinese and Italian.

Please review it.

Thanks.

John,


 * I personally do not see any notices or tags on this BLP. What exactly were you concerned about with the article?  Cheers,  Comatmebro  ~Come at me~ 16:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Andrew Wakefield
The wikipedia page on Andrew Wakefield includes the highly debated topic on vaccines. The article includes information that contains the heavily biased mainstream view, without always backing up the evidence.

Andrew Wakefield has been taking libel action against Brian Deer in the US, and while he has failed recently in the US due to it being outside of jurisdiction, we are not to know whether he will pursue libel action against Brian Deer in the UK. Irrespective of whether he pursues litigation, this Wikipedia must strive to only publish the facts, and not the opinions or assumptions perpetuated in the media.

I have not verified the ENTIRE content of the biography, but the derogatory claims made on his page need to be carefully evaluated to determine they are factual statements. I have highlighted several inaccuracies with the page which I have factually proven with high quality references.

The below refers to some of the factual inaccuracies published on his page:

The paper should be referred to as the "retracted paper", as Wakefield and the paper was never proven to be fraudulent and therefore should not be referred to as a "fraudulent" paper.

Wikipedia says: "Andrew Jeremy Wakefield (born c. 1957) is a British former surgeon and medical researcher, known for his fraudulent 1998 research paper in support of the now-discredited claim that there was a link between the administration of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine, and the appearance of autism and bowel disease."

The facts: The retracted paper ACTUALLY says "We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described. ... If there is a causal link between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and this syndrome, a rising incidence might be anticipated after the introduction of this vaccine in the UK in 1988. Published evidence is inadequate to show whether there is a change in incidence or a link with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine. ... We have identified a chronic enterocolitis in children that may be related to neuropsychiatric dysfunction. In most cases, onset of symptoms was after measles, mumps, and rubella immunisation. Further investigations are needed to examine this syndrome and its possible relation to this vaccine."

Note that the paper specifies that the parents reported a link between the MMR and the child's onset of symptoms (and in some cases the GP), not Wakefield or his team. Retracted paper: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(97)11096-0/fulltext

Wikipedia says: "Wakefield's study and his claim that the MMR vaccine might cause autism led to a decline in vaccination rates in the United States, United Kingdom and Ireland and a corresponding rise in measles and mumps, resulting in serious illness and deaths"

The facts: The increase in "deaths" is not supported by the evidence. In the UK, where Wakefield had the most influence, there is zero evidence of an increase in deaths following the 1998 paper: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/measles-deaths-by-age-group-from-1980-to-2013-ons-data/measles-deaths-by-age-group-from-1980-to-2013-ons-data

The increase in the "incidence" is also not supported by the evidence. In England and Wales, there was no significant increase in the incidence of measles following the publication of the paper in 1998. The incidence in measles was on significant decline just before the 1998 paper, and continued to decline or remain steady until an increase in 2008 and 2009 after which the rates declined again to lower than pre-1998 rates. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140505192945/http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733802298 Wikipedia says: "After the publication of the paper, other researchers were unable to reproduce Wakefield's findings or confirm his hypothesis of an association between the MMR vaccine and autism, or autism and gastrointestinal disease"

The facts: Wakefield's retracted paper was a "Case Series", which is not a hypothesis testing paper. He simply took the doctors referrals, treated the disease and reported the information provided by the parents, the referring doctors and the outcomes of his investigations. Also, his 19 other papers were never retracted and still stand today.

Wikipedia says: "most of his co-authors then withdrew their support for the study's interpretations."

The facts: His co-authors withdrew their support for the media's incorrect interpretations of the paper (which was not a study remember).

Wikipedia says: "As recently as February 2015, he publicly repeated his denials and refused to back down from his assertions,[32] despite the fact—as stated by a British Administrative Court Justice in a related decision—that "there is now no respectable body of opinion which supports [Dr. Wakefield's] hypothesis, that MMR vaccine and autism/enterocolitis are causally linked."[33]"

The facts: The retracted papers says "We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described. ... If there is a causal link between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and this syndrome, a rising incidence might be anticipated after the introduction of this vaccine in the UK in 1988. Published evidence is inadequate to show whether there is a change in incidence or a link with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine. ... We have identified a chronic enterocolitis in children that may be related to neuropsychiatric dysfunction. In most cases, onset of symptoms was after measles, mumps, and rubella immunisation. Further investigations are needed to examine this syndrome and its possible relation to this vaccine."

Wikipedia says: "In spreading such fear, acted dishonestly and for mercenary motives in that, although he improperly failed to disclose the fact, he planned a rival vaccine and products (such as a diagnostic kit based on his theory) that could have made his fortune"

The facts: The patent was for the "treatment of inflammatory bowel disease and regressive behavioural disorder", not a rival vaccine. http://brevets-patents.ic.gc.ca/opic-cipo/cpd/eng/patent/2328503/summary.html?hc_location=ufi


 * The Wakefield paper was retracted by the journal after elements of it were found to be intentionally dishonest by the uk medical council. Intentionally falsified research findings are, by definition, fraud. This was reported by numerous sources, eg http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/feb/02/lancet-retracts-mmr-paper


 * The patents for a vaccine are online, and it appears that Wakefield attempted to hide the true purposes of his claims when he filed summary statements. http://briandeer.com/mmr/1998-vaccine-patent.pdf See page 1 (tenth page of patent) These patents have also been reported by countless sources.  The quotation in the Wikipedia text is taken from an official document.


 * The interpretation that was retracted was (obviously) not an interpretation made by other people, such as the media. It was the interpretation set out in the article, headed 'interpretation', by the paper's authors.  Later the paper was fully retracted.


 * The GMC determination found "Dr Wakefield guilty of serious professional misconduct". It is important that Wikipedia reports factual information as reported by official sources. Newspapers are not official or necessarily accurate sources. https://web.archive.org/web/20130512115524/http://www.gmc-uk.org/Wakefield_SPM_and_SANCTION.pdf_32595267.pdf


 * The patent you linked to has no evidence of Wakefield as being the owner of the patent. Even if it is proven this is his patent, there is no proof that he "attempted to hide the true purposes of his claims". Brian Deer has highlighted the sections he choose, putting the information out of context. To conclude that he was hiding the true purposes of the patent is mere speculation and is not permitted on Wikipedia.


