Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive226

Trevor Graham
This article has been mentioned here before. In light of this legal threat, could I ask others to make sure the article is all in order. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not a great article, but this is one of those cases in which the great weight of the reliable sourcing is negative. What the article needs most is expansion to deal with the subject's full career - he's a Olympic medalist and was a noted track coach before being swept up into the doping scandals - but the overwhelming majority of sourcing I could find is along the lines of what is in the article now. I have watchlisted it though. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  02:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Not that it has a great deal of import on the above, but there are an awful lot of "red-links" in the references. Doesn't give the impression of much of a quality article. Eagleash (talk) 04:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure those are just a formatting error. I'll see if I can fix it. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I just don't/didn't have the time to go into it just at the moment. Thanks. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 04:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Refs fixed. And having looked at the refs more carefully, isn't this list synthesis? It seems like it's meant to give readers the impression that all/most of the athletes he trained ended up testing positive, but (as far as I can tell) no one source specifically says that, or lists all of those athletes. A lot of the sources for the individual athletes don't even mention Graham or Sprint Capitol. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Quick work! I'm sure that would have taken me hours to sort. And yes I agree the list could easily be misinterpreted. Eagleash (talk) 04:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've removed the list for now, happy to discuss/revert if anyone has a good reason for keeping it. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Andrew Luster
Reads like a tabloid biopic. Minimal citations. Later in life, he was referred to as the bored trust fund kid by neighbors. He attended college classes in Santa Barbara but dropped out before earning a degree. He spent most of his time surfing and fishing. He was known for neighborhood antics and mischief before his arrest for rape. He put Super Glue on the locks of a neighbor's house; shot a stranger's car with a paintball gun when the stranger parked in front of his home; and smeared surf wax all over the windshield of an ex-girlfriend's car. Et cetera. causa sui (talk) 07:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The referencing in the "Arrest and conviction" section is appallingly bad - paragraph after paragraph of uncited material. It needs to be heavily edited to comply with WP:BLP.--ukexpat (talk) 13:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've removed the unsourced, POV passage quoted above, and TNT'd the "arrest and conviction" section, substituting a concise & reliably sourced description of his crime and conviction. I hope to have time to fill out the article with more details later (there are plenty of sources out there that could be used to add to the article). No time to do it right now now, hopefully someone will beat me to it! Fyddlestix (talk) 18:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Nice work. Will need eyes on this to make sure it sticks.--ukexpat (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I can't believe it's the same article I'm reading. Well done. --causa sui (talk) 01:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

ruth negga
my name is not jane and has never been!
 * Appears to be old, old vandalism that was never fixed. Removed and watchlisted. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Greg Hardy
Article keeps getting rearranged to blame the victim of domestic assault. Very one-sided article. This has been noted (not by me) on the talk page since July 17th. Needs fixing and watching. Bellicist (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There is far too much detail re that incident. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah that was pretty terrible - POV, sourced to tweets and primary sources, misleading. I've made an attempt to fix it but more eyes/input would be very welcome. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Alleged Clinton Controversies
See Alleged Clinton Controversies and Articles for deletion/Alleged Clinton Controversies. A lot of the discussion concerns possible BLP violations, so I think it's appropriate to notify people here about it. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I came here for the same reason. Significant concern at AfD about this article, which never should have been approved at Articles for Creation. —Мандичка YO 😜 13:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Ice-T
I'm not sure this is the right forum, but is there any way to remove racist comments from Talk:Ice-T? User AzseicsoK, who goes by Uporządnicki, is claiming Barack Obama won the Novel Peace Prize because he is black, and then compares him to Hitler. . Also, is there any way of formally warning the user not to make racist comments on talk pages? --Tenebrae (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I should have left out the remarks, and I will not add to them. But they were in no way racist.Uporządnicki (talk) 21:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * An admin disagrees with that, and has removed them. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Uporządnicki, I removed the thread without archiving it because the attitude in the comments appears racist, and I don't want them visible for the casual reader to see. That might not have been your intention but they came across that way to this uninvolved editor/administrator. It is extremely important for editors on Wikipedia to consider how that their remarks appear to others. We need to be welcoming to people of all races. Thanks for understanding. (I didn't rev/del since Pres. Obama was the target and I don't think it is necessary.) Sydney Poore/FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 22:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Alan Jackson
It says hes dead, can this be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.78.251 (talk) 19:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks to have been fixed. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Alejandro betancourt (not yet resolved)
The below conversation was archived before any administrator had the chance to take a look at it. Righteousskills (talk) 21:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I would appreciate extra eyes and help to settle an issue with the BLP of a president of a Venezuelan power plant construction company: Alejandro Betancourt López.

The issue is over this edition The content is referenced by an article published by the WSJ which is of course a very reliable source, El Pais, a Spanish newspaper also quoted the WSJ article as it source and reproduced its contents, but I think the information should not be included in the BLP so I posted the following reasons on the talk page of the article: I asked for new reliable sources to reference if the BLP is under an actual investigation since the article was published almost a year ago. Since I received no answer, a few days latter I removed the content I deemed non encyclopedic for the BLP due to reasons mentioned above. In the past I have reverted several questionable contributions from righteousskills ( see summary on his talk page). One of this contributions was adding to the lead that the subject of the BLP was under a criminal investigation using that same source. The article was protected and the editor was reminded of WP:OR by an administrator (see at the end of this section) More than a month after my edit was done righteousskills added it back without any previous discussion of the matter in the talk page. He also added an unrelated reference and a phrase already covered elsewhere in the article. I reverted it twice asking him to reach a consensus first before changing the article. He has ignored my requests and added the content again. Even though this is not a very relevant article for the encyclopedia, I would appreciate it if someone could take the time to look into this in detail. I think it is worth a look because Derwick Associates's page has been edited by at least one paid editor (see here) on behalf of the company and various sock puppets have been uncovered. On the other hand it also had various IP's proxies blocked that were doing negative contributions very similar to those of righteousskills on both the company and the BLP (this are some accounts: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) (see diff). Righteousskills after a year and a half of inactivity, requested an IP block exemption claiming he could be hacked (see here). After that he created or contributed on all the pages related to the WSJ article before it was published, and then did clearly biased contributions like (this edit) in all those articles just the moment it got published. I can't prove if this is the case, but while one civil suit for defamation with charges of bribery against the company and the BLP has been dismissed, there is another one that is still active, so there might be economical interests at play for both sides. I try to reach consensus whenever possible, but in this case we may be dealing with a conflict of interests. so I would appreciate it if other editors that want to invest their time could take care of this one. Thank you.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The primary source are anonymous people that according to the WSJ are familiar with the matter. There is no claim it was checked with authorities.
 * Those anonymous sources claimed in the article that Derwick Associates, not the BLP was under preliminary investigations back in august of 2014.
 * They also claimed that an actual investigation on the company might or might not be launched.
 * WSJ also published that a lawyer on behalf of the company denied having been contacted by any authorities.
 * The information could be misinterpreted to assume that the subject of the BLP, who is not a public figure, is under an investigation so it should be removed per WP:BLPCRIME
 * The information is already included in Derwick Associates's page where it's more relevant.
 * Isn't THIS the pot calling the kettle black now isn't it? Please refrain from this accusatory tone if you would like me to do the same. Any administrators viewing this should take note that the now blocked editor, FergusM1970, and the vast majority of the now blocked socks, made edits in line with Crystallizedcarbon's.
 * I will place my same talk page comments here to reiterate my points.


 * Here http://pubsys.miamiherald.com/2014/03/27/4023508/lawsuit-filed-in-miami-accuses.html : "The lawsuit, filed against Derwick Associates Corporation, Derwick Associates USA, and their owners, alleges that tens of millions of dollars were paid under the table to high-ranking Venezuelan officials in exchange for their acceptance of overpriced invoices from the companies."
 * And here translated from Spanish: http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2014/08/09/actualidad/1407540747_507459.html : "Perhaps the most representative bolichicos are the young owners of the utility Derwick -Peter Trebbau Alejandro Lopez and Alejandro Betancourt who have been subject to fierce scrutiny by public opinion....The newspaper The Wall Street Journal on Friday joined a new headache for them. Federal and state prosecutors in New York are investigating the company, which became one of the leading import and construction of power plants during the government of Hugo Chavez, for possible violations of banking laws of the state and the payment of bribes for advantages to doing business, prohibited by Corrupt Practices Act Abroad..... The US investigates whether excessive profit margins may have hidden reported paying bribes to foreign officials."
 * And here http://www.wsj.com/articles/venezuelan-energy-company-derwick-investigated-in-u-s-1407516278 : "The lawsuit alleges Derwick and the company's owners, among others, obtained contracts to build power stations in return for paying multimillion-dollar bribes to senior Venezuelan officials."
 * And here http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324635904578640351169881218 : "A former top U.S. diplomat filed a lawsuit against three young Venezuelan businessmen whom he accuses of bribing senior Venezuelan officials in exchange for contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars."
 * Its pretty clear that the investigation are into both the company AND its owners. And to reiterate, 11 months is not that long for investigations like this. It often takes a decade for decisions to be reached.
 * Another important item to recognize is that Reich's civil suit was dismissed due to jurisdiction. Righteousskills (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, It seems that you are deliberately trying to mix the two separate civil suits that do involve the BLP and the company with the preliminary investigations claims that involve only the company.
 * Both those civil suits mention the company and the BLP and are included in the Controversies and legal disputes section of the article. The first dismissed and the second one is still ongoing.
 * The alleged preliminary investigation claimed by the anonymous sources only mention the company, Never the BLP. As I just mentioned el Pais just cites the WSJ as its source and also mentions the company and not the BLP as the target of the possible investigation.
 * You were already told this almost a year ago by an administrator that labeled your claim that the BLP was under investigation as WP:OR (see at the end of this section) you were asked to find a reference to source your claim and your answer from August of last year was that you will continue looking into it. There is no new evidence to indicate that any investigation is taking place on the company let alone the BLP.
 * It is only this last paragraph that should be removed following WP:BLPCRIME recommendations including the last phrase you added to the paragraph trying to mix it again with the open civil suit since it is already mentioned in that section.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I forgot to mention that I of course encourage any user to review our respective contributions to both pages. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe you are confusing incidents. The content you removed roughly a month ago was not what was in question over a year ago. Righteousskills (talk) 23:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It was that same information sourced from the same referece. At that time the information you and the now blocked IPs inserted was that the BLP was under criminal investigation. you were told by an admin that inferring that the BLP was under investigation by authorities using the existing sources at that time was WP:OR. Your claim when referring to the WSJ material was "...Criminal investigations are into the executives of the company! Civil suites can be into a company, but criminal means that charges would be against persons..." and a few answers latter your were told "There is no current RS that states Betancourt is under criminal investigation, yet you believe there is reason to state Betancourt is under investigation? WP:OR wants to have a word with you. I haven't read of any allegations that Betancourt personally committed bribery, corruption, banking violations or any other crimes (except by you). Huon (talk) 03:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)". And the paragraph was reworded eliminating the explicit mention of the BLP as the target of the claimed preliminary investigation. At the end you agreed to continue looking into it.
 * I have restored the article to follow WP:BLPCRIME recommendations pending any new input from experienced editors or administrators.
 * I ask you to please refrain from adding back the controversial information until it is determined here if it conforms to the recommendations of our policy, or until you can find a reliable source to establish your claim that the BLP (not the company) is under an actual investigation by federal or state prosecutors. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, you are confusing incidents and edits. What you removed in May of this year was not the same as what was done a year ago. Righteousskills (talk) 22:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Allegations by anonymous or unnamed persons are rarely a great idea in any BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Covered in The Wall Street Journal ? And these are not allegations from anonymous people; anonymous people reported the the US Justice Department is investigating. Theres a substantial difference there. Righteousskills (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Not yet resolved. Righteousskills (talk) 21:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the content meets our standards for inclusion. The reasons given by Crystallizedcarbon above are weak at best.  A high-profile investigation of a company is relevant to the biography of that company's CEO.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That does not seem to be the case. What the RS reported is that Anonymous sources claim that the company was a year ago under a preliminary investigation. They also said that it may or may not become an actual investigation. Those allegations were denied by the company itself, and there have not been any news in the last year to substantiate that an actual investigation did or is taking place on the company.
 * According to WP:NOT Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of events, a possible future investigation denied by the company is newsworthy but it is not necessarily suitable for inclusion. Still, it is included in the company page, on top of the questionable enduring notability there is the issue that the editor that pushes for its inclusion insisted adamantly that the text infers as well a criminal investigation into the BLP himself. WP:BLPCRIME should be followed pending any new and more tangible sources. I also agree with Collect. The primary source of the article is anonymous so it is not a good idea to use it in this BLP regardless of who they claim may be investigating or which reliable source reproduces their claims.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * WSJ is not anonymous. Please stop accusing anyone of "pushing". Your edits could be called the same thing; especially since I am arguing the page stay untouched and you are the one who wants it altered.  Righteousskills (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Killing of Cecil the lion
I want to hear whether other editors think the name of the man who killed the lion as described in the article Killing of Cecil the lion should be named in the article. Currently he is not. However, he has been named in reliable sources such as CNN and the New York Times. There is also little doubt that he did it as both of the sources I just linked to state that he admitted to killing the lion. Everymorning  talk  19:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPNAME and WP:BLPCRIME and WP:1E makes me think it should be excluded, at least for the time being.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 19:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * He's actually now said he's sorry he did it? Although his whereabouts are unknown, he's made no attempt to conceal his identity, employing a PR company to act for him? WP:BLPCRIME might be relevant, but even this seems very marginal. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm in favor of including his name. He's admitted to the killing and written an apology, making him a notable person himself. Pkeets (talk) 21:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's very doubtful that he committed a crime. No, admitting to killing a lion does not make someone a notable person. StAnselm (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's doubtful at all, given that two people have already appeared in court over it. I think his name should be included simply because I can't see a reason not to include it. He is named all over the place already. It's patently a notable event and he is an integral part of it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, he hasn't appeared in court or been charged with a crime. As to the notability of the event, it looks like the AfD is fairly evenly split on this at the moment. StAnselm (talk) 22:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's even a small stretch to suggest that if he'd still been in Zimbabwe, he'd have joined his friends in court. He might be wishing he'd done that, in fact. The idea that the other two would have been charged and he not is at best, fanciful. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I would strongly suggest that editors do not knee-jerk into naming the hunter. Given the current AfD, this could possibly result in deletion of the article.  The article, I believe, will get through AfD as it stands, but if it names the person, it will open up a huge can of worms - it is tortuous on WP dealing with naming living persons.  There is no hurry to name the person.  Let's get through the AfD by which time there will likely be RS we can use regarding naming the person  - if we feel that is necessary for the article. DrChrissy (talk) 22:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with a single mention of the American hunter's name in the "Killing of Cecil" article, as long as the names of the two Zimbabwean guides are also included, there is a well-sourced and factual account of what allegedly happened, and we deal with this as an "alleged crime," not as if the parties have already been convicted. I will adamantly oppose a stand-alone article for the American hunter at this time, because I believe he is non-notable and this clearly falls under the WP:BIO1E exception at this time: the hunter is a dentist from Minnesota, and you don't get much more non-notable than that. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Include the name. This "hunter", according to the BBC, NBC. CBS and the New York Times, is already a convicted felon for illegal hunting in the US and lying to cover it up. He's also essentially pled nolo contendere and paid a large settlement in a sexual harassment case. There's no reason to go out of our way to "protect" a guy who's already achieved deserved international infamy. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Include the name. He made a statement to the national media admitting he "took" (his word) the lion. And of course mention the guides who were arrested &mdash; their names have appeared on international news broadcasts and the most staid newspapers in the world. While I do have to say that "the hunter is a dentist from Minnesota, and you don't get much more non-notable than that" is a really funny line &mdash; sincerely; kudos &mdash; Palmer in addition to his statement is one of the most notorious figures on the planet. That makes him notable. He had no expectation of privacy long before now. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The killer is some pathetic loser with a rifle. Let's not give him any more publicity than he has bought already. Maybe that is what he is looking for. The newspapers and the courts can go after him. We should focus on the event and outcome. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Note AfD was closed as speedy keep. Wikipedia is not censored.  I don't particularly want to give this sad excuse of an individual notability, but that is NOT a valid reason for excluding relevant information.  And lets face it, the bottom line is that this individual did the deed and should be named in the article.  Of course, he should NOT have a separate article for himself, but should be named in the main Cecil article. Safiel (talk) 01:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, he should be referred to as a poacher, not hunter. Safiel (talk) 01:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sources don't use that term.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 02:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Walter James Palmer killed Cecil the lion. To name him in "Killing of Cecil the lion" seems about as prudent as naming the lion. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The notable name here is Cecil. If Dr. Palmer had killed a random lion with proper permits, there wouldn't be a story. (I don't personally believe Palmer's version of events, but this wouldn't be a story if it was just a random poaching.) --Onorem (talk) 02:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And if Cecil just continued walking about, doing lion stuff, he'd be as notable as Ronald Goldman walking about, doing waiter stuff. Just like in any article about humans killing humans, the perpetrator is the one who makes the thing happen. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * What if his story is true? I don't believe it, but why should we rush to crucify him. You don't like hunting and that's fine, but it happens and they issue permits for lions in that country. Why rush? --Onorem (talk) 03:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to crucify anyone. I thought his story was that he killed/"took" Cecil. Even if I liked hunting, I'd still like Wikipedia to relay the facts on time. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If it was a legal hunt, nobody (on a newsworthy scale) would care that he killed/"took" a random lion. This lion was supposedly already well known. Comparing him to Goldman is just silly. --Onorem (talk) 03:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be so sure about that. Social media outrage (which drives TV outrage these days) doesn't give a shit about legalities. When a cop legally kills a black in America, we write the article and name him, because the news does. Some of the sources are already hyping a #CatLivesMatter hashtag. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * How many lions are poached every year? How many do we have articles about? You're going into cop killings now...I'm definitely done. Enjoy your evening. I have no interest trying to have a rational discussion with you. --Onorem (talk) 03:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not about whether a lion is poached. It's about whether the story is covered significantly by secondary sources. 99% of the time, they aren't. This time, it was. So this one gets the article. Articles should be informative.
 * The parallel between this and cop killings works on that level, too. I didn't start the hashtag or choose this particular lion as the sympathetic babyface. Just reflecting the media. Touchy subject, but that doesn't make me a loon (the Goldman connection might). InedibleHulk (talk) 04:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * His story is that he hired a guide for the hunt and thought everything was legal. --Onorem (talk) 03:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