 * To make it clear, only a possibility raised in the interpretation was retracted. The paper established no causal link between MMR and these children's illnesses. The Wikipedia article needs to make it very clear that this was hyped up by the media and was NOT EVER reported in the paper. Goddessofmarshmellows (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 18:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia needs to cite *reliable* sources. Official sources are often among them, but a great deal of citing of newspapers is done and The Guardian is usually regarded as a reliable source. Shritwod (talk) 19:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And in fact what is being stated here as "official" is what we would normally call a WP:PRIMARY source, which we are discouraged from using in favor of reliable secondary sources. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, per WP:FRINGE, we have no duty to report both sides equally; on the contrary, we primarily focus on the mainstream view(s) as supported by reliable sources. Indeed original research is forbidden to be used here. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Should we take "Irrespective of whether he pursues litigation, this Wikipedia must strive to only publish the facts, and not the opinions or assumptions perpetuated in the media" as a legal threat? --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The OP makes a strong case for a BLP violation. The terms "fraudulent", "deliberately dishonest", and "dishonest" mean different things. The WP article says "fraudulent". Someone defends it by saying "deliberately dishonest", and cites a source that only says "dishonest". If the source says "dishonest", then WP should not change that to "fraudulent". Furthermore, it is clear that the media publicity has embarrassed The Lancet, and it might have blamed Wakefield more than is justified. The article should make it clear that "dishonest" is an allegation from The Lancet (and maybe others). Roger (talk) 22:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Except no such thing has taken place. For example, http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452.full British Medical Journal article. Title: "Wakefield’s article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent" - there are numerous, top-tier sources saying he was fraudulent. Please, check the actual sources in the WP article.
 * The simple face is that, whenever the article uses the word "fraud" or some variant, there's a source saying "fraud". The only issue is reference 120, which has been separated from the other sources (115-119) which are, frankly better sources than it is, and half of which use "fraud" in the title. Indeed, checking the sources, it's clear that the sourcing is, by and large, impeccable. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Simple fact: the original source proves the secondary sources to be incorrect and inaccurate. The BMJ link provided above states: "The Lancet paper has of course been retracted, but for far narrower misconduct than is now apparent. The retraction statement cites the GMC’s findings that the patients were not consecutively referred and the study did not have ethical approval, leaving the door open for those who want to continue to believe that the science, flawed though it always was, still stands." This makes it clear that the GMC finding did NOT conclude the study was a fraud, and the accusation of "fraud" has come from a single person: Brian Deer. The BMJ link also includes a correction "The BMJ should have declared competing interests in relation to this editorial by Fiona Godlee and colleagues (BMJ 2011;342:c7452, doi:10.1136/bmj.c7452). The BMJ Group receives advertising and sponsorship revenue from vaccine manufacturers, and specifically from Merck and GSK, which both manufacture MMR vaccines." http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d1678
 * Official retraction of the Wakefield paper: "Following the judgment of the UK General Medical Council's Fitness to Practise Panel on Jan 28, 2010, it has become clear that several elements of the 1998 paper by Wakefield et al1 are incorrect, contrary to the findings of an earlier investigation.2 In particular, the claims in the original paper that children were “consecutively referred” and that investigations were “approved” by the local ethics committee have been proven to be false. Therefore we fully retract this paper from the published record." http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)60175-4/abstract Goddessofmarshmellows (talk) 03:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Cameron Thor
User Mr Ripfrog is deleting all references to current charges against Thor and stating in comments blatant untruths such as this, "I have updated the Personal Life section as it was out of date and inaccurate. The charges have been dropped against Cameron Thor and I will be updating the story as the accuser was simply looking for money in a scheme they were planning ..." This is outrageous fiction and highly offensive. See the latest issue of The Hollywood Reporter and many other news sources for the current state of the story and the charges still pending against Thor.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/a-beloved-acting-coach-a-789893

aldiboronti (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Watchlisted. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: If it does become more frequent then we can protect the page, but right now the vandalism is a little too light. Probably will pick up once the trial coverage really starts, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Måns Zelmerlöw
Does this article contain information that violates policy? What about the "Controversies" and "Personal life" sections? --George Ho (talk) 04:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and removed the "Controversies" section as it was not notable. Though it was properly sourced, the content is editorializing and reads like a tabloid. Meatsgains (talk) 02:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Infobox technical request
I'm not sure this is the right venue, but it seemed the closest from the list. Some time ago, consensus was reached to deprecate the "Influences" and "Influenced" fields in Template:Infobox person since they had a long history of being abused by fans and others; the template now says "No longer supported."

However, there are dozens of subordinate templates for different professions. These can only be edited by admins, and propagating the change hasn't been gotten around to. Therefore, the original issue that the consensus was supposed to solve is still contentious in, particularly, articles about comedians. Could an admin please propagate this "Infobox person" change to at least Template:Infobox comedian? --Tenebrae (talk) 14:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Please provide links to the prior consensus, and diff(s) for the changes to Infobox person. Dragons flight (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Dragons flight, for addressing this. Admin Kww made the revision at 16:09, 22 July 2013 with the edit summary: "consensus on talk page is clearly to remove these parameters". The discussion and the extensive support to remove the parameters appears here: .--Tenebrae (talk) 23:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Restoring. This was just archived, though it's still awaiting a response from Dragons flight, who made a links request which was answered. I guess another admin could like to weigh in if DF is busy IRL. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll try to get to this when I'm off work if Dragons flight has not. The discussion is here, BTW.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, Dragons flight, Kww. I was just checking in to see if we could make this consensus change to Template:Infobox comedian and head off this recurring POV issue. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to do this at this point. I am sympathetic to the reasons why the influence items were removed from Infobox person, especially the tendency to fill it with unsourced and opinionated lists.  At the same time, a sampling of 30 articles using Infobox comedian found 11 cases where at least one of the influenced / influences fields was populated, which makes this pretty common.  I wonder whether comedians might be a special case, since on a variety of cases I have actually heard comedians talk about their influences.  In addition, the infobox discussion was nearly two years ago, and there was no specific discussion about comedians at the time.  Altogether, I would suggest that the best course of action would be to bring this issue up at some suitable forum (e.g. WikiProject Comedy).  If there is general agreement among people that work on comedy articles that the influence fields should go, then I'll take them out.  I don't think a new RFC is necessary (unless the issue proves contentious), but I don't want to kill the fields without at least some input from people that work on the comedian articles.  Dragons flight (talk) 01:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your taking the time to look at this, . Let me ask: You mention something that I think reflects my leaving out an important point.


 * You're absolutely correct: Comedians do talk about their influences, and some comedians' articles have "Influences" sections in the prose article itself. For some reason, there's less tendency toward adding uncited, fannish POV claims in the article itself than in the infobox, which I suspect is because the main article body is watched more carefully than the infobox. Since no one's talking about removing "Influences" in the article body, but just in the infobox, does that give a new perspective to the request? --Tenebrae (talk) 04:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Henrikh Mkhitaryan - Personal Life
Dear WikiPedia users, i believe im on the right noticeboard for this issue. On Article of Henrikh Mkhitaryan in section of Personal Life, it is mentioned that he visited "Artskah Republic" which is not correct use of both political and commonly used terms. Both political and commonly used term is de facto independent Nagorno Karabagh which is de jure part of Azerbaijan. Using incorrect term first of all is not line with neutral point of view of Wikipedia where Azeri side claims it should be de jure and also with the commonly used name. My several attempts to edit and use talk page for this were either ignored or reverted, I got also suspended by user Golbez who openly supports the Armenian side of the issue which again i believe is not on neutral point of view. I believe using incorrect political terms makes users believe that N/K is a proper republic and omits the Azeri side of the claim. Please advise on next action! Agulani (talk) 06:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this edit will take care of it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear User, thanks for the change please see my edit which i believe makes more sense while keeps the neutrality of this. Same thing with Ararat vs Agri Dagi where Ararat is used over Agri dagi since its commonly used Agulani (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't wikilnk Nagorno-Karabakh twice in one sentence. Moreover Nagorno-Karabakh is merely a geographic region, and that is why Wikipedia has a separate article titled Nagorno-Karabakh Republic.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Lucien Lagrange
At Lucien Lagrange, there is a reversion cycle going on with pacifist content. I got an email from stating that "I am trying to make a few updates to Lucien Lagrange's Wiki page at the request of Melinda Jackovich who currently works with Lucien. However, edits keep getting changed. My goal to make the page as accurate as possible. Please let me know if there are any issues you have with the page." Is there a BLP reason to remove the sourced content?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The cited source doesn't not, without engaging in original research support the part of the second sentence which reads, "He was a pacifist and had avoided involvement in French military confrontations such as," it only supports the idea that he didn't want to fight specifically in Algeria. Unless there's some part of that source that I've missed, all it says is this:"Well, when I graduated in ’72, before I went to work, I went back to France. I was done with my schooling, my degree. And meanwhile, I managed in the first twelve years to be a draft dodger from the French government, because I didn’t want to go and fight in Algeria and shoot some Algerian with some guns and stuff. So I went back to France. I went to court and I fought the French government and I did win so I was let go, which is a vastly- it’s an interesting story. But I went back to France to fight and then I was allowed to go back to France at my will and not to be bothered by the French army." (Source.) That doesn't support the idea that he was philosophically a pacifist without engaging in the interpretation that his desire not to "shoot some Algerian with some guns" was due to philosophical pacifism. Perhaps he just liked Algerians, perhaps he was phobic about guns or shooting, was — I don't mean to implicate him with this, just say that it is one of many possible other explanations with as much support as pacifism — a coward, or was specifically opposed to the war in Algeria but would have found a war somewhere else entirely justified. Tagging him with pacificism is controversial and that particular chunk of the material restored in this edit ought to be removed under WP:BLPREMOVE, but the rest of the material in that edit should, indeed, have been restored. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

, How about if
 * (instead of) After graduating Lagrange had to return to France to fight charges of draft dodging the French Army. He was a pacifist and had avoided involvement in French military confrontations such as Algeria for twelve years. He won his fight, which enables him to freely return to France. He then returned to Montreal to work...


 * (we try) After graduating Lagrange had to return to France to fight charges of draft dodging the French Army. He had avoided involvement in French military confrontations in Algeria for twelve years. He won his fight, which enables him to freely return to France. He then returned to Montreal to work...

--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's pretty much word for word what I would have proposed, so it's fine by me. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Fiona Graham
It has been noted multiple times that Sayuki (Fiona Graham) does not want her date of birth listed, or year. This is something that is mentioned in the BLP section of wikipedia (WP:DOB), which states that her D.O.B, at least, should be removed to only have the year. However as a Geisha who is bringing up new, younger Geisha she is trying to reinforce traditions that will quickly be lost to this type of behaviour. Other Geisha do not have there D.O.B listed as it is detrimental to there work and can often force them out of work, this is what will happen through the victimisation of Sayuki if you cannot take down her age. As is stated within WP:AVOIDVICTIM this is a strong case of victimisation by certain users who consistently try to keep up her age even though it is affecting the tradition of Geisha and is affecting the livelihood of many new prospective young girls. Can we not agree that it is best to remove her age altogether? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrywoodley28 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 23 April 2015
 * I'm linking to the prior BLP/N discussions. So far it doesn't really seem like there's been a truly clear consensus (at least via what I can see on the BLP/N pages) to completely remove the content or that this would irreparably harm Graham. (Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive126, Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive217) I'm not taking sides, just that right now the biggest argument against adding the age was that many of the sources pulled their information from other websites. I also have to mention that there was a concern of sockpuppetry with the prior attempts to remove the content, mostly a few editors expressing concern that there were SPAs and IPs coming in saying that the content would cause irreparable harm to Graham's career. Again, not taking sides either way, just summarizing the BLP discussions for anyone who wants a Cliff Notes version of the prior versions. I will say, however, that it is not a good idea to accuse others of deliberately victimizing Graham (ie, WP:BADFAITH). As far as DOBs in other articles, you'd have to prove that the DOBs were removed/omitted for this reason and not because there was a lack of reliable sources that backed up their date of birth. If you can do that then it would help begin to build an argument for precedent. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Another thing that would be good to argue is to ask whether or not removing her DOB would harm the article. The problem with saying that having her DOB present on the Wikipedia article will harm her career is that the DOB is present on the Internet as a whole- it isn't hard for people to find it, so removing it from Wikipedia won't entirely make it impossible to find otherwise. Also, if you are Graham or someone that knows her (expanding on the sockpuppetry concerns voiced by other editors), you should read over WP:COI. I need to again state that I'm not arguing for or against the removal of the DOB, just that these are all things that need to be taken into consideration. (Although personally so far I don't see where it'd harm the article if we did remove it, although all of the fuss over it is having sort of a Streisand effect.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Just a note, I am adjusting the section title and two inline citations of the OP's post to internal wikilinks, it was messing up the format of the rest of the page. Tarc (talk) 12:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