There are absolutely no journalistic grounds to exclude the shooter's name — especially if attributed. "…identified by multiple news agencies, including the New York Times and AP as …" He is obviously notable, and he has issued a statement about the incident. The references on the page are filled with his name. This is silly discussion at would end in a professional newsroom in about six seconds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.186.253.219 (talk) 02:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Reminder - Please set your personal feelings about the individual aside when considering Wikipedia's BLP policy.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 02:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, thousands of people kill for fun every day. They all suck. Doesn't matter. This guy is notable because his thrill kill received massive public attention. Without him, the article wouldn't exist, and Cecil wouldn't be famous, either. Just Zimbabwe famous. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The lion's out of the bag on this one. Even Jimmy Kimmel is naming him.  The reaction to the shooter and his background is a big part of the story, and the shooter himself released a statement.    Gamaliel  ( talk ) 02:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * There is precedent for dentists from Minnesota becoming notable in Rudy Perpich, if anyone was wondering. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Include the name. This isn't a close question. Townlake (talk) 03:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not a random dentist who is the BLP1E victim of internet outrage. This is a man who has spent many years working to achieve a public reputation as a championship, world class bow hunter. The New York Times published an lengthy profile of him six years ago, after he killed an unusually large Tule Elk about 20 miles from where I live. That article noted his previous conviction for falsifying the details of killing a bear in 2008. Though we should not "pile on", of course his name should be mentioned. He sought publicity, and now he has it. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I think we should include the name. It is has high encyclopedic value to the article and most importantly it is verifiable. Because this is already published widely we are not doing damage. Chillum 04:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * calls for righteous revenge do not override WP:BLP . No one has been convicted of a crime. Wikipedia does not need to participate in the propagation of internet hate campaigns. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  04:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't say he committed a crime, or that we hate him or any of that. Just that he killed the lion featured in the article about a killed lion. Pretty basic info. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Include Not even close. Published in multiple high-end reliable sources (NY Times, BBC, etc.), and the individual has specifically acknowledged the act in question so there is no issue of a possibly false allegation. As noted by Cullen328 the individual is well-known as a game hunter and appears to have actively sought publicity in that regard, so there is no question of invasion of privacy. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Include I see no reason to exclude.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Include A quick run through Google news shows literally thousands of articles describing Cecil's killer by his name. The most famous dentist in Mineesota has admitted as much. Jimmy Kimmel just spent 4 minutes of his momologue describing what happened, and included the dentist's name, as well as three or four pictures of "the dentist".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.58.150.217 (talk) 07:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Include per Cullen. He's publically recognized in the subject area prior to this incident, he's been covered by the press before, and he's made no attempt to make this part of his private life. I cringe to think of all the asinine stuff coming his way but this is clear cut for me. GraniteSand (talk) 08:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Include. Palmer has self-identified and is named in hundreds of reliable sources. WWGB (talk) 10:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Include - no BLP issues here. GiantSnowman 10:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Include – as the good doctor has already admitted he shot the lion and written an apology, so there aren't any BLP issues, plus he's in reliable sources too. Spaghetti07205 (talk) 10:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Remove - WP:BLPCRIME applies here. He's relatively unknown to the outside world other than this incident.  And seeing that Zimbabwe is saying what happened is a crime, we should not be including his name at this time. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you actually read WP:BLPCRIME, or are you simply assuming what it must say? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course I read it, and the relevant sentence is "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured". Right now this killing is being considered an illegal poaching in Zimbabwe, that's in our article.  He's relatively unknown so we shouldn't be including his name.  The same goes for guides. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Relatively unknown" is not a phrase that should be applied to someone previously profiled in a national newspaper like The New York Times. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 15:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Being profiled once? Do we have enough to make an article out of him outside this incident?  Compared to the celebrities who are gossiping about this he's not known.  What's more the profile is from six years ago.  And nothing since.  Yeah, still relatively unknown.  --Kyohyi (talk) 15:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Include If we have an article on the incident, it makes no sense not to include his name. WP:BLPCRIME does not apply. --Neil N  talk to me 15:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Include True, Wally Palmer hasn’t been convicted; but he has admitted “taking” Cecil. What should perhaps be excluded, however, is the interesting factoid that, reversing the roles of traditional dentist-patient dialogue, Cecil’s last words when the shot went in were “just a little prick.” Writegeist (talk) 16:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Include per Cullen328 and others. We look like navel-gazing idiots when we try to suppress such content. (That's not directed at anyone in particular and certainly not the OP who raised the concern in good faith.) - MrX 17:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Include It is impossible to not read on the killing of Cecil and not find the name. It is not like we're talking TMZ levels of investigation to dig it out if the man personally has kept it quiet, and add that the man has made statements to explain his side of the situation without masking his identity. However, keeping the article named as such ("Killing of Cecil the Lion", or perhaps "Cecil the Lion" is the correct course of action and the man's name should be a redirect to that. --M ASEM (t) 17:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm very much on the fence here; I think our BLP policy gives us reason enough to exclude it. But there's some really not good arguments here. An IP editor says "it's bad journalism not to include"--that's totally wrong. It may be bad American journalism not to, but this is not America. NeilN, I do not agree at all that BLPCRIME does not apply because we have an article on the lion; again, that strikes me as very US-centric. On the other hand, makes a lot of sense, as he usually does, and of course we're being passed on the right by the internetz. That latter point really ought to be meaningless but it helps create the atmosphere in which everything is notable--YouTubers, the word "Cuckservative", lion-killing dentists, White House party-crashing socialites, socialites who are friends with socialites, and anyone related to any Kardashian. If it were up to me, I'd exclude the name, knowing full well that I'd look like a troglodyte dragging his/her knuckles through the dusty remains of...books. Drmies (talk) 17:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I favor including the name, as he has admitted to doing the deed and it has received widespread attention, including an article today in the New York Times on the aftermath, giving his name as the "killer of Cecil". Given that his name has been mentioned in reliable sources as associated with this event and he has issued a statement concerning it, I see no BLP issue here at all. Coretheapple (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is a quote from the Times story today: "In the hours since Dr. Walter J. Palmer apologized for killing the lion, he has gone from a dentist and longtime hunting enthusiast to a villain at the center of a firestorm over the ethics of big-game trophy hunting." Coretheapple (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that chihuahua certainly looks like it means business. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Do not include. We should not be piling on. The protests are stupid enough. He is basically an unknown person. Hysteria has erupted over the death of an animal. Just an animal. Not even a human being. And the animal seems to have been killed in some kind of a mix-up that was not orchestrated by this individual. And he has apologized for any part he inadvertently played in that error. Wikipedia should be principled on this question. We have policy against disclosing names of low profile individuals. Bus stop (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Include. Mentioning his name is not "piling on". It is good that we exercise caution in cases like this, but as his name has been widely disseminated, it won't really matter if we censor it. Here in Minnesota there have been people gathering outside of his offices yesterday and today.  gobonobo  + c 22:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * My comment was removed. Fair enough. We still have policies that should be respected: WP:BLPNAME, WP:BLPCRIME, and WP:1E. Bus stop (talk) 22:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Just an animal? Lions are endangered, but it seems that American dentists were not, at least until quite recently. A notable turnaround perhaps. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I care about animals but the distinction is hardly negligible between other creatures and human creatures. Bus stop (talk) 23:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I quite agree. Humans tend to be disproportionately destructive, don't they? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It is hilarious. Individually and in groups, humans commit a wide ranging assortment of atrocities—often with little consequence. This guy kills one lion and the global community is ready to penalize him seemingly without limit. I think they would hang him from a lamppost if they could. Bus stop (talk) 23:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Rick Perry
With the presidential silly season now gearing up to full throttle, it seems important to ask that our policies and guidelines be respected to a minimal degree. I don't think that's happening at this BLP, and so some opinions from experienced editors would be appreciated. User:MrX thinks it would be a good idea to delete all reference to his presidential candidacy (i.e. the primary source of his current notabilty) from the lead paragraph. That's contrary to how it's done at many other BLPs now (e.g. see Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Lindsey Graham,John Kasich, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker all of which put their presidential candidacies in the lead paragraph) and also contrary to Manual_of_Style/Biographies which says:

[T]he opening paragraph should establish notability, neutrally describe the person, and provide context. The opening paragraph should usually have…. The notable positions the person held, activities they took part in or roles they played; Why the person is notable….[A]void overloading the lead sentence with various sundry roles; instead, emphasize what made the person notable. Incidental and non-notable roles (i.e. activities that are not integral to the person's notability) should usually not be mentioned in the lead paragraph.

Typical format is to provide an overview in the lead paragraph, and then some more details in the rest of the lead. Thus, the Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders BLPs mention their presidential candidacy in the lead paragraph, and then provide a bit more detail at the end of the lead. Entirely removing a presidential candidacy from a lead paragraph seems very odd and improper.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * This is not really a BLP policy issue and I really wish you wouldn't misrepresent my position. I am fine with mentioning the subject's candidacy in the first paragraph, provided that we don't repeat the same information in the second, third or fourth paragraph of the lead. We are not writing newspaper articles after all. I refer you to these examples: John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Dennis Kucinich, Chris Dodd, Rudy Giuliani, and many, many more like it. Also consider this: if what you suggest were a project-wide convention, how do you explain the absence of this redundant content in Rick Perry and Mike Huckabee, both 2008 US Presidential candidates?- MrX 02:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Conformity with biography guidelines at BLPs certainly is a BLP issue, and I have not misrepresented anything. You removed this information from the lead paragraph of the Perry BLP, not me, and I never remotely suggested that removal from the lead paragraph would be satisfactory.  None of the people you mention (John Edwards, etc.) is currently running for president; if you would like to investigate the leads during the 2008 or earlier presidential campaigns, feel free to investigate the page histories.  As for the Rick Perry BLP, it is about a current candidate for president, and details about the date and location of his announcement are unsuitable for the lead paragraph, but have been in a later paragraph for weeks (as in the Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders BLPs).  Having those details in a later paragraph is not the least but redundant.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * This is now the lead of Mike Huckabee, courtesy of Anythingyouwant:


 * - MrX 02:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, I object to saying in the lead paragraph that it's his "second run for the U.S. presidency". And I have removed it.  It's already evident from the preceding language, and it's also at the end of the lead.  I did not put that language into the lead paragraph, but rather MrX did.  If people want to see what I think is an acceptable Huckabee lead, see here.
 * I would also like to clarify why I came here. WP:BLP specifically requires neutrality, and nothing could be less neutral than dispensing with our biography guidelines for some living persons but not for others.  MrX is incorrect that this is the wrong venue.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The acrimony shown here between two editors about a routine content disagreement reflects poorly on both of them, in my opinion. I sincerely encourage both editors to "dial it back" in the spirit of collaboration and compromise. Whether Perry's 2016 run should be mentioned in the first or the fourth paragraph is a matter of editorial judgment, not a BLP issue. There is no need to treat all 17 announced 2016 GOP presidential candidates identically. Some are taken more or less seriously by reliable sources. Their current candidacies are more or less important in their specific life stories, depending on how reliable sources have covered them over time. We do not edit with a cookie cutter at hand. I see no real BLP issue here. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  03:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And if the presidential candidacies of Democrats are put into the lead paragraphs, but not for Republicans, then there's just no issue of BLP neutrality suitable for this notice board?Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And if the presidential candidacies of Democrats are put into the lead paragraphs, but not for Republicans, then there's just no issue of BLP neutrality suitable for this notice board?Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Irene Zisblatt
Reporting the page of Irene Zisblatt because of frequent libelous attacks by Holocaust deniers. Assaulting the integrity of Holocaust survivors will not be tolerated. I have put warning notices on the IP addresses who have attacked Ms. Zisblatt's page, and now I am reporting this to Wikipedia. Please stop Holocaust deniers from tampering with honest people's lives.Hello43r (talk) 21:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have raised this issue on Requests for page protection. - Location (talk) 03:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It appears as though it has received pending-change protection for three months. - Location (talk) 17:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Asaram appears to need a serious re-write
The page appears to be in need of a serious re-write- if anyone has a lot of time on their hands and a willingness to step into a fight between two sides who both have a righteous agenda to push. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  14:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

HolaSoyGermán
Users keep changing his birthplace from Santiago to Copiapó. References in the article support the former. A new user is now adding this as a reference - ''Servicio de Registro Civil e Identificación. Birth certificate, Circunscription of Copiapó, N° 824, 1990. Germán Alejandro Garmendia Aranis.''. They say they can email me his birth certificate. Of course that's not how things work. I decided to bring it to the attention of this noticeboard so it can be discussed and resolved, rather than engage in an edit war over it. Thank you. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Repel All Boarders  ‖ 01:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely no interest in engaging in an edit war. It came to my attention when people became fussing about this annoying YouTuber's birth place. Chilean DNIs were made publicly available in 2013 by the Electoral Service, so I searched for Garmendia, found it, requested a free certificate on the Civil Registry website, and put up the actual birthplace, date, and parents. It isn't morally acceptable, however, for me to publish the birth certificate, so that's why I urge anyone interested on seeing it, to email me. (BTW, thanks for calling me a "new user"... although I've been around since 2006) --Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 01:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We require published sources, especially for biographies of living people. Also, searching through vital records runs afoul of our policy against original research. Your simply can't use the birth certificate to make a change in the article, especially if it contradicts already present sources.- MrX 01:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * MrX, I am conscious of Wikipedia's original research policy. However, it is not good that we publish misleading information published in sources with incorrect statements, when we can use a totally reliable source. --Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 02:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not good to publish inaccurate (not misleading) information, but the arbiters of what is accurate are our sources that we have (hopefully) selected because of their reputation for fact checking. You say that the birth certificate that you found is a totally reliable souce, but it isn't according to our policies. We have no idea who you are, what your reputation for fact checking is, or if your research is subject to editorial oversight. That's why we can't use your original research.- MrX 02:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, so if you don't trust my reputation for fact checking, even when I have several GAs and two FLs, I'll give it easy for you: 2, I guess this one should be enough to prove the Civil Registry ain't no liar And here you have yet another reference for his birthplace, birth date, and more Furthermore, Garmendia himself confirms that information --Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 02:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't quite understand what your point is here. My response only concerned the reliability of a birth certificate researched by an editor. If there are other reliable sources to support your edit, you should use them.- MrX 17:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

AVDUCK defaming an entire public services union
WP:AVDUCK

Please note that a photoshopped image in this essay which attacks a group of people referred to as "advocacy ducks" includes a flock of waterfowl carrying signs that clearly show the logo of the Public and Commercial Services Union. It looks to me like this image is (whether intentionally or not) associating this union with untoward activity on Wikipedia.

I started a discussion on the talkpage: Wikipedia talk:Advocacy ducks. It seems the main author of the essay is none too pleased with the removal of the image and doesn't see the problem, claiming "No defamation there - images are CC licensed which clears them." I don't think that this is a correct reading of how CC licensing works in terms of issues like this on Wikipedia.

Thoughts?

jps (talk) 16:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I have suggested on talk page that the image be photoshopped. It would seem a simple matter to replace the small and barely visible logo with a solid blue oval. Atsme and jps, would this be an acceptable compromise to resolve this dispute?--BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Isn't it just as easy to get rid of the logo entirely? Just white out the whole thing? jps (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * sure, that works too.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

This essay is already the subject of a long and ongoing discussion at ANI. It does seem inappropriate for one of the images in an essay of this type to target a specific group like that. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Fyddlestix. The design of the signs and slogan also appear to be unique to the union, so it should be whited-out entirely if used. - Location (talk) 16:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * While I have doubts that a union falls under BLP, as it isnt a person. I have uploaded a edited image while this discussion is ongoing. AlbinoFerret  17:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it matters - an essay should not target a specific group like that, even if it's not a blp violation. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I dont think its targeting the union. A plain reading of the essay and the caption of the image shows it isnt, the logo isnt recognisable at the size in the essay. Also it appears I was correct WP:BLPGROUP. AlbinoFerret  17:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Excuse me - it's a CC 2.0 share alike image which means we can modify the image, sell it, use parts of the image in a composite, etc. as long as we credit the source which we did. Before you go casting aspersions and making unwarranted allegations, please familiarize yourself with CC licensing.  In the interim, I have modified the image even further to appease those who don't understand CC licensing.  Thank you. Atsme 📞📧 17:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This isn't a BLP issues and you folks need to quit dragging this petty dispute to multiple forums. It's becoming disruptive.- MrX 17:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, MrX. It is far more than disruptive - it's nonsensical retaliation.  I apologize for my involuntary part as the target of their childish games.  Wishing you a good day.  Atsme 📞📧 19:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Until such time as Wikipedia has a "concerns over possible defamation noticeboard", this noticeboard is the closest thing we have to a venue for discussing such matters. jps (talk) 12:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a content dispute, or more specifically a wikimedia image dispute. This should have been discussed and resolved on the talk page.Martinlc (talk) 14:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Everything discussed on this board is a content dispute. jps (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Nathan Gill- violations need whitewashing
An anonymous editor has just placed unfounded and uncited serious personal allegations into this biography, which have no media or evidential substance. Can an admin please wipe the revisions? It's of a highly legal nature Thanks TF92 (talk) 20:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * is on the case--thanks, Abecedare. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Jeffrey Beall
This edit does not seem BLP compliant, so I am posting here to determine what other editors think. Everymorning  talk  02:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is a pretty obvious policy violation that seems to depend on WP:SYNTH, especially the last sentence of the lead. In fact, the article as a whole seems to have some serious NPOV issues.- MrX 03:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , in a quick glance I can't see the problem, though that linkfarm was a bit overdone. Can you tell me what specifically is bothering you? Drmies (talk) 02:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's been cleaned up a bit since then - this is the version that had more obvious problems. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, a couple of editors already took care of it.- MrX 02:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Richard Schweiker

 * (})
 * (})

Richard Schweiker has been edited to state that he died within the past few days, however, this has not been reported. - Location (talk) 05:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I also could find no source reporting this, so I've reverted this per WP:BLP; if and when a reliable source reports it, it can be easily restored. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Philly.com is now reporting. - Location (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for following up on this. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Arafat Nagi
An editor,, has created a new article about this individual who was arrested by federal authorities last week in Lackawanna, New York on suspicion of "attempting to provide material support and resources to a designated foreign terrorist organization." As I stated in my PROD of the article, "First, a presumption of innocence exists; the subject has been charged but not convicted. Second, WP:BLP1E applies. The subject is not notable for any reason other than the charges brought against him. We should not create an article for everyone the authorities arrest on suspicion of terrorism (or any other charge)." Please advise if you disagree, or if there is some other guidance that contradicts either of these points when it comes to suspected terrorists who have been charged but not convicted. <font color="#006633">General Ization <font color="#000666">Talk   23:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The editor also recited the events and assertions set forth in the federal complaint as if they were proven fact, that is without clearly attributing the statements to the complaint. I have edited the article to at least make clear that the only source for the assertions at this time is the complaint. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"><font color="#006633">General Ization  <font color="#000666">Talk   00:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * User:General Ization, thank you. I've deleted the article: you are correct. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Stephanie Seneff
Not sure about some of the recent edits to this page. Is Age of Autism a reliable source in this context? What about Agriculturesociety.com? Is it fair to say that open access journals are not part of the mainstream academic press? Everymorning  talk  19:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And I've removed them. Gross BLP violations and distortion if not outright falsification of at least one source. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't this be up at AfD?, what do you think? It seems to me that this person is only notable for writing something that was widely blasted. Drmies (talk) 02:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As the article creator, I am doubtless biased on this matter, but I suspect that an h-index of 48 on Google Scholar probably indicates notability per WP:PROF. I know this varies from field to field so I'm not sure whether it's good enough here. There is also some popular media coverage of her research here.  Everymorning   talk  02:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * To be clear, the Atlantic source isn't about glyphosate, and that's not the only thing she's known for researching. Everymorning   talk  10:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Cecil lion
At this time, this article mentions the name of the hunter, the name of his practice (name of his business), his state, and his profession. The hunter has admitted to the killing, so of course his name is properly cited. But his personal business?

All this, for a person who has been convicted of no crime, and who is merely accused on the say-so of some third world NGO which has already benefited to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars, and of some government officials of the same country.

Zimbabwe, really, look up its Wikipedia page: its president has been the same since 1980, and, according to the Wikipedia lede, Zimbabwe has a "problematic human rights record and substantial economic decline."