King Jabulani
Adesola Michael (born July 24, 1987) better known by his stage name KING-JABULANI, is a prolific Nigeria Singer, Recording artist, dance, songwriter, performer, producer. King-Jabulani started his career at the age of 11 by playing drum set at his father's church and became choir master at the age of 16. Love listening to other artiste and miming their songs. He was then started writing lyrics for artists. He is a single bless with a male child name "Emmanuel". — Preceding unsigned comment added by King jabulani (talk • contribs) 14:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * This isn't the place to propose new articles. Propose your article at Articles for Creation. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Joan Jett
has twice attempted to insert the claim into the Joan Jett article that she is a lesbian, using what I regard as a dubious source (an about.com article which offers no evidence to back the claim). Available evidence suggests that she is probably lesbian or bisexual, but she has never discussed this publicly or self-identified as either lesbian or bisexual. I believe it is inappropriate to insert this claim into the article. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * About.com is a not in any way a reliable source, doubly so for sensitive issues in a BLP article. Tarc (talk) 12:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Tarc is correct: No, About.com is not a reliable source. Furthermore, I thought it was understood that Wikipedia would not include speculation on an article subject's sexuality unless the subject has either commented publicly or otherwise publicly confirmed it.  There is far too much of this tabloid-style "journalism" working its way into our biographical articles, and damn little of it is supported by reliable sources.  If an article subject chooses not to comment on his or her private relationships, and there are no reliable sources on point, how about we omit the speculation about their private lives?  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; it is not supposed to be The National Enquirer.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, Joan Jett self-admits to being a lesbian, it is not a secret! Thanks IQ125 (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Results of a Google search is not a self-admission. Mangoe (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you actually read any of the linked articles from the Google search? I did, and I don't see a quote from Joan Jett "self-admit[ting] to being a lesbian," nor do I see a reliable source stating that she is.  She may very well be, but until there is a reliable source for that proposition per WP:RS, it is not appropriate for her Wikipedia article to include speculation on a matter that she has clearly chosen to keep private.  Period.  If you have reliable sources, quoting Jett or otherwise, please provide links to those sources, not to a Google search.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * She is not self admitted - so the pedia cannot say she is. There is apparently RS for her being an icon to many lesbians, which is something different altogether. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll second the whole "she's never said it so we can't include it" stuff. Unless she explicitly says it out loud and to reliable sources, it's considered to be a rumor. Heck, for YEARS we couldn't label Jodie Foster's article with any of the LGBT tags. Her lesbianism was probably one of the worst kept secrets in Hollywood but until she officially came forward and confirmed her sexuality in the media you could not add any of this information in her article. Heck, even now we have to be careful in how we phrase things in the article since she specifically did not use the terms gay or lesbian in her coming out speech, so that's exactly how careful we have to be on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Rudrangshu Mukherjee
This article does not have any notable facts to qualify for a page in Wikipedia. I would prefer this to be deleted or rewritten with some notable facts. 182.156.70.54 (talk) 11:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * While the article is, indeed, insufficiently sourced at the present time, a Google News search on his name reveals that there are plenty of reliable sources out there which are sufficient to base an article upon. There's nothing sufficiently controversial to invoke WP:BLPREMOVE, so please feel free to find reliable sources for the current text or rewrite the article using reliable sources. I've tagged it as needing sources. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

IP edits to BLP article suspected to be made by subject
If there is strong, publicly available circumstantial evidence that IP edits to a BLP article were made by the subject of that article, I don't suppose raising this concern on the article's talk page, along with a discussion of the evidence, would be considered harassment, or would it? ARK (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * While editing an article about oneself is strongly discouraged, it is not prohibited. Therefore, the identity of the IP editor is irrelevant and an inquiry into the IP's editor would, indeed, be harassment unless either (a) the IP editor has here at Wikipedia and not at some other site openly identified him/herself (and has not attempted to revert or otherwise obscure that revelation and it has not been such a long time since it happened that it's no longer easy to find) or (b) the IP editor is attempting to post absolutely fraudulent information or otherwise corrupt the encyclopedia in a way that ordinary editing processes cannot handle and if that is the case, then contact the Arbitration Committee privately by email through the email link on this page. In general, we concern ourselves about edits not editors. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks! ARK (talk) 15:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Don Lane (Santa Cruz)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_Lane_%28Santa_Cruz%29&diff=prev&oldid=657308632

I am new to this. I have been including reference to his past that is clearly documented and that he freely discusses in other media, though with his own spin on it. I had discussed this in a talk with Mr. Lane's Rep here under my previous IP 67.180.161.221
 * User_talk:67.180.161.221
 * User_talk:Cruzerinthecruz

The Revision has stood for five months with no problems (undo revision) until recently and with no discussion as to why.

Mr Lane refers to this episode and admits to doing it here: http://www.gtweekly.com/index.php/santa-cruz-news/santa-cruz-local-news/6203-on-his-terms.html

I wish my original revision to stand for it is important for voters to know about it.