Is this how Wikipedia treats BLP of an accused person convicted of no crime? — Preceding unsigned comment added by XavierItzm (talk • contribs) 08:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * A vast range of sources name his business. This is the basis for our doing so as well.  As for "convicted of no crime", you might want to read a bit more closely.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The article is about Cecil the lion, not about bears. Is there no presumption of innocence in Wikipedia any more with regard to BLP of persons merely accused, but not convicted?   Someone with some sense has deleted the name of the hunter's business, but a picture of it remains, disturbingly specifying the exact type of business.  Profession and state remains, even though the accusations are irrelevant to such identifying items.  XavierItzm (talk) 01:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * There is absolutely no justification for including this living person's business address, irrespective of whether or not other sources have included it. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 01:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The justification is precisely that many sources have included it... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not a justification for inclusion. It's random trivia of a non-encyclopedic nature.  The exact street addresses associated with famous people throughout their lives are often published in numerous RS's.  But it's very rare to find any articles that include such information. Choor monster (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The question posed in this section related to the name of his practice, not the street address. I agree with not including the address, but the name of the practice merits inclusion.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My apologies, someone above got this off-track. Meanwhile, my point remains.  That many RS mention a point of trivia is not grounds by itself for inclusion.  If there were some obvious connection between his business and the killing (say he ran a tourist agency, rifle range, taxidermy shop) I could see the relevance.  As is, it remains pointless trivia.  Name, occupation, vaguely pinpointed residence location, seem the usual encyclopedic bits of information.  More than that, I don't see how it adds to the article. Choor monster (talk) 22:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Given that his business has been named, the type of business it is, and that he is losing business and that there is strong social criticism that is part of driving his clients away - all which are readily cited without to do almost any work in looking for reputable sources - means it's reasonable to include. Address of the business, absolutely not, just like a home address. --M ASEM (t) 23:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * No where do I see his business address given or the name of the business mentioned. Just the state, and Minnesota is quite large. This has been discussed heavily on Talk:Cecil (lion). Palmer's occupation was removed from the lead and relegated to the article itself. I don't see a problem with the article's current state. I would object to any inclusion of an address or name of business though.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 23:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The name of the business has since been removed even though user Nomoskedasticity wrote above on 16:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC) that he was OK with including it. Nonetheless, a picture of said business remains, indicating the type of business and the state.  Sad. XavierItzm (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's called a compromise position... StAnselm (talk) 09:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The picture of said business remains as protestors made it into a shrine to the lion. Whether you think that's also "sad" is another question? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The image does not display the name of the business, its address, or any other sensitive information. All the the signs shown are non threatening and devoid of any sensitive information. But it does display the extend of the response. Seems like an appropriate photo to me.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 11:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion the name, location etc of the business is undue weight for an article about a lion. However an image of the shrine to the lion does appear to reasonable as it is directly related to the topic at hand and as others have mentioned it does not reveal sensitive information and is not particularly nasty relative to what is being said elsewhere. <b style="color:DarkTurquoise">Chillum</b> 15:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Stephanie Styles and Jacob Kemp


Related bios, of young Broadway actors, being edited by WP:SPA users. I've tried to de-fluff both of these, but suspect they'll require some vigilance, so any assistance will be appreciated. A lot more unsourced content can be cut from both. Thanks, 2601:188:0:ABE6:2CE7:9FE7:32F1:AC2A (talk) 21:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Will copy edit these for language tomorrow. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 23:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. 2601:188:0:ABE6:2CE7:9FE7:32F1:AC2A (talk) 00:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I nominated Jacob Kemp for deletion. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This might be related to Sockpuppet investigations/Spaghetti07205 and Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Alexey Pajitnov
Just noticed this article was edited today and something seems off about it.

A lot of random strings of letters, and claiming that he died with no source, all from an anonymous IP in Serbia with +100 already? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.29.192.185 (talk) 03:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Vandalism pure and simple, now reverted. Thanks. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"><font color="#006633">General Ization  <font color="#000666">Talk   03:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Arrest of Nicole Naugler
Could use some help figuring out what to do with this article, and keeping an eye on it. I've already done some cleanup (Before, After, Diff) since the article was in a pretty sad state when I found it (citations to facebook and infowars, wholly un-referenced allegations of sexual abuse, etc). I've basically stubbed it, but now I'm wondering if there should be an article on this at all - there is coverage that suggests notability, however the focus of that coverage seems to be the seizure of the family's children and their child-rearing philosophy rather than Nicole Naugler's arrest specifically, and most of it smacks of WP:SENSATION. I'm really not sure what airing this family's dirty laundry is supposed to provide in terms of encyclopedic value, but I'm hesitant to bring it to AFD because there's actually been quite a lot of news coverage.

Any input/advice is appreciated, and having some people watching the article would be good. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:BLP1E. The fact that the subject received "quite a lot" of news coverage for that one event (seizure of the children), which is now resolved, does not make them notable in the long term. It certainly has no long-term significance. At AfD, I would support deletion. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"><font color="#006633">General Ization  <font color="#000666">Talk   05:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Which you can do now at Articles for deletion/Arrest of Nicole Naugler.--ukexpat (talk) 12:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Precisely. Collect (talk) 13:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Liz RfA false statements by WJBscribe
Relating to page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Liz#Oppose

I made a vote on this RfA as I thought was permitted by the specified rules. Bureaucrat WJBscribe removed my vote with this comment:


 * Striking vote from sole purpose GamerGate account. It is obvious from your contributions that your agenda here relates solely to Gamergate, and you participate here (having not editing for several months) after reddit takes interest in this RfA. WJBscribe (talk) 07:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

This is not true. I had been following the RfA from the beginning, I had seen no mention of it on Reddit, and my "agenda here" includes edits to Georg Simmel and Doctor Faustus. My Gamergate-related "agenda" has been confined to getting Wikipedia to remove slanderous misrepresentations of me. Unless WJBscribe is prepared to explain how this fits with the above description, I would like these remarks removed.

If you would prefer to keep my vote out of your RfA kangaroo court, I don't really care about that. It's the false remarks that matter. Auerbachkeller (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Your first foray into Wikipedia was definitely an external issue - e.g., someone objecting to content and therefore appropriate for BLPN. As you may recall, I objected to the use of WP:FRINGE to characterize the validity of your work as a source in the context of the GG talkpage discussion. However, once you become involved in something like an RFA then this is an internal issue. Call it a personal attack or lack of good faith assumption or whatever, but not a BLP issue per se, and thus not really actionable by anyone in this noticeboard. I'm not sure what you're asking in any case - a suppression of the edit summary that doesn't even mention you directly? Since a bureaucrat removed your comment and !votes in RFAs are the purview of bureaucrats, I suggest you bring it up with and if that doesn't work then take it to WP:ANI instead. For the record, I consider it a really bad idea for you to have even touched that RFA, because for better or worse you are irremediably tied to the GG drama and the bulk of your edits so far are related to that, although I hope with time and many more helpful edits to other areas that will change. Alternatively you could just ignore a few revisions in a page that will be all but forgotten in a few days and go improve some articles instead. It helps to have a bit of a thick hide around here if you're doing anything other than building content. § FreeRangeFrog  croak 19:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If he is a registered editor, he has as much right as any other editor to comment at RfA. No one should have the right to prevent members of the community from registering their opinion. GregJackP   Boomer!   19:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

If you're smart enough to comment at RFA, you're smart enough to know this is the wrong forum for this discussion. This is not a BLP issue. Suggest someone close this. Townlake (talk) 19:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

BLP Violation by WJBScribe
I repeat my request, as the previous request was closed improperly by non-admin EvergreenFir. In keeping with BLP policy, WJBscribe's claim that I was part of a Reddit brigade in the RfA is categorically false, unsupported, and a violation of the BLP rule that "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate" in non-article space. This is not an internal matter as WJBscribe made a claim about my activity *off* of Wikipedia, namely, joining in a Reddit brigade organized outside of Wikipedia. It is a BLP issue. The users above who say "Just forget about it" and "You're in the wrong place" should pay closer attention to the policies they supposedly know so well. Auerbachkeller (talk) 20:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Here I repeat the original report:

Relating to page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Liz#Oppose

I made a vote on this RfA as I thought was permitted by the specified rules. Bureaucrat WJBscribe removed my vote with this comment:


 * Striking vote from sole purpose GamerGate account. It is obvious from your contributions that your agenda here relates solely to Gamergate, and you participate here (having not editing for several months) after reddit takes interest in this RfA. WJBscribe (talk) 07:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

This is not true. I had been following the RfA from the beginning, I had seen no mention of it on Reddit, and my "agenda here" includes edits to Georg Simmel and Doctor Faustus. My Gamergate-related "agenda" has been confined to getting Wikipedia to remove slanderous misrepresentations of me. Unless WJBscribe is prepared to explain how this fits with the above description, I would like these remarks removed.

If you would prefer to keep my vote out of your RfA kangaroo court, I don't really care about that. It's the false remarks that matter. Auerbachkeller (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Requesting an admin close this and warn the user.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 20:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * since they message this user earlier.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 21:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Herman Jay Cohen
I am removing two paragraphs by Perspicacite. They are very NPOV, making extensive use of editorializing and weasel words. The only source is one dodgy article from the defunct conservative outlet Insight on the News. The paragraphs created a "wheel war" between Perspicacite – who evidently referred to the article's subject as an "evil SOB" – and 128.220.251.100, who may also be NPOV. In the interim I will add hard biographical facts to the article only, and request that an administrator prevent hasty edits to the article. – Larry.darrell44 (talk) 21:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You probably mean that they were very Biased and without NPOV. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This article needs better references in general, they're pretty lousy. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Crystallizedcarbon yes, sorry, that is what I meant :) Fyddlestix Agreed, and will work on that over the next couple days. – Larry.darrell44 (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Alejandro betancourt (not yet resolved)
Below Conversation is still not resolved. Righteousskills (talk) 07:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I asked for new reliable sources to reference if the BLP is under an actual investigation since the article was published almost a year ago. Since I received no answer, a few days latter I removed the content I deemed non encyclopedic for the BLP due to reasons mentioned above.

In the past I have reverted several questionable contributions from righteousskills ( see summary on his talk page). One of this contributions was adding to the lead that the subject of the BLP was under a criminal investigation using that same source. The article was protected and the editor was reminded of WP:OR by an administrator (see at the end of this section)

More than a month after my edit was done righteousskills added it back without any previous discussion of the matter in the talk page. He also added an unrelated reference and a phrase already covered elsewhere in the article. I reverted it twice asking him to reach a consensus first before changing the article. He has ignored my requests and added the content again.

Even though this is not a very relevant article for the encyclopedia, I would appreciate it if someone could take the time to look into this in detail. I think it is worth a look because Derwick Associates's page has been edited by at least one paid editor (see here) on behalf of the company and various sock puppets have been uncovered. On the other hand it also had various IP's proxies blocked that were doing negative contributions very similar to those of righteousskills on both the company and the BLP (this are some accounts: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) (see diff). Righteousskills after a year and a half of inactivity, requested an IP block exemption claiming he could be hacked (see here). After that he created or contributed on all the pages related to the WSJ article before it was published, and then did clearly biased contributions like (this edit) in all those articles just the moment it got published.

I can't prove if this is the case, but while one civil suit for defamation with charges of bribery against the company and the BLP has been dismissed, there is another one that is still active, so there might be economical interests at play for both sides. I try to reach consensus whenever possible, but in this case we may be dealing with a conflict of interests. so I would appreciate it if other editors that want to invest their time could take care of this one. Thank you.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Isn't THIS the pot calling the kettle black now isn't it? Please refrain from this accusatory tone if you would like me to do the same. Any administrators viewing this should take note that the now blocked editor, FergusM1970, and the vast majority of the now blocked socks, made edits in line with Crystallizedcarbon's.


 * I will place my same talk page comments here to reiterate my points.


 * Here http://pubsys.miamiherald.com/2014/03/27/4023508/lawsuit-filed-in-miami-accuses.html : "The lawsuit, filed against Derwick Associates Corporation, Derwick Associates USA, and their owners, alleges that tens of millions of dollars were paid under the table to high-ranking Venezuelan officials in exchange for their acceptance of overpriced invoices from the companies."


 * And here translated from Spanish: http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2014/08/09/actualidad/1407540747_507459.html : "Perhaps the most representative bolichicos are the young owners of the utility Derwick -Peter Trebbau Alejandro Lopez and Alejandro Betancourt who have been subject to fierce scrutiny by public opinion....The newspaper The Wall Street Journal on Friday joined a new headache for them. Federal and state prosecutors in New York are investigating the company, which became one of the leading import and construction of power plants during the government of Hugo Chavez, for possible violations of banking laws of the state and the payment of bribes for advantages to doing business, prohibited by Corrupt Practices Act Abroad..... The US investigates whether excessive profit margins may have hidden reported paying bribes to foreign officials."


 * And here http://www.wsj.com/articles/venezuelan-energy-company-derwick-investigated-in-u-s-1407516278 : "The lawsuit alleges Derwick and the company's owners, among others, obtained contracts to build power stations in return for paying multimillion-dollar bribes to senior Venezuelan officials."
 * And here http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324635904578640351169881218 : "A former top U.S. diplomat filed a lawsuit against three young Venezuelan businessmen whom he accuses of bribing senior Venezuelan officials in exchange for contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars."
 * Its pretty clear that the investigation are into both the company AND its owners. And to reiterate, 11 months is not that long for investigations like this. It often takes a decade for decisions to be reached.


 * Another important item to recognize is that Reich's civil suit was dismissed due to jurisdiction. Righteousskills (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, It seems that you are deliberately trying to mix the two separate civil suits that do involve the BLP and the company with the preliminary investigations claims that involve only the company.


 * Both those civil suits mention the company and the BLP and are included in the Controversies and legal disputes section of the article. The first dismissed and the second one is still ongoing.


 * The alleged preliminary investigation claimed by the anonymous sources only mention the company, Never the BLP. As I just mentioned el Pais just cites the WSJ as its source and also mentions the company and not the BLP as the target of the possible investigation.


 * You were already told this almost a year ago by an administrator that labeled your claim that the BLP was under investigation as WP:OR (see at the end of this section) you were asked to find a reference to source your claim and your answer from August of last year was that you will continue looking into it. There is no new evidence to indicate that any investigation is taking place on the company let alone the BLP.


 * It is only this last paragraph that should be removed following WP:BLPCRIME recommendations including the last phrase you added to the paragraph trying to mix it again with the open civil suit since it is already mentioned in that section.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I forgot to mention that I of course encourage any user to review our respective contributions to both pages. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe you are confusing incidents. The content you removed roughly a month ago was not what was in question over a year ago. Righteousskills (talk) 23:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It was that same information sourced from the same referece. At that time the information you and the now blocked IPs inserted was that the BLP was under criminal investigation. you were told by an admin that inferring that the BLP was under investigation by authorities using the existing sources at that time was WP:OR. Your claim when referring to the WSJ material was "...Criminal investigations are into the executives of the company! Civil suites can be into a company, but criminal means that charges would be against persons..." and a few answers latter your were told "There is no current RS that states Betancourt is under criminal investigation, yet you believe there is reason to state Betancourt is under investigation? WP:OR wants to have a word with you. I haven't read of any allegations that Betancourt personally committed bribery, corruption, banking violations or any other crimes (except by you). Huon (talk) 03:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)". And the paragraph was reworded eliminating the explicit mention of the BLP as the target of the claimed preliminary investigation. At the end you agreed to continue looking into it.


 * I have restored the article to follow WP:BLPCRIME recommendations pending any new input from experienced editors or administrators.


 * I ask you to please refrain from adding back the controversial information until it is determined here if it conforms to the recommendations of our policy, or until you can find a reliable source to establish your claim that the BLP (not the company) is under an actual investigation by federal or state prosecutors. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Again, you are confusing incidents and edits. What you removed in May of this year was not the same as what was done a year ago. Righteousskills (talk) 22:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Allegations by anonymous or unnamed persons are rarely a great idea in any BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Covered in The Wall Street Journal ? And these are not allegations from anonymous people; anonymous people reported the the US Justice Department is investigating. Theres a substantial difference there. Righteousskills (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the content meets our standards for inclusion. The reasons given by Crystallizedcarbon above are weak at best.  A high-profile investigation of a company is relevant to the biography of that company's CEO.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * That does not seem to be the case. What the RS reported is that Anonymous sources claim that the company was a year ago under a preliminary investigation. They also said that it may or may not become an actual investigation. Those allegations were denied by the company itself, and there have not been any news in the last year to substantiate that an actual investigation did or is taking place on the company.


 * According to WP:NOT Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of events, a possible future investigation denied by the company is newsworthy but it is not necessarily suitable for inclusion. Still, it is included in the company page, on top of the questionable enduring notability there is the issue that the editor that pushes for its inclusion insisted adamantly that the text infers as well a criminal investigation into the BLP himself. WP:BLPCRIME should be followed pending any new and more tangible sources. I also agree with Collect. The primary source of the article is anonymous so it is not a good idea to use it in this BLP regardless of who they claim may be investigating or which reliable source reproduces their claims.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * WSJ is not anonymous. Please stop accusing anyone of "pushing". Your edits could be called the same thing; especially since I am arguing the page stay untouched and you are the one who wants it altered.  Righteousskills (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Bump. Righteousskills (talk) 07:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no need to "bump" threads here - we can all see that this is apparently still unresolved.--ukexpat (talk) 13:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Bill Strömberg
Recommend for deleting:


 * Personal Advertising
 * Very Limited Sources
 * Little reference value in the way in which is currently organised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Global aviator (talk • contribs) 19:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

David B. Allison
This article was a puff piece; right now, it's just another poor article. But a quick look through the history reveals that a now-blocked editor did a bit of cleanup, including in this edit--note the deceptive edit summary. In short, what we need is a rewrite of the article which takes into account the two highly reliable references removed in that edit (this and this--it's really quite juicy). Thank you in advance. Drmies (talk) 01:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I fear the articles being recommended here are more in the nature of attack pieces than in the nature of neutral sources - where an article saves the part about 90+% of his research being government funded, using it to assert or imply that the under 10% which is provided by industry groups as evidence of any sort of miscreancy is undue, IMO. ("As for Allison, although he has received tens of millions of dollars in research grants from the government, he has also received at least $2.5 million in research grants from private industry, ABC News has learned.") Collect (talk) 13:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have added some stuff to the article from the sources provided by Drmies. Everymorning   talk  15:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And now a user with no other edits has removed my additions, calling them "slander" in one of his edit summaries. Drmies, would you be willing to take a look at the edits in question? Everymorning   talk  18:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, gladly, User:Everymorning. Drmies (talk) 19:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * beat me to it (thanks)., I'm sorry, but they are from reliable sources so, for instance, the NYT's claim that "Allison was paid to write the document on behalf of the New York State Restaurant Association" has to be taken quite seriously. Either way it does not behoove to just blank it. They may discuss on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 19:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Mark bell (journalist)
Clearly an autobiography written by subject as "WhoWhoOwl" which account history proves. Person is not notable in any respect and should be removed from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.211.0.45 (talk) 01:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not my field of expertise but it says he, Bell, is a three-time winner of the prestigious Malcolm Law Investigative Reporting Award from the Tennessee Associated Press. You best create a WP:AFD discussion if you feel there are grounds for deletion. Govindaharihari (talk) 07:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * BLP violation removed, one minor award is now effectively a dead link and likely not utile. Collect (talk) 12:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Ervand Abrahamian
Ervand Abrahamian is not a marxist. The "references" that have been cited are hardly reputable--one of them was created simply to support the claim. This is his biography: http://www.baruch.cuny.edu/wsas/academics/history/eabrahamian.htm Please remove the word "marxist" from this post--clearly someone is trying to misrepresent him.
 * Removed for now. There were two refs but they did not support the assertion being made. Fyddlestix (talk) 06:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Ismahil Akinade
Is the addition of information concerning the right to be forgotten by this footballer concerning his conviction in a child sex case a BLP violation? Mo ainm ~Talk  15:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If there is a published source concerning the way he has exercised this "right to be forgotten", then there might be grounds for including it. But the issue can be construed in a different way.  WP:SOURCEACCESS makes it clear that sources do not have to be readily available on-line.  The fact that Google might make it difficult to get clickable access to a source does not change the fact that the source in question (say, a newspaper article) was published.  A published article would still be available e.g. via archives of various sorts (perhaps Nexus), or in a print archive.  So it might be possible to include coverage of the child sex conviction, even if it's not possible to include coverage of the way he has gone down the "right to be forgotten" road.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking at the history of the article sources are provided for his conviction. Mo ainm  ~Talk  16:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't bring myself to protest the removal of this material very strongly but at the same time, the "right to be forgotten" thing does not apply to Wikipedia, which is a US nonprofit hosted in the United States. Nor are the search results removed from Google in the United States or anywhere else in the world other than Europe for that matter. It seems disingenuous that we must cave in to such stupid laws. On the other hand the original addition was poorly worded at best. § FreeRangeFrog croak 16:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It should probably be noted that this 'conviction in a child sex case' refers to events that took place when the subject was 16 years old (the victim was 14). Previous coverage of the crime in the article failed to make this clear. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That affects my view as to whether it should be included. I'd lean against it.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well if there's consensus to remove then by all means. § FreeRangeFrog croak 17:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I would be of the opinion that it should be in the article. But could lead to edit wars. Mo ainm  ~Talk  00:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Joshua Kushner
This article does not conform to wikipedia's guidelines for BLP because it does not strike the right tone (somewhat self-aggrandizing, possibly written by the subject), and isn't verifiable (IE doesn't cite sources for some of its descriptions). A significant amount of the information presented seemingly fails to achieve adequate notability. It reads more like a résumé than it does a wikipedia article.
 * I removed some puff about some of his financial ventures, but otherwise this one doesn't seem all that bad to me. The person is notable, and while I haven't checked every single citation yet, most of the info in the article appears to be verifiable. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I should have clarified. (First forays into understanding the editing process). I don't think the article should be removed, just trimmed. Since I haven't edited before I was hesitant to do so without consultation. Thanks for your feedback. Cheers!

Old/spent convictions - is there a general policy
Hi all,

Recently, I removed a 5 year old, spent, conviction from Jake Speight. While this received some coverage at the time, this does not appear to be long-term or particiually widespread, and assuming this was ok, I removed it from the article, as I have done in previous instances after discussion here. However, in this case I was reverted. I was wondering if this sort of action is ok, or if there is a wider policy related to this - I'd point to WP:NPF (because they are not widely known with the intention of the article). Thanks in advance for any advice. Mdann52 (talk) 12:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * His coviction had a significant affect on his career, and therefore it is valid to mention it. GiantSnowman 12:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If there is a reliable source to support that assertion, then fine. Wikipedia doesn't have to follow the English legal practice of considering convictions to be "spent"; it doesn't have to affect our editing.  But I do think we should be careful about mentioning in a merely gratuitous way.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Tré Cool
Can you please lock this page like his band members Mike Durnt and Billie Joe Armstrong.

True Cool's page is regularly vandalized.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tré_Cool — Preceding unsigned comment added by An108 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Richard Rawlings
The article for Richard Rawlings is repeatedly being vandalized. I cannot revert now due to WP:3RR --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In fact you could -- it's an obvious BLP violation. I've done it, but if necessary you can as well.  And the IP needs to be blocked, or the article semi-protected.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

frank ocean
The Article says Frank Ocean started his career by ghostwriting for Damienn Jones, that's false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseriverajunior (talk • contribs) 01:32, 8 August 2015‎


 * Removed, asked for a source per WP:BLP. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Roosh V
There has been a disagreement regarding a BLP and a self published sources on the Roosh V article. I've removed the content in this diff []. There has been some discussion on the talk page, but since this is a relatively obscure BLP, I am bringing it here for wider input. Pinging, , and since they were involved on the talk page.

To sum up the argument, The Anti-defamation league made a claim about Roosh V on their own blog. I removed the statement because it is only sourced to the ADL's blog, and per BLPSPS we should not use self published sources on BLP's. However, it has been restored on the basis that the ADL is a highly notable organization and is reliable for it's own opinion. My apologies in advance if I didn't sum up the arguments well. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Update pinging as well so they know of this discussion. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for posting this here. To sum up my comment, BLPSPS would apply if we said "Roosh is antisemitic" and used the ADL as a source. But the sentence in question says In 2015 the Anti-Defamation League accused Roosh of anti-Semitism. We're attributing the statement to the ADL and using their blog as the source with is permissible as WP:ABOUTSELF. And I agree with the assertion that ADL's opinion is notable. Just as we note which groups the SPLC calls "hate groups" (and attribute that assertion directly to the SPLC), it would make sense to do so here.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 16:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Where is the reliable secondary source that indicates the ADL's anti-semitic accusation of Roosh is notable enough for inclusion in a BLP? I dont subscribe to the idea that 'because the ADL said it, it can go in'. The ADL are a notable organisation - yes. That does not mean everything they say should go into an article. Using the ADL's blog as a self-pub source for an article on the ADL would be perfectly fine. Using their blog as a source for their opinion that someone is an anti-semite is not. Especially since they have been found to be (legally) wrong about it in the past. Even should reliable sources be found to indicate their accusation of Roosh is a notable event, the place to put it would be in the body, not in the lead.Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to note, it was originally in the body []. After I removed it the first time, it was placed in the lead. []--Kyohyi (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * After refreshing my memory of WP:BLPSELFPUB I am pretty sure point 2 (third parties) is applicable here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Kyohyi, you've removed it enough... it's getting to the point of edit warring. It's not a blatant BLP violation so it doesn't fall under WP:3RRNO.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 18:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I consider it an obvious violation of selfpub as per above. Absent secondary sources I would/will remove it on sight. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If other established editors disagree, you'd be well advised to engage in discussion rather than edit-warring. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Are there secondary reliable sources which note the ADL's opinion on this matter? If not, I tend to agree with Only in death that it would be undue weight to include their opinion based only upon their self-published source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't find much other that Roosh's responses to them and stuff on Reddit. Though I wonder if we need secondary coverage or if their statement is notable by itself. To parallel SPLC again, we don't require secondary coverage when discussing their Hate Watch listings.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 18:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Howdy. My own opinion is that the ADL is a reliable source for their own opinion, their opinion about whether an individual is antisemitic is highly notable, and that if that person is already notable enough for an article it's to be encouraged to include this notable opinion in that article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. The SPLC parallel is a good one, in my view.  I've also read into the details a bit, and I don't think there's any unfairness here.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Opinions on inclusion appear so far to be evenly split, although it appears that the regulars here, heretofore uninvolved with that article are leaning against inclusion. Until consensus is reached, I'm going to remove that text from the article.  Please do not edit war to re-add it until we have consensus to do so. Cla68 (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Then I am sure you will be able to find reliable secondary sources that demonstrate its notability. I have also yet to see a reason why this passes point 2 of selfpub. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * When WP:BLPSELFPUB says "Such material may be used as a source only if ...", there is a distinction between using it as a source for its own truth, versus using it merely as a source for the fact that someone said something. It only makes sense for first type of use to be restricted by this policy, and the policy wording should make that clear.