I wish Keri to be sanctioned for reverting and blocking the revision and for requesting temporary semi-protection: User talk:The Man of Heart

Thank You and Please Advise: Don Honda The Man of Heart (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Just because something happened and can be reliably sourced does not mean that it is appropriate to be included in an article, see the Neutral Point of View policy and, especially, the concept of undue weight set out therein. The fact that "it is important for voters to know about it" is irrelevant to whether something should or should not be in Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Since protection is always judged by a neutral administrator, asking for protection is not generally sanctionable unless it is part of a continued practice of disruption across the encyclopedia (and I can't see that the page has ever been protected, but perhaps I missed it). Discuss the edit in question on the article talk page and if you cannot come to a resolution through discussion, consider dispute resolution. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks to me like Keri's actions were appropriate. If you're having a content dispute, the appropriate place to be taking it now is the talk page of the article, as Keri suggested. Keri has appropriately warned you about editing warring, and removed a paragraph which involved editors attacking each other in the article space. The fact that you had some private discussion with one editor on the user talk pages, rather than on the article's talk page where it might be seen by other editors, does not mean that you have consensus. I see nothing here that should be sanctioned for, and much for which they should be commended. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I have talked about the revision in October 15, 2014 and it was negotiated and agreed. It has stood for five months with not problems. Isn't that good enough? A direct talk and negotiation?The Man of Heart (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, not at all. There are more than two editors of Wikipedia; that the two of you conspired to set the language in a certain way does not give you veto power over every other editor, and keeping it from the Talk page of the article keeps other interested editors from finding what's going on and entering comment of their own. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I came across this dispute purely by accident, having spotted a usertalk message on another editor's page which was on my watchlist. It seems apparent that the two parties to this dispute are both single-purpose accounts and both have very obvious conflicts of interest in the subject matter - as witnessed in this exchange here. One editor claims to be Lane's "representative" on social media - a claim accepted by User:The Man of Heart - while TMoH himself appears to have been one of the recipients of the cards at the heart of the controversy. I haven't fully researched the incident or examined it's worthiness for inclusion, as my interest was engaged purely by the disruptive editing the two parties have carried out in the article. Keri (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. Since Keri has read and monitored all my correspondence, she knows that I have denied that I am one of the recipients of the Obscene Valentine's Card as seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Donner60#Thanks_for_your_help_with_Don_Lane_.28Santa_Cruz.29  It is the "Rep" of Don Lane (Santa Cruz) who is assuming this. It is patently untrue.The Man of Heart (talk) 20:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry. It feels that I am being attacked for making a newbie mistake. It feels that I am being judged and convicted without a trial. I had no intention to "conspire" with another editor. I was contacted and adjusted my posting. I had no idea of the Article Talk Page much less the purpose of it. I feel that the article needs to be expunged in toto as it apparent that the original poster is self-serving and is the one with a conflict of interest.The Man of Heart (talk) 05:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If you believe the page should be deleted, please see our guide to deletion to see how you might properly move that forward. You may want to look closely at our guidelines for notability of politicians, as notability is likely to be the question on which any deletion discussion will hinge. As for your being attacked, it looks like most of the responses here have been to answer your questions and to defend Keri from your call for sanctions. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Jonas Jonasson
Dear editors, please take a look at the "change of direction" section in this article Jonas_Jonasson. Is this defamatory or plain weird? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.35.250.135 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 25 April 2015
 * Done: Looks like it's been taken care of by Govindaharihari.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've now semi-protected the article for a week stemming from a related WP:AIV report. If this stuff resumes after the protection expires, I recommend requesting long term semi-protection. Monty  845  13:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Frances D'Souza, Baroness D'Souza
I find it very hard to believe that the Lord Speaker of the House of Lords in the UK was married already at the age of 15. Unfortunately, I have no way of checking this, most of the biographical facts on other sites are taken from the Wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Al69dente (talk • contribs) 09:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Done: I have removed the section about her family life, since it was unsourced, controversial and it has been contested. To add it back to the article it needs to be sourced by reliable sources. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Details in the section removed appear to be supported by this article by Baroness D'Souza's daughter Christa D'Souza in The Daily Telegraph, which would appear to be a reliable source; and also this source on Crossbenchers - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 15:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi &, just letting you know that I've added a new section to the article Talk page to facilitate discussion of re-including the section based on these two sources. Please feel free to raise any thoughts or concerns that you might have there. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 02:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello : Thank you very much for finding the sources, you can find my comments in the article's talk page.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Pooja Sharma article
Got a problem at ; there is repeated WP:BLP-violation editing going on at that article by, despite the multiple warnings that Kasmile has received about this. Flyer22 (talk) 09:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've indef-blocked the editor for disruptive editing. —S MALL  JIM   11:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Vanessa Lynne Bryant
This article is incredibly offensive, particularly this comment: "Dozens of additional Connecticut practicing attorneys voiced their concerns about her qualifications. It was widely held that Vanessa Bryant's chief qualification was her race and gender.[4]"