 * Likewise, when WP:BLPSPS says "Never use self-published sources as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject", it means as sources of fact. There's no problem with using self-published sources as sources for the opinion of the publisher. Assuming there's no reasonable doubt as to the self-publisher's identity, it's ridiculous to say that such an opinion cannot be cited directly, but magically becomes citable once it's been indirectly reported by a news organization. – Smyth\<sup style="color:gray;">talk 01:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The question here is relevance. There are lots of third-party opinions of various living people, and obviously we don't publish all of them. Is the opinion itself inherently notable enough to be included in a person's biography without having been first commented upon by an independent reliable source? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's something you'd have to decide on a case-by-case basis. – Smyth\<sup style="color:gray;">talk 01:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the answer is a clear "yes" in this particular case. ADL is a well-known, high profile group, and their opinions about different groups and individuals is included in lots of different articles - both on wikipedia and in reliable sources more generally. Here on wikipedia, articles like Alex Linder and Jeff Rense and Glenn Spencer all put the ADL's opinion of the individual in the lede. So does New Black Panther Party. This is not an unusual practice and I see no problem with it as long as it's attributed to ADL. Clearly their opinion is judged notable across a wide swath of wiki articles (the one's I listed are just a random sample). Fyddlestix (talk) 03:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the answer is a clear No in this, and apparently we have a multitude of other pages where BLP is being violated. While the ADL has notability, not everything it says or does is notable in and of itself.  What's more, BLP's require a higher level of notability, this can be gleaned from WP: BLPGOSSIP, for inclusion of material.  BLP is pretty clear and consistent that we need secondary sources when we're talking about claims on BLP's, the only exception to this shown on BLP policy is with regards to news organizations, and even then it has requirements.  --Kyohyi (talk) 13:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Per elaboration on the meaning of WP:BLPSPS (cannot be used as source for statements of fact, but can be used for opinion), and my belief that the answer to the question of "Is the opinion itself inherently notable enough to be included in a person's biography without having been first commented upon by an independent reliable source?" is yes with consensus seeming to support that, I'm going to place the summary of the ADL's opinion back in the article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Asked to self-revert, have done so. I'm not sure what more can be discussed, but I was probably being premature. I still believe that the two points established in my above comment are fairly reasonable. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We do not label people anti-semites even in someone else's voice unless there are reliable secondary sources demonstrating that the accusation/label is notable. ADL merely being a notable organisation does not make every pronoucement they make inherantly notable, especially since even a cursory google search shows they have been sued successfully because of it. 'The ADL said it so it must be notable' is not a valid rationale for labelling someone a racist in the lead and having them show up as 'anti-semite' when anyone googles them. This smells to high heaven of turning a BLP into a hit-job. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * If by "notable" you mean "important for the person's biography", then it is. Reliable secondary sources only ever discuss Valizedeth to criticize his claims about women, foreigners and other groups. You're acting like there's tons of RS about him and editors are doing him a grave injustice by adding two sentences describing his remarks about Jews. In reality, there's only few RS that bother mentioning him at all and only because they take exception to his comments. His sole claim to notability is that he generates controversy by offending people. Did he praise the views of Kevin B. MacDonald and quote from MacDonald's book The Culture of Critique? Yes, he did. And it's certainly not the first time that he's lamented the "damaging effects of Jewish intellectualism", an opinion met with glee by Neo-Nazi websites like The Daily Stormer. There's no BLP violation here if we write that the ADL took notice and commented. -- Sonic Y (talk) 21:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Hoping an uninvolved admin will be kind enough to close those.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 03:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've posted at ANI requesting an uninvolved admin review and close this. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you!  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 17:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Update: The close request has since been moved to WP:ANRFC.  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 01:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Tim Wise
The entry has the following sentence in it: ""Wise has said that when he was 9 years old his Synagogue was attacked by white supremacists." I argue that the sentence should be removed based on the following:

WP:Biographies of living persons says:

Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:

it is not unduly self-serving;

it does not involve claims about third parties;

it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;

there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;

the article is not based primarily on such sources.

(WP:BLPSELFPUB)

I argue that the sentence in question fails the criteria of "it does not involve claims about third parties;" The reference to the above sentence is Tim Wise's own website. He is accusing White supremacists of a serious crime. I would say that it involves claims about a third party (and one which Tim Wise has a long history of war with, which could, additionally, also be regarded as "unduly self-serving").

There is no evidence offered to back Tim's claim that the attack actually happened, so the claim itself, without any backing, is also insignificant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.97.121 (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like a good removal to me. BLPSELFPUB says what you say it says, and without some sort of verification from reliable sources, we can't say his synagouge was vandalized by white supremicst.
 * It's a BLP issue.   KoshVorlon  We are all Koshundefined  16:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * How's it a BLP issue? He doesn't accuse any specific person of making the attack, and this is an attributed quote from an interview with Wise, not something he self-published. It's also clearly labelled as his account of the event, rather than portrayed as fact.  I don't see a problem here. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is a BLP issue as far as the attackers go. I'd disagree with Fyddlestix that this is self-published since it's Wise making the uncorroborated claim himself. Whether he did it on some guy's show or not doesn't change the fact that it's still Wise's mouth speaking the words, essentially publishing them. As I said on the talk page, without a second or third party reliable source, I'm not convinced we should include it. If this were something uncontroversial, like his favorite color, then I wouldn't care, but this is an issue that Wise is claiming to have a big impact. I'm not going to say it's fabricated a la Brian Williams, but sometimes things get embellished or "misremembered". Since this incident paints him as someone making this a life long fight, we should find a source that isn't him. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no BLP issue here, and there is no issue with reporting what he says happened to him in his own biography. We properly attribute the material to him, and as there are no identifiable third parties involved, there is no reason we cannot republish that statement. If there are identifiable parties published in reliable sources which dispute his account of the event, they should also be included. But we do not remove uncontroversial and uncontroverted published statements by a person about their own life merely because an anonymous IP doesn't like it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's more than an anonymous IP. Kosh and I are both experienced editors and we can see a case for removing it. Just because there isn't a BLP issue doesn't mean it belongs. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above editors that the sentence is compliant with our BLP policies. It's a brief recollection of an early childhood event, clearly attributed to Wise, not unduly self-serving and doesn't target any individuals or identifiable small groups. I agree with Kosh that we "can't say his synagouge was vandalized by white supremicst" — which is why we don't, without reliable sourcing. Instead, we say "Wise has said...", which is indeed reliably sourced, and Wikipedia policy compliant. I cannot agree that "Wise's mouth speaking the words" equals "Self-Published", but I did get a chuckle from reading that — I'm sure we can all agree that the publisher of that comment made during that interview is the publisher of the interview (The Rock Newman Show/PBS). There has been no case made for removing the sentence so far. Readers may disagree on how interesting or uninteresting the sentence is, but that applies to all the various minutia in biographies of living people.  Xenophrenic (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Is the information correct for starters? An American editor should double-check the video reference (at approx. 43.30). As non-native English speaker I am not completely sure (and the audio is terrible), but it seems like Wise is mentioning two events - the first at 8-9 years (not "9 years", he isn't sure about the exact age) and the second with 11-12 years age. Using that tidbit out of context of the whole interview is problematic anyway, but at least the statement should be summarized as exactly as possible. GermanJoe (talk) 20:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no claim of an attack on a synagogue when he was 8 or 9. The relevant portion of the interview starts at about 43:30. The context is a discussion of David Duke. Wise says that he remembers Duke being on Donahue when he was around 8 or 9. The synagogue attack claim is that "some members of one of his (Duke's) offshoot Klan groups actually tried to blow up my synagogue when I was about 11 or 12 years old." Fyddlestix (talk) 21:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This could be relevant. It's a plausible claim. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And actually that same synagogue claims wise as "a former religious school student of The Temple" on its website. I know this is SYNTH in terms of sources, but it appears the statement he made is true. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting article, Fyddlestix, but methinks a case of "close but no cigar": 1. Both the date (a few years off when Wise would've been 9) and the fact that the article never claimed that any attack actually took place makes the original claim still entirely unsubstantiated.  2. How come such a prolific writer as Wise never actually mentioned this incident in his writings. I elaborate on that on Wise's Talk page, as well as make other points, so feel free to have a peek. 3. No, as someone earlier suggested, I don't like this sentence one bit. It is hearsay rather than claim backed by evidence and as a Judge Judy fan I know it is a big no no in her Courtroom. I argue it should not be acceptable in Wikipedia either, as it "unduly self-serving" - fits riiiiiight into Wise's narrative about whites and their additudes to minorities.  1.144.96.234 (talk) 22:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, like I said I'm not suggesting we hang the content on those sources; I think the source cited in the article is fine and sufficient to include the content. But it sounds like you need to read the above again; Wise's claim is that the attempted attack (the NY times also describes it as an attempt only) happened when he was about 11 or 12, not 8 or 9 (I'm going to go fix the error in the article right now).  So 1981 would be about right. Your skepticism as to Wise's motives is neither here nor there. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no skepticism of Wise's motives. He has said what you would expect from an activist to do: said things that fit his narrative. I am sure of that (i.e., that white supremacists attacking his synagogue fits right into his narrative), but this by itself is nothing sinister. My skepticism is regarding the validity/reliability of what he said. Exactly because this claim suits his narrative, you would expect him to repeat it elsewhere. I have not found any such repetition. I elaborate on that on the Talk page of Tim Wise so feel free to jump over there and examine this argument of mine in detail. You have found an article which describes not an attack on his synagogue, but an arrest of white supremacists who were alleged to have planned to commit an attack. A tad different, as I am sure you would agree from an attack. Therefore I think I would remove that sentence from the entry. In order to avoid edit wars please discuss before reversing my removal. As for the article you provided a link to, maybe that indeed was the case that Mr Wise was talking about (but even then, as I have just indicated, it was not an actual attack) - but where is the conviction? Presumably, if there were allegations which were proven in a court of law, there would have been a conviction. So as of now, there is not even evidence of conviction of an attempted attack, let alone evidence of any attack to support Mr Wise's claim. Therefore I remove it.
 * I would also re-iterate the point that I mentioned earlier. I believe (and there may be some policies to back me up) that if event A is relevant to an article (as any attack on a synagogue attended by Mr Wise would be to his biographyll), and event A is verifiable then, by all means, feel free to add the following sentence: event A happened. Quite invariably, the following sentence is improper: person B said that event A happened. That is hearsay, which is always inferior in veracity to the former option, with one notable exception: the claim, e.g., "Al Gore claims he invented the Internet" would be acceptable, but only because we know that didn't happen, and this sentence therefore offers us some information not about the invention of the Internet, but about Al Gore. Other examples: "Lance Armstrong claims he never used illicit drugs in the Tour de France", or another obvious example is Brian Williams. - I.e, the only time when it would be appropriate to write "person B claims the event A has happened" is, paradoxically, if we know that person B is a liar and that event A never happened. As for events which we assume have happened, such as a verified attack on a synagogue, simply write: "event A [e.g., synagogue attack] happened", and if you can't write it with certainty, then simply forget about it. I may remove the whole sentence now. No attack has happened on Tim Wise's synagogue when he was a kid, quite certainly. Thanks, 125.255.40.126 (talk) 05:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that's not the way Wikipedia biographies work. We can verifiably report that he said it occurred, as published in a reliable source. If you have a reliable source which disputes Wise's statement, then we should include that reliable source's counter-claim, if that claim is not fringe and is properly weighted. The material stays in. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's start with what Tim Wise actually said. According to all sources above, both from the "remove" camp and the "keep it" camp, Tim Wise talks about not an attack but an attempt/plan to attack, and, additionally, it happened in a different age than the one in the original sentence (see above). Therefore, the original sentence already got two facts wrong in the claim made by Tim Wise. (A pretty impressive feat, considering the sentence was a fairly simple one.) It was ridiculously inaccurate and could not have stayed. Fyddlestix made a noble effort to correct the sentence, yet felt short. He managed to change the year, but for some reason, in spite of admitting that there was no attack but at most a plan to attack the synagogue (see Fyddlestix's own words above), for some reason he failed to correct this fact (much more important than the exact year if you ask me) in the entry. I therefore, helpfully enough, gave this troublesome sentence its Coup de grâce. Wikipedia is a better place after this removal (or will be as I don't know if my removal was approved yet), since that even after Fyddlestix's corrections it still contained an unacceptable inaccuracy (confusing an alleged plot to attack Wise's synagogue with an actually such attack). So I deleted it.
 * Having said all that, while the above two inaccuracies were enough to determine that the sentence cannot stay, When I created this section in this page, advocating the removal of this sentence, I was completely unaware of them and for all I knew the claim was quoted accurately, yet I still believed that this sentence belongs in the rubbish bin. I cannot quote you the exact policy (you, I hazard a guess, probably can), but any detail published in Wikipedia needs to enhance the understanding of the entry it appears in. This brings me to the main reason: the fact that Tim Wise made a certain claim about something that White Supremacists did that makes them look bad is not significant, because of the simple reason that we don't know whether the fact is true or not. Ever since then Fyddlestix seems to have found an authentic newspaper article which may describe this event, but the most this article claim is that there was an arrest of white supremacists which were alleged to have made the plan to attack his synagogue. At the very least, you would expect a conviction.
 * So, in summary, what do we have. A sentence which is without a doubt too factually inaccurate to be kept as it is. I would add that even if the sentence was corrected (and no-one seem to have been able to do so properly), it is still insignificant, because at most it talks about Tim Wise discussing an alleged plot (which is unclear whether ever been proven) to attack his synagogue. Whether you accept my point that even if the sentence was accurate it would not have been a big deal to get rid of it, I hope you accept my point that the sentence, both as it was originally (see above) and even as it was after Fyddlestix's correction, was not good enough to be kept. Regards, 09:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Wow, I didn't realize that you already reversed my edit. It's Good To Be King, as they say, isn't it? You do realize that you have just added a sentence which is completely incorrect factually, do you? That according to the above discussion and all other evidence, there absolutely was no synagogue attack as mentioned (read my above comment to convince yourself of that). Congratulations for contaminating Wikipedia with rubbish that is probably neither true, nor did one ever claimed it to be true! You must be proud of yourself. 1.129.96.31 (talk) 09:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi all, managed to Google up another newspaper article from that time. It seems to confirm that white supremacists did try to blow up that synagogue. That is good enough for me to agree to keep the sentence as it is now. (The inaccuracy I referred to above relating to only attempted attack compared to an actual attack seems to me to be rather semantic at this stage: if a bunch of white supremacists park a pick-up truck next to a synagogue, then even if the explosives packing the track fail to detonate, it is close enough for an attack for me.) I apologize if I need to, realizing that in spite of my passionate belief, it seems that this claim had merit. Humble apologies to all involved, including, I guess, to Mr Tim Wise. Regards, 1.129.96.31 (talk) 11:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok. I guess we can call this issue resolved then? Fyddlestix (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, as far as I am concerned. 1.144.96.117 (talk) 16:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Eric Holthaus
Hi, I'm Eric Holthaus. I have a concern that the page someone made about me isn't neutral, and is misrepresenting my work & public opinion of my work. I don't think I've attracted significant criticism. I am a meteorologist and I write opinion articles on climate change, but that doesn't make me untrustworthy, as the wikipedia article currently implies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.2.141.150 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * FYI. - Location (talk) 20:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree; the article as written was significantly slanted and included unsupported/unsourced negative statements and implications. I've removed and rewritten several sections. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks much better now. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

This is Eric again, agreed, it looks much better. Thank you so much for prompt response! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.2.141.150 (talk) 15:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Mark Wahlberg
An editor and I are arguing about the legitimacy of a source on Mark Wahlberg's past homophobia. Could someone iron out?--A21sauce (talk) 01:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Clarification: I am not taking issue with the legitimacy (or reliability) of the sources in question. Rather, I do not agree that the sources support the material they are cited for. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 01:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * From what I can see, it looks like the whole homophobia thing centers around the fact that he appeared to have condoned some homophobic remarks by saying that he liked the speaker's candor. It doesn't appear that he actually made any explicitly homophobic statements. This may seem like splitting hairs, but the thing is that this is a pretty big BLP issue and the type that can lead to legal issues unless it's phrased just right. Even the Biography.com article is careful to state that he received attention for appearing to condone homophobia and to say that he was rumored to be homophobic by the media. If you're going to have this in the article you're going to need to phrase it very carefully and source it extremely well in order to justify mentioning this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The sources do not say that that Mark Wahlberg was "Known earlier in his career for his homophobia". The sources say that he took some heat for comments that others felt were homophobic, and he had to come to a realization that this was going to hurt his career. Homophobia is an opinion. Someone pointing a finger at a subject and saying, "That was homophobic!" doesn't mean the person is homophobic or that they are known for their homophobia. Now, if he has since described the young version of himself as homophobic, that might be a different thing. A21's comments on this, as demonstrated here are interesting: Very selective reading of my reference. Well-known within the gay community: He was a Southie for chrissakes; don't play dumb. Sorry, but we can't include potentially defamatory content simply because it was "Well-known within the gay community". BLP issues aside it's even questionable whether this belongs in the article anyway. Something Wahlberg said, or didn't say 22 years ago is noteworthy why? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That's my concern - unless it's something that got a ton of coverage, odds are it likely doesn't really need to be added in the first place. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  16:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Nabih Berri
Does the Corruption allegations section violate BLP? Confirmed suck-poppet with numerous other accounts (Sockpuppet_investigations/Philanthropist_1001/Archive continuously reverting corruption allegation section and participating in talk page via multi suck-poppet. Currently a suspected suck-poppet continually reverting edits.. 495656778774  (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * For noticeboard regulars: see also Sockpuppet investigations/Rami.198678 and my warning to LimitationsAndRestrictions495656778774. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 14:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Political Positions and Summary Style
Do the Political Positions sections at Hillary Clinton and John McCain conform to the guidelines for WP:SUMMARY style, since they consist of an assortment of ideological ratings rather than specific political positions?CFredkin (talk) 03:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Henry Makow
Page of Henry Makow has obviously been vandalized.

Source: His own website and confirmed by email. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadrag777 (talk • contribs) 09:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Is he even actually notable? Excised the worst BLP violations in it, and removed puff(?) but I doubt he is major enough to appear here - appearing on "What's My Line"  sourced to a YouTube video is pretty lame.  Anyone gonna place it at AfD? Collect (talk) 13:26, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And the IP warriors are at it again. Will someone please do something? Collect (talk) 00:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Dennis Spiegel
Dear Wikimedia Personnel,

I know you folks strive for accuracy and unbiased information in Wikipedia. However, some of your volunteer editors are insisting on promoting their factually incorrect information on my Wikipedia page and on pages relating to a song which I co-wrote and which was briefly nominated for an Academy Award.

I have supplied numerous references which contain the facts but they insist on repeatedly inserting their own bias which is unsubstantiated. Their incorrect statement casts aspersions on one of the most respected individuals to ever work in film music, my collaborator, Bruce Broughton. Some of your volunteers have continually reinstated the statement....

"the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences found that Broughton, a former governor and current executive committee member of the music branch of the Academy, had improperly contacted other branch members for support.[9]"

This is completely false. I have provided documentation that shows them the facts but they insist on perpetuating their unsupported bias. Broughton never asked anyone for their vote or their support. This is a critical distinction. He was never accused of doing anything illegal because he never did anything illegal. That's just fact.

Here is the transcript and video from the nationally broadcast CBS This Morning. If you scroll down on the transcript you can see Bruce Broughton's entire e-mail to his friends. It concludes with "This is merely a request 'For Your Consideration'."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/academy-award-rescinds-nomination-for-songwriter-bruce-broughton/

These words make a difference. Broughton merely asks that people find the song and consider it. Bruce was more familiar with every Academy rule than most folks. He is also one of the most ethical people in the entertainment industry and has done more for aspiring composers than practically anyone else.

Here is the Academy's stated reason for their action..

"“No matter how well-intentioned the communication, using one’s position as a former governor and current executive committee member to personally promote one’s own Oscar submission creates the appearance of an unfair advantage,” said Cheryl Boone Isaacs, president of the Academy."

Here is a link to the coverage by National Public Radio (NPR) in an interview with Scott Feinberg of The Hollywood Reporter. in it Feinberg addresses the issue of whether any rules were broken.

http://www.npr.org/2014/02/01/269925008/a-major-oscar-dust-up-over-a-song-from-a-minor-movie

Here is also a link to a piece written by Scott Feinberg in The Hollywood Reporter. It addresses the entire matter in detail.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/race/was-academys-disqualification-song-contender-675582

And finally here is a piece from Entertainment Weekly which lays out what was done by The Academy.

http://www.ew.com/article/2014/01/29/oscars-kill-original-song-nomination-for-alone-yet-not-alone-breaking

I don't want to inundate you with material but simply to establish the facts. The erroneous statement which your volunteer editors repeatedly attach to my Wikipedia page and to the pages about the song and movie "Alone Yet Not Alone" is contrary to the facts. I would appreciate the simple and accurate rephrasing of the statement to read...

"the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences said that Broughton, a former governor and current executive committee member of the music branch of the Academy, had contacted other branch members with a request 'For Your Consideration.' The Board of Governors said that that 'creates the appearance of an unfair advantage'. [9]   Not everyone agreed with the Academy's actions. [3] [4] [5]"

I appreciate your efforts to ensure unbiased material in the "people's encyclopedia". Words matter.

Respectfully, Dennis Spiegel Lyricist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C05F:72D0:C42B:CDEC:D9C1:8E16 (talk) 22:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Er, I don't see the problem here. The Academy says that requests of the type that Broughton made "to personally promote [his] own Oscar submission create[d] the appearance of an unfair advantage" and were therefore improper.  The current wording says no more than this; it does not say that rules were broken, or that he did anything illegal.  The wording you supplied dilutes the facts concerning the Academy's statement to the point of being non-neutral (bordering on misrepresentation).  <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"><font color="#006633">General Ization  <font color="#000666">Talk   22:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * By the way, if you are claiming that a composer sending an email under the heading "For Your Consideration" that points out that the composer's song has been nominated for an Academy Award is not a request for the readers' support, you are being disingenuous. Of course it is, however politely it may have been put.  When he said "consideration," he wasn't looking for compliments or invitations to dinner parties, I'm sure. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"><font color="#006633">General Ization  <font color="#000666">Talk   22:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Broughton’s request “For Your Consideration” is the accepted language used by every contender. Many artists who serve as volunteers for their branch in the Academy, as well as every studio, put forth their work “For Consideration”. That is the accepted language and it means please consider this work. It does not mean “vote for this work” or “support this work”. If the responder finds this distinction hard to reconcile then his issue is with the Academy.

The responder is correct on one point. Mr. Broughton is not asking for a dinner invitation or compliments.

Here’s a detailed posting which may help with an appraisal of this matter. While I do not offer it as a reference for inclusion on Wikipedia, it is perhaps the most in depth look at the issue to date. I think it is well worth reading for people who wish to understand all sides.

http://badalanews.blogspot.com/2015/02/taking-bruce-broughton-side-in-yet-not.html

Respectfully, Dennis Spiegel Lyricist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C05F:72D0:1587:7F3A:BF69:C848 (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Though I'm hoping I'm not the only one here with an opinion about this: The only issue before us is whether the current language in the article accurately and neutrally describes the Academy's response to Mr. Broughton's email. Having read everything you've posted here, I still contend that it does, and that it does so more than the alternate language you proposed.  This has nothing to do with whether Mr. Broughton's email was improper, or whether the Academy's response to the email was appropriate or fair, and these are not matters for us to judge in drafting a Wikipedia article.  We are to remain neutral and accurately reflect our sources. I maintain that we have done so. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"><font color="#006633">General Ization  <font color="#000666">Talk   04:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

To say that Mr. Broughton was asking for "support" is neither factual nor neutral.

To say that Mr. Broughton was asking "For Your Consideration" is accurate.

Here is the entire e-mail Mr. Broughton shared with his friends...

Dear XXXXX,

I'm dropping you a line to boldly direct your attention to entry #57, Alone Yet Not Alone, on the Academy's Original Song Reminder List and DVD compilation for Best Original Song. Alone Yet Not Alone was composed by Dennis Spiegel and myself for the film, and was used as a dramatic centerpiece of the story. The score for the film was composed by Bill Ross, The clip includes the final scene in the film and a performance of the song as used in the beginning of the End Credits.

I'm sending this note only because it is extremely unlikely that this small, independent, faith-based film will be seen by any Music Branch member, it's the only way I can think of to have anyone be aware of the song.

This is merely a request "For Your Consideration," a hope that the song will get noticed and be remembered among the many worthy songs from more highly visible films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C05F:72D0:6CBC:70D:A28:176F (talk) 14:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Since no one else seems to have an opinion, and I remain unconvinced (I'd already read the letter), I'd say we're done here. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"><font color="#006633">General Ization <font color="#000666">Talk   01:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * In order to try to close out this matter, here are the first two (and key) paragraphs of AMPAS' January 29, 2014 media release on the subject (collapsed to one paragraph):




 * The rest of the release explained that no other song would be placed in nomination to replace the rescinded nomination, enumerated the remaining nominees and described the nomination process.