In fact, Judge Bryant is a very well-regarded and accomplished District Judge. For instance, in 2012, she issued an opinion finding the Defense of Marriage Act to be unconstitutional, tackling a difficult and contentious constitutional law issue before the Supreme Court's review of the question. The Supreme Court ultimately agreed with Judge Bryant and also struck down parts of DOMA as unconstitutional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.238.24.33 (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Not only does the link given not work, it's a self-published blog. I've removed it. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems all the criticism levied at her in the first paragraph of 'Federal Judicial Career' is from a primary source. I don't think this is acceptable. Incidentally, I don't think a section titled 'Federal Judicial Career' should exist solely as what seems to be an area to bear out a grudge against the subject of the article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Went through and correct a few issues, but an IP editor has since seen fit to revert my changes. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * IP editor here, hang on a sec. You make it sound like vandalism! I posted a full explanation to the talk page. The reasons given in your edit summaries are misunderstandings, which I've explained there, e.g. "does not exist in source" when it does, "sourced to primary source" when it's not, etc. I expected to have this conversation on the article's talk page... 168.1.75.52 (talk) 05:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You're free to explain which edit summaries were incorrect. "Does not exist in source" was (by your own admission) correct, and there were no edit summaries I made which contained "sourced to primary source". If you disagree with particular edits, you should not completely undo my and other editor's contributions- there are easier ways to do it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You removed about half the article and several sources in about half an hour. If you make bold changes be prepared to justify them. You didn't say primary source, right, I assumed that was your objection when you said "Cannot use online rating system as source" - the characterization of the rating come from an RS, no an "online rating system." I'd really rather have this talk on the article page though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.1.75.52 (talk) 05:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The BLP issues which other editors introduced (and you are edit warring to retain) are perfectly relevant to the BLP noticeboard. Any editor can see that the edits I made have not 'removed half the article', and when I removed an online rating system as a source I removed something cited directly to 'The Robing Room' (which is, amazingly, an online rating system.) PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I encourage editors to see the extent of content Peter removed. Re: 'the Robing Room' you also removed the characterization of their rating cited to an RS. Apparently you missed that, as you missed the quotes that you claim in your edit summary had no source when the source was right there. s far as "edit warring" - you made big changes, I reverted and posted why on the talk page, you reverted my revert, which I then reverted. Can't see how you'd describe that as me edit warring. 168.1.75.52 (talk) 06:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, now this guy is edit warring. He's reverted my revert twice now with no effort to address the very specific reasons I listed on the talk page. Only suggesting that I don't understand WP:BRD and if I want to revert his bold changes I'll have to discuss them. Can an admin maybe help here? 168.1.75.52 (talk) 06:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The removal by Peter seems perfectly reasonable. We don't need to go into absurd levels of detail on the ABA's rating of her from 2007, and it's undue weight to extensively discuss a nearly-decade-old rating with no apparent relevance to her current performance and no evidence of any significant or lasting external interest in the rating. The ABA said something about her, she was appointed and confirmed anyway, the end, so far as the sources are concerned. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Great! Your criticism here doesn't seem to be with the quality or characterization of the BLP sources so lets have this discussion on the article talk page! 168.1.75.52 (talk) 06:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Another ('completely unrelated') IP joins the edit warring, and my interest falters. Best luck to any other editor who wishes to correct these issues. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I get this a lot as an IP editor. Look over the article's revision history, the majority of work here was done by IPs. I'm still happy discuss specific changes on the talk page. I mean that sincerely. 168.1.75.52 (talk) 06:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Peter Schweizer
Peter Schweizer recently wrote a book called Clinton Cash (not even published yet) alleging some bad things about the Clintons. It's made the news and several outlets and papers are running with the accusations. It's been brought up at White House press briefing. In the past few days several left leaning orgs have come out attacking Schweizer's character and reputation and he's very much become a target in the media cycle. Recent edits of the past day, including by User:Cwobeel, a frequent ideological battleground editor, have been attempting to turn his BLP into an attack piece. The next several weeks will require some active stewardship which I can't always provide. Semi-protection is premature at this point but that may change. GraniteSand (talk) 01:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * What edits of mine you consider inappropriate in that article? And why don't you engage in discussions on that article's talk page rather than cast aspersions here. Sheesh! -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Denis MacEoin
Someone has reintroduced potentially defamatory information about me, contrary to your principle that 'Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous.' Someone, possibly myself, had argued correctly that linking me improperly with the controversy on my report 'The Hijacking of British Islam' is defamatory because I had no hand whatever in the aspects relating to a possible (but unproved) forgery of a receipt obtained from one of the suppiers of material. I wrote the report but had no hand at all in the administration or the people who collected the material I was given to write the report. That there was a controversy there is no doubt, but the piece reinserted implies that I was connected to any possible impropriety is libellous. By all means write an article about the report, but in doing so make it clear that my role was simply that of author, not researcher or administrator.

May I also add that the sneering comment that I use this article as 'my blog' is wholly inappropriate. I did not write the original article, but as the subject have gone in froim time to time to correct mistake and to update things like new publications or involvements. This is not like using it as a blog, and this charge should be withdrawn. I get the feeling that someone out there dislikes me for some reason, and I retain the right to correct mistakes, remove anything defamatory, and update information. I am, surely, in the best position to make these judgements. None of this constitutes 'vandalism'. It would be better to focus on the numerous hagiographical accounts of Muslims and other religious figure that appear across Wikipedia. And please remove the accusation that this is an autobiography. Whoever wrote it, it was not I. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denis MacEoin (talk • contribs) 12:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I've removed the controversy section, as well as a lot of other unsourced/poorly-sourced content and added a notability tag. The article does not contain any high-quality secondary sources. CorporateM (Talk) 17:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Uma Kumaran
The Subject is a candidate of in the British General elections in May 2015.Now a post was made in iharrow then removed by iHarrow from its website following a compliant from the subject to them. ''It was alleged in January 2014 by Harrow’s now defunct Independent Labour Group that she did nothing to support the Tamil community when demonstrations were taking place outside Parliament to raise awareness of human rights violations by the Sri Lankan Government nor to support their complaints about discrimination against Tamils in the Labour Party.[7] KUmaran later wrote to the editor of iharrow asking that the article be removed because it contained slanderous accusations and false allegations and had been used as a way of setting up a wikipedia page to continue false rumours and divisive politics along ethnic lines. She said the article was "simply the personal vendetta of a member of the ‘ILG’ and is deeply damaging and completely untrue." The post was removed'' The source given is iharrow should this be removed from the article Uma Kumaran which is a WP:BLP .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Removed. The material was sourced to a non-reliable source. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Bernard Marshall Gordon
An unsourced puff piece, filled with praise and editorializing, apparently in this form since at least 2007. Would profit from cutting and major rewrite; the current and longtime state is unacceptable. Thanks. 166.171.187.166 (talk) 03:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "As of January, 2007, the book of Bernie's earthly life is still open. Consequently there are no scholarly sources on his life and works."  LOL-ROG-LMFAO  This is so bad, and has so few actual sources for the included content, that I'm not even sure where to start.  It would almost be easier to write a new article from scratch.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I know; it made my teeth hurt just to scan it superficially. I think it does require drastic surgery, especially if the edit history doesn't yield a more acceptable sourced version. Better to start anew with a paragraph or two, well referenced, than to let articles like this sit for the better part of a decade. 166.171.187.166 (talk) 04:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Stubified. If sources are forthcoming the article can be re-built. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Vermin Supreme
The article suffers from NPOV, Verifiability, and original research issues. Requires attention from a veteran editor. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 07:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I saw a fair amount of stuff, which I've dealt with. Did I miss anything? --Dweller (talk) 09:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There are a few things that strike me, however, I may be not be the best judge of it hence why I am looking for outside eyes. There are things like this "He also campaigned in 2012 on a platform of zombie apocalypse awareness (and zombie-based energy plan) and time travel research,[9] and he promises a free pony for every American" which seem to be unencyclopedic.  The bullets in 2012 political campaign seem to be excessive as well.  -Xcuref1endx (talk) 21:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The statements that he campaigned in 2012 on a platform of zombie apocalypse awareness and time travel research and that he promised a free pony to every American are properly sourced. It would be unencyclopedic to report something else.  The Wikipedia editors didn't make them up; the subject of the article made them up, and that is notable when done on the public forum of an alternative campaign for the Presidency.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Michael Leidig
Hi All,