 * Our current text describing the Academy's response is:




 * I can see no way we could more accurately or neutrally describe the Academy's statement on this matter; we certainly would not accomplish this by changing to the language proposed by the OP. Move for close by an uninvolved admin. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"><font color="#006633">General Ization  <font color="#000666">Talk   14:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with 's thoughts on the matter, there's no BLP issue here and the content should remain in the article. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Rick Alan Ross (consultant)
An opinion is included within my biography, put there by an editor who apparently wanted a negative POV expressed. Included is the following quote, "Ross' moral credentials 'seem shaky at best'" Many articles have been written about me and this point of view expresses a tiny minority. It reflects bias to include this quote and I request that it be removed from the bio. I have repeatedly requested for this quote to be removed at the Talk page. Rick Alan Ross96.235.133.43 (talk) 13:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've removed it for now, in part to provoke a discussion. I can see the point that it's not obvious that we'd include some journalist's opinion on the matter -- seems a bit gratuitous.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm yes, but the problem is that you let another (positive) part of that same journalist's opinion stand. Please see the article for my proposal: let the facts stand, verified by the source. Drmies (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding. There are also more current news articles that report the number of interventions I have done at 500. The bio entry "350" is eleven years old and out of date. See http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/palm-beach/boca-raton/fl-brf-church-0715-20150720-story.html#page=1 Rick ALan Ross96.235.133.43 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The cost of interventions doesn't seem appropriate in the bio. It's not an advertisement for services ist it? Also, this is mentioned repeatedly, as "typically charging around $5,000 per case" and then again "at a typical cost of $5,000." Is it necessary to repeat this twice? Also, wouldn't it be better to have the bio titled Rick Alan Ross (consultant) rather than Rick Ross (consultant), to avoid confusion with the rapper Rick Ross?96.235.133.43 (talk) 13:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Rick Alan Ross

Balendu Sharma Dadhich

 * this pages appears more like a publicity and is this person notable enough? -- Sushilkumarmishra (talk) 17:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, the subject doesn't meet WP:BASIC so I have nominated it for deletion.- MrX 15:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

André Marin (again)
This article currently has a run-down of how much Marin has earned, for each year, over a ten-year period. Similar content and potential BLP problems at Ontario Ombudsman. The article has been the subject of discussions here and at COIN a couple of times: see here and here. I've tried to fix these pages up in the past, as have others, but some of the editors involved seem to have an axe to grind and are very persistent. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The amounts derived from a government database, and not sourced to a secondary reliable source, were an WP:OR violation, and there were a WP:COPYVIO violation and some "implications of legal wrongdoing" made which did not have strong reliable sources making the accusations, as well as repeats of the same accusation being given within the single BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks . Hope you (and others) will help me watch that page, and Ontario Ombudsman too. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Update: did some further cleaning of both articles, both seem (marginally) ok now but have been the target of persistent, long-term disruption (adding attack material against Marin). More people watching it the better, please. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Giorgio Ausiello


New biography, largely unsourced. Article's creator is determined to list group of non-notable students in the infobox. Help requested. Thanks, 2601:188:0:ABE6:18BA:9D03:B907:ADF2 (talk) 11:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, i am the author of the article Giorgio Ausiello. I inspired myself from the already existing article of the advisor of Prof. Ausiello, Corrado Bohm. Indeed, i found the link to create the paga about Giorgio Ausiello in Corrado Bohm's wikipedia entry. I put the (so called) "non-notable" students simply because they were the doctoral students of Prof. Ausiello. If you think they should not be cited fine, but in that case i think we might change the entry name into something like "notable students", otherwise it seems that he has no doctoral students.Rogatienne (talk) 11:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added a couple of sources. I think the subject may meet WP:NACADEMICS, but the article needs better sourcing.- MrX 15:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Panos G. Georgopoulos


Problematic biography, which appears to have begun as a copyright violation. I've removed the suspicious section, but the rest of it is a long resume, with dozens of publications and lists of academic history. All eight references are from the subject's published work. Badly needs trimming. 2601:188:0:ABE6:18BA:9D03:B907:ADF2 (talk) 13:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)



Adding a second biography with many similar issues, created by the same, now dormant, account. 2601:188:0:ABE6:18BA:9D03:B907:ADF2 (talk) 14:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I have cleanup up the Georgopoulos article best I can. Ideally someone with a bit of expertise in the subject should check which of his publications should be in the "selected pubs" list - he had tons and since I'm not an expert in the area I mostly went by the "most citations in google scholar" method. References still need to be improved, but at least its not an over-long CV now. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Luis Alberto Villarreal
This page about a politicians from the state of Guanajuato in Mexico is obviously propaganda by his own campaign team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.211.152.242 (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Proposed for deletion. The creator or others have the option of adding reliable, independent sources to the article and if they do so, it may remain. If you think there are specific factual inaccuracies, please identify them using  or  (and discuss them on the article's Talk page) so that these can be addressed. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"><font color="#006633">General Ization  <font color="#000666">Talk   16:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Most national assembly-level politicians are considered notable. This person seems to be a member of what would be the equivalent of the US Congress in Mexico. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Understood. That should mean, however, that there are significant and a significant number of independent sources that mention the subject and can verify at least some of the article's claims, understanding that they may not be in English. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"><font color="#006633">General Ization <font color="#000666">Talk   21:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I did find this, but the information it imparts is not currently found at the article (and some of the the article's editors may have preferred that it not be there). <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"><font color="#006633">General Ization <font color="#000666">Talk   21:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And this, though its neutrality and reliability is (for me) in question. We really need a Spanish-speaking editor with some knowledge of the region and its politics to take a look at the article. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"><font color="#006633">General Ization  <font color="#000666">Talk   21:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a short bio. Excelsior is about as good as it gets as a source in Latin America. I trimmed all the unsourced stuff and added that as ref. § FreeRangeFrog croak 23:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Jerry Speziale
BLP expert eyes on this one please. I don't have time to work on it in detail. Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 13:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * See also this post at COIN. It's a long-term problem with this article; an apparent COI editor (or editors) who just won't quit in their attempts to make Speziale look good, and some tremendously controversial subject matter (some of which is v. much "in the news" in NY and NJ). Fyddlestix (talk) 13:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Mark Riley (journalist)


The contents of his article were challenged a while ago regarding claims that the subject was one of the media folks that victim-blamed Leigh Leigh for her own murder. Pinging, who originally added the material. There were originally three sources used to support the claim:



I requested and received images of the relevant pages in #1 and I can confirm they do criticize Riley as per the article's wording. I also have a copy of #2, and while it is basically about the same thing, it only mentions Riley's work in a citation. It is also written by the author of #1. #3 also cites Riley's work but does not criticize him directly. Originally I left this alone after a discussion in the talk page but today I realized that the inclusion of this admittedly serious criticism by a single author is very much a case of WP:UNDUE. The Leigh article already includes Carrington's material, which to me is a more appropriate place since she does not limit her criticism to Riley in any case and seems to be a decent source for that particular angle of the case. I am asking for consensus on whether or not the material should remain, or we should wait until more widespread criticism of the subject appears in reliable sources, by authors other than Carrington. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Also pinging who were involved in the talk page discussion. § FreeRangeFrog  croak 18:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Murder of Leigh Leigh If you remove this you should also consider removing the comment from the heading of the murdered girls article - The media coverage of the murder has been cited as an example of blaming the victim [3] Carrington, Kerry (24 July 1998). Who Killed Leigh Leigh? A story of shame and mateship in an Australian town. Sydney, New South Wales: Random House Australia. ISBN 978-0-09-183708-2. and [4] Morrow. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree, Carrington's treatment of the Leigh case is fine in the Leigh article. It's just undue in Riley's because it comes only from Carrington. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Its the same citations exactly, carrington and morrow - and if it's not notable in his article it is not notable on hers either. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I can argue all day about removing the material that singles out Riley in the Leigh article, but I'm not going to. In the Leigh article they're just part of the overall narrative, here they're serious undue weight. For all practical purposes we could redirect Riley's article to the Leigh case since we feel that's the only thing he's notable for, and only because one lawyer wrote two papers about his work? § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The same User:Freikorp added the same material using the same citations to both articles in this edit to the death article Govindaharihari (talk) 18:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to oppose the removal of the criticism form the Riley article. I have, however, reverted User:Govindaharihari's removal of the content from the Leigh article. I agree with FreeRangeFrog opposition to this edit, and I strongly believe consensus should be reached before removing a significant chunk of the lead from a featured article. Freikorp (talk) 23:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose removal "Under fire" is not a good choice of words, but Carrington looks like a pretty ideal academic source. CorporateM (Talk) 03:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about the Leigh article? I have no quarrel with that one, although to me the Carrington coverage is still undue at best. § FreeRangeFrog croak 06:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm confused. I was looking at Mark Riley (journalist), where it says "His journalistic approach came under fire in 2011, when he was accused of ambushing the then Leader of the Opposition Tony Abbott" Based on the above discussion, it sounded like at least one of the Carrington sources supported this article-text. I see the article uses this Sydney Morning Herald piece, which also looks ok to me. Because the reporter's treatment of the issue is the subject of the entire article, not just mentioned in passing, I think it warrants inclusion. But the current article-text is not very neutral at all. CorporateM (Talk) 16:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the confusion, this is the material in question here. § FreeRangeFrog croak 16:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That also looks fine to me, as it is supported by BLP-compliant sources. Unless both sentences were included - in that case it would be redundant. CorporateM (Talk) 17:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

William X. Wang


An impressive vanity autobiography, both in terms of commitment, which seems to span five years, and content, which is mostly unsourced and largely promotional. Language difficulties don't help, but that's not the main problem. Half a decade is probably long enough for this to have grown to its current shape and condition. I may begin to chip away at the article, and further assistance would be appreciated. Thank you, 2601:188:0:ABE6:F51F:3422:6AAA:30D0 (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Now at Afd: Articles for deletion/William X. Wang.--ukexpat (talk) 19:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Russell Maroon Shoatz U.S. held Political Prisoner
'Russell Maroon Shoatz' is a dedicated community activist, founding member of the Black Unity Council, former member of the Black Panther Party and soldier in the Black Liberation Army. He is serving multiple life sentences as a US-held political prisoner/prisoner of war.

P e r s o n a l  B a c k g r o u n d

Russell was born in August, 1943, in Philadelphia. He was one of 12 children. At the age of 15 he became involved in a gang and was in and out of reform schools and youth institutions until the age of 18.

As a young man he married and became the father of seven children. In the mid 1960s, Russell became active in the New Afrikan liberation movement. He founded the Black Unity Council, which merged with the Philadelphia chapter of the Black Panther Party in 1969.

Tensions were high in Philadelphia in the summer of 1970, as Police Chief Frank Rizzo had ordered a crackdown on militant groups in the run-up to the national convention of the Black Panther Party, scheduled to be held in the city on September 5, 1970.

Tensions intensified when police killed an unarmed black youth. A retaliatory attack was carried out on a police station, killing officer Frank Von Coln and injuring one other.

The shooting of Von Coln prompted a 2 AM raid on the Black Panther headquarters in North Philadelphia. After the raid, police officials allowed news photographers to take humiliating photos of the Black Panthers being strip-searched on the street.

Russell and four others, who became known as the “Philly Five”, were immediately charged with the attack.

L e g a l  C a s e

In January of 1972, Russell was captured. He was convicted of the attack on the police station and sentenced to life.  L i f e  in   P r i s o n  1977 Prison Escape

Russell escaped with three others from Huntingdon State Prison in 1977. Two were recaptured and the third was killed during the escape. Russell remained at large for 27 days, leading to a massive manhunt by local, state, and federal forces, as well as citizen recruits from nearby white, rural areas.

From his capture in 1977 until 1989, Russell was shipped from state, county, and federal prisons, kept in long-term solitary confinement the vast majority of that time, principally due to his work with the Pennsylvania Association of Lifers to abolish life-without-parole sentences. In 1979, he was forcibly transferred to the Fairview State Hospital for the Criminally Insane. While at Fairview he was forcibly drugged, which in one case lead to him being hospitalized when he was overdosed.

1980 Prison Escape

In March of 1980, Russell escaped prison with a fellow revolutionary after a New Afrikan activist smuggled a revolver and sub-machine gun into the institution. Three days later, all three were captured after a gun battle with local, state, and county police, and FBI agents.

Camp Hill Prison Riot

In 1989, Pennsylvania prison Camp Hill erupted in a riot because of overcrowding and inhumane conditions. Despite being held in a Dallas prison and having nothing to do with the incident, Russell was implicated in it, and as a result, was transferred to the notorious Marion Supermax prison over 1,000 miles from family and friends.

Supporters fought to have Russell removed from solitary confinement in Marion and released into general population. They were finally successful in December of 1989, when Maroon was released to the general prison population at the federal penitentiary in Leavenworth, Kansas.

Russell Returns to Solitary Confinement

Unfortunately, Russell was placed back into long-term solitary confinement in 1991, at SCI Greene in Waynesburg, Pennsylvania. He would remain in solitary confinement for over 22 years, where despite being held in 23 hours-a-day lockdown, his commitment to New Afrikan liberation never wavered.

Russell seeks relief from Administrative Custody

Dan Kovalik, human rights and union labor lawyer in Pittsburgh, filed for relief on May 23, 2000. The case Shoatz vs. Horne sought to relieve Russell from continued placement on AC status – administrative custody, a.k.a. solitary confinement. Unfortunately, Russell’s legal fight to relieve himself from confinement in administrative custody was unsuccessful. Read the full decision here.

Russell Returns to General Population

The struggle for Russell’s freedom was reignited in 2013 when his legal team brought suit on the grounds that he had been subjected to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and that prison officials had deprived him of his procedural and substantive due process rights for keeping him in solitary confinement without meaningful review and on insufficient grounds.

The campaign to release Russell from solitary confinement also continued to gather international attention, including the support of five Nobel Peace Prize Laureates, Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa among them. Several U.S. civil and human rights organizations endorsed his release from isolation, as well as growing number of clergy. In March of 2013, United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment and Punishment, Juan Mendez, called on the U.S. government “to cease the prolonged isolation of Mr. Shoatz.”

Finally, in February of 2014, Russell was released into the general prison population at SCI Graterford in Pennsylvania.

www.russellmaroonshoatz.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.53.107 (talk) 18:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

What is the point of posting this text (apparently copied from a Web site) on this Noticeboard? We already have an article concerning Mr. Shoatz, at Russell Maroon Shoatz. However, please note that much of this information cannot be posted at all on Wikipedia without including citations of reliable, published sources. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"><font color="#006633">General Ization <font color="#000666">Talk   19:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * And if it's from a website, it's almost certainly copyright so we can't use it for that reason either.--ukexpat (talk) 19:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)