While I think the subject appears notable, I just wanted to check that the lack of citations and apparent original research mean it would be best to gut it down to some verifiable facts. Almost all the citations that do exist on it just link to pages that don't mention the subject. He's got a LinkedIn profile for the rest of it, after all. --gilgongo (talk) 20:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Removed the unsourced material. Watchlisted. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Brady J. Deaton
Brady J. Deaton lacks in-text citations for the first three subsections and includes grammatical errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.160.132.152 (talk) 06:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

A Voice for Men
Editors have repeatedly restored the content of this edit in violation of WP:BLPGROUP and WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. Note that the article is under article probation.

The company in question "A Voice for Men" has a single employee, Paul Elam. The site (www.avoiceformen.com) indicates it's "owned and operated by Paul Elam" and has a limited volunteer staff. As such I believe WP:BLPGROUP strongly applies.

Statements using this buzzfeed article as a source, those using primary sources (the SPLC blog and findthecompany.com) are the most problematic and have been restored without talk page consensus. José Antonio Zapato (talk) 00:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The BuzzFeed article was discussed on the RS noticeboard a few weeks ago. The findthecompany info is used to corroborated the statements made in the BuzzFeed article. The SPLC content (which I wouldn't classify as a "blog") is about a group of websites and the groups that post to them, not a specific person. The SPLC's characterization is presented as their own assessment, and its has been repeated by several reliable sources, such as Time. Grayfell (talk) 00:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I have no issue including BLP information from strong RS. A neutral reading of the Buzzfeed article, including the title, shows it is not sufficient as a sole source. Although I don't believe it's directly relevant to the argument, I classified the SPLC source as a "blog" because the URL begins with: www.splcenter.org/blog/ José Antonio Zapato (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 00:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: I've no dog in this fight, but have fully protected the page at an arbitrary version due to a slow, weeks-long edit war that's been going on - A l is o n  ❤ 07:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * That's understandable, but we still have an editor who's confessed to edit warring, and as soon as he was blocked the IPs started working on it. By his own admission, he doesn't care if he's blocked as long as the page is on the "right" version. That seems like a very good incentive to continue the slow edit war. Gaming the system like that seems messed up. Grayfell (talk) 08:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's frustrating, I know, but what's going to happen is that they'll refuse to engage on the talk page while others will try to come to some agreement. The dispute will get hammered out and the article changed again, and they'll have had no say in the matter. Only this time, when they revert, they'll be doing so against consensus and thus their changes will not stick - A l is o n  ❤ 08:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not inclined to reverse 's protection even though she gave permission to any administrator to do so. I tend to endorse it because she's right about the edit-warring. I blocked the editor who was being the most disruptive and when I did so, his version was in place. If I'd wanted to revert it, I could, but although I think many of his BLP claims are marginal and certainly not of the sort that justifies reverting under WP:3RRNO, I also didn't think there was any policy-based reason for my choosing a version. The only thing that gave me pause subsequently is the block evasion, and an editor shouldn't benefit from block evasion. At the same time, though, honestly, should not have reverted after my block of the other editor. Finally, I also agree with Alison that there's nothing wrong with the current version being in place until a consensus as reached as to what material should or should not be included in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I guess I can see that. I was getting edit conflicts with the IP while attempting to fix some of the raised issues, which was irritating. It seemed like a clear-cut case of ban evasion, but there was nothing that couldn't wait until that was resolved. Grayfell (talk) 01:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The A Voice for Man page is clearly not a BLP. It's the most popular men's rights website. Hundreds of activists publish content on the site and dozens of volunteers help keep the site going. The claim that BLP applies to the article because most of the activists involved with AVFM aren't officially employed by the site is absurd. Moreover, the BuzzFeed article and especially the conservative way that source is used is actually BLP compliant. The men's rights topic area has had the same problems with "new" editors and IPs for years. One of them gets blocked only to have the next one show up and make "their" article more "on message". It's not just frustrating for individual editors, it's detrimental to the aims of the project. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 10:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think Sonicyouth's comment here pretty much demonstrates how and where BLP applies to the AVFM article.  If we are adding content about AVFM the website/community, then BLP does not apply.  If we are adding content about AVFM the company and its financial spending then BLP applies.  That is because there is no one in AVFM the company besides Paul Elam.  You can't differentiate off of him.  --Kyohyi (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * But we are adding content about the website/online community/online presence, its content, its activities, its online store, its attempts to raise money, etc. AVFM is notable and discussed in RS only as a website/online community/online presence. For example, the Huffington Post is obviously also a company beside being a website, but nobody would ever suggest that The Huffington Post is a BLP and that statements about the website are indistinguishable from statements about Arianna Huffington or the other founders. AVFM is not the same as its founder. Please come up with something more convincing than the BLP angle. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * But you are also adding content which cannot be differentiated from Paul Elam. Read the Diff, that's your words.  Paul controls the money flow, so you can't question the money flow without questioning him.  If you are saying AVFM is spending money in a bad way, you are saying Paul is spending money in a bad way.  If people are questioning how AVFM spends money, then they are questioning how Paul spends the money.  It isn't because Paul is the founder, it's because he's the only person in the company.  A Voice For Men, the company, is Paul Elam.  --Kyohyi (talk) 20:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * RS are questioning what AVFM (not a specific person X) is doing with donations. Everyone involved with the website is welcome to answer, whether it's the founder, the managing editor Dean Esmay, chief information officer David King, chief marketing officer Peter Wright, or any of dozens of activists and hundreds of contributors who are involved with the site's workings. And absolutely no, I am not saying that "AVFM is spending money in a bad way." If you absolutely must attack a straw man, do it with someone else rather than waste my time. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * My apologies for using the term 'you' it was not meant to be a direct statement, but a generic you more like "someone". However the point you seem to be consistently missing, is that questioning AVFM about financials is no different than questioning Paul Elam about financials.  Paul has set up the company so that he is the only one in control of such things, so while you might think that Dean, or David, or any of the other activists involved in the running of the site could have input, they cannot.  That is because the financials are through AVFM the company, not AVFM the site, and while AVFM the company pays for AVFM the site, they aren't the same thing.  --Kyohyi (talk) 21:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The money is raised online, as in one the website, with many people involved in the fundraisers. You assume that the RS share your opinion of the founder's omnipotence concerning every decision and only pretend to discuss AVFM. But they don't. I do not know how you could possibly have arrived at the conclusion that a page about a very popular website is a BLP but maybe you'll have more success convincing others. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, so what, exactly, is the BLP non-compliant content, here? I don't understand the complaint about the BuzzFeed article other than that it's extremely unflattering. Everyone seems to agree, including Elam himself, that Elam has financial control of the site. He has made this statement himself, and sources have commented on it. We use unflattering sources all the time, including for BLPs. Being unflattering is not, by itself, a valid complaint against a source. What is it about this source that makes it unusable? What are the statements in the article you object to, and why? Grayfell (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * First we can make sure we can quote correctly, and with proper context. I know you, Grayfell, have helped with that on the article talk page here [].  However, Sonicyouth has repeatedly asserted that BLP doesn't apply on that page. [], [].  To answer your question, the non-compliant content is the Buzzfeed piece on its face.  Under BLP We should be using High-Quality reliable sources. What's more per WP: ELBLP we need to take consideration of BLP with what we're linking to.  And that Buzzfeed piece isn't merely unflattering, it's a hit piece which has delved into Paul's personal history in an attempt to smear him.  If it were a piece about an organization it would be fine, but we expect better than Tabloid journalism on BLP content. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The editor who started this section has not only been banned for edit warring, but had their ban extended for coming back as an IP account to continue to revert towards their intended version of the article. I do not believe this section was started in good faith. PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Finances
I removed this statement from the article. The claim in wikipedia's voice that all donations to the website "A Voice for Men" go to the founder's personal finances is not supported by the source. Relevant source text quoted below (link.)

Neither the subject nor the article's author imply donations go to his "personal finances." Personal finances would cover personal vacations, movie theater tickets - it's a stretch to suggest this is what he meant by "it [goes to] advancing the cause", especially in a BLP. Despite this, there was prior consensus among three editors to include this statement in our article (link) and my removal was reverted. I suggest this violates BLP and misrepresents the source. José Antonio Zapato (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Can someone explain to me why we need two separate sections on this article here? It fucks with the navigation.  Why is this being reverted?  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In what way does it break navigation? The link for each is distinct. EmonyRanger (talk) 17:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Section target, from one's watchlist. There's no justification for two separate sections; can someone else please combine them. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to harp on this but the section links for each are distinct - one ends with #A_Voice_for_Men, the other ends with #A_Voice_for_Men_2. And the original filer, who is now blocked, has listed this second (distinct) link in multiple places. It seems only unhelpful to break links he has no ability to correct. EmonyRanger (talk • contribs) 18:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You don't understand the point I'm making, do you? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I added "II" to the section header. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, thats very reasonable. Can I ask that you hat this discussion so it doesn't distract from the intent of the post? EmonyRanger (talk) 19:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Sama Raena Alshaibi
Biography has undergone a recent expansion, much of which was blatantly promotional, and likely involved COI accounts. It has been cleaned up, but needs further work, and is prone to continued addition of promotional text. More copy editing, more eyes, and watchlisting this will be appreciated. 2602:302:D88:E9B9:A53E:478:C58B:2E69 (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

List of people indicted in the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
The list includes details on charges, trials, and sentences for everyone indicted by the ICTY. A current editor is removing alleged crimes for those who have had their indictments withdrawn (and only for this group) on the reasoning that since no trial happened it would be prejudicial to show what crimes they were indicted for. I know in the past we have had complaints about the article being incomplete if it didn't fill in all the blanks, as it were. I don't have a strong opinion but would lean toward including the information (which is still available from the linked case files in any case). Do the more experienced eyes at this noticeboard know of a standard way to handle this or similar cases? Rmhermen (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Formal court-issued indictments for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the like, are pretty damn notable/noteworthy even if no conviction was ever obtained in the legal proceedings. Omitting the indictments for such crimes from the referenced list article amounts to white-washing history.  These are not trivial, unimportant or even marginal legal matters -- unlike the non-convictions for juvenile crimes, traffic infractions, non-felony drug possession, etc., we so often omit from Wikipedia biographies per WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT concerns.  In the case of war crimes indictments by the ICC, I believe such matters should absolutely be referenced in these persons' biographical articles in a NPOV manner and without presuming guilt.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Having now reviewed the cumulative edits that have been made to this article over the past week, I see no major problems here, and the changes include the sourced updating of the current status of pending cases and subsequent appeals, early releases, deaths, etc., listed in this article. (See .)  In fact, it appears User:Rms125a@hotmail.com is doing a pretty respectable job of bringing this list up to date.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Beatriz Fuentes Lugo.pdf
commons:File:Beatriz Fuentes Lugo.pdf

The biography of Beatriz Fuentes Lugo.pdf was placed by mistake. That contains private information such as address and telephone number of this person, could you please delete that at once. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beafuenteslugo (talk • contribs) 21:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The file was uploaded to Commons, so you will have to ask for it to be deleted there.--ukexpat (talk) 03:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Rutvik Oza
The biography of the Rutvik Oza is a complete work of fiction. He is not a co-writer of any one of the films that he claims to be. He is using this fake wikipedia biography to get him name added in the credits on IMDb as well. He succeeded initially but IMDb has finally deleted all his credits. It's time wikipedia did so. You can check the links he has submitted and verify his credentials yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanyukta77 (talk • contribs) 11:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Trimmed out all the unsourced stuff. --Neil N  talk to me 13:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Victor Polishchuk
Can someone who reads Russian and/or Ukranian review the sources linked in this article, especially for the "scandals" section? I've done some general ce and cleanup but am concerned that the article is poorly sourced. Input/advice welcome! Fyddlestix (talk) 14:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)