Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input. Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem. Search this noticeboard & archives Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Additional notes: Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases. For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead. Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

Stephanie Adams

Resolved

 – BLP restored from deleted/redirect. Other issues are non-BLP specific issues and require different fora. JFHJr (㊟) 02:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Stephanie Adams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have recently recreated and expanded this article based on recent substantial press coverage of a lawsuit won by Adams against the NYPD. The subject of the article has been the locus of a long-running edit war between sockpuppets and Wikipedia editors adding and removing Adams from various lists. While neither "side" is blameless in this dispute, I felt that there was a chance to put an end to this by creating a balanced BLP. This has been a contentious article in the past and there have already been comments made on the talk page of the article that I find concerning, so I am pre-emptively asking for more eyes on this article. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk)

• - User:Fasttimes68 needs a topic ban - they are overly involved. - the user has shown animosity to the subject on- and off-wiki - Youreallycan 20:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

provide evidence. Fasttimes68 (talk) 20:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Whether there's "evidence" or not - and evidence is a flexible term given the history of the Adams article - if YRC wants to propose a topic ban, take it to WP:ANI - it doesn't belong here. All DC asked was for editors to watch the article, a common and sensible enough request for this forum.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this is not the place for the discussion, but just for the record, the specific allegations that were made on Talk:List of Playboy Playmates of 1992 were that User:Fasttimes68 posted a blog entry on his blog entitled "Stephanie Adams is a twat" and that they were using User:69.143.17.59 (which geolocates to Virginia) as a sockpuppet. These claimed were not disputed by Fasttimes68 at that time. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

You are excellent at making accusations without evidence. Fasttimes68 (talk) 22:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree , those allegations are correct - This User:Fasttimes68 is a conflicted contributor in regards to this subject. - 20:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)Youreallycan

Chris Dorworth

Chris Dorworth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article contains "legal problems" section which repeats claims made by opinion writers for various newspapers. Article refers to these claims as "recent" even though the source material is more than 2 years old at this point. "Legal problems" section is one-sided, and difficult to defend under "neutral point of view" rule of Biographies of living persons. Other claims included are claims that are refuted in other sections of same articles used as source material, but only negative information from source material is presented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flobserver (talk • contribs) 12:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I've trimmed this section ruthlessly (while also keeping all three references), as it not only had problems with neutral point of view, but also appeared to be a copyvio of the sources it was using. An argument could be made for removing it entirely, though. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I got rid of the rest.[1] Articles "claiming" that Dorworth was facing "financial problems" (whatever that means) is BLP problematic. Having that information offset in its own subsection in the article compounded the problem. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Frank0051 seems not to approve, but I'm outta here for the night. Maybe someone else could explain it to him. If not, I'll hopefully get to it sometime tomorrow. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Did not see this originally - thought you were whitewashing. I have done some clean-up on it on it. Lets keep in mind here - we don't want to been seen as favoring one position or another, lest we end up with another David Rivera white-washing issue. So lets not just toss the entire section out with the bathwater when there are portions of it which certainly seem worthy of inclusion since they have been reported on multiple times by multiple sources.Frank0051 (talk) 02:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It is not true that the only things that happened in this person's life over the last two years were that (1) Dorworth was elected by his fellow Republicans to serve as Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives and (2) legal problems and ethics questions. That is the way the article reads, which is wholly offensive and clearly a BLP violation. The article is nothing more than an attack piece on a political leader. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

What else has been reported that is notable? Stating facts that are widely reported on are not a violation of Wikipedia's policy. I did not add the initial claims regarding Dorworth's legal issues, but I spent a great deal of time cleaning them up last night after I noticed changes [which I thought were whitewashing]. I attempted to make the section more brief and neutral based on what has been reported; find sources to contradict or add to that section and make the changes. Simple as that, I don't see any other issues here. Frank0051 (talk) 04:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

And, to add to this point, if you don't think Wikipedia covers controversy about living individuals, look no further than David Rivera's Wikipedia entry. By your logic the ONLY thing that has happened to Rivera over the past several years as been controversy and that "must" mean the entry is violating Wikipedia's policies :rolls eyes:. Frank0051 (talk) 04:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The dispute is ongoing. I'm posting to keep this thread alive, and also to point out that notable ≠ noteworthy. If the events themselves are notable, that's a matter that is altogether irrelevant; if notable, they deserve their own articles and a minimal part of a BLP. Noteworthiness, on the other hand, is best demonstrated through objective, enduring biographical and encyclopedic significance. What is reported on, and cited to, here is more akin to reporting events without actually accounting for said significance. Compare WP:UNDUE. The controversies and investigations need absolutely be proven to be something you'd expect to see in an encyclopedic biography. Right now, what I see, is intractable editorial differences personified by certain edit summaries. This is not an adequate substitute for discussion. So: how is the information in the diff above encyclopedically biographical? JFHJr (㊟) 02:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

A significant contributor does not seem to fully understand WP:BLP. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Daniel Tammet

Daniel Tammet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Most recent post
• Other prior posts

This is a follow-up to post here on 12 April. The dispute seemingly has not been resolved. Probably the same anonymous user continues to insert original research, poorly referenced claims, while removing well referenced information from this living person biographical article.

- The user inserts a sentence (or part of) from Tammet's first book, lifted out of context, and which has not been referenced in any reliably published secondary source that I can find. This seems an obvious example of original research.

- The user inserts the claim that Tammet's interview in Icelandic lasted a "few minutes" relying on the English subtitles from the documentary film ("We are now going to try to speak to Daniel Tammet in Icelandic for the next few minutes" etc.) The Icelandic interviewer actually says "næstu mínútur" (literally 'next minutes'). No reliable published secondary source cites interview duration. This seems another obvious example of original research.

- The user removed the referenced statement from Tammet's first book that he speaks 10 languages, claiming that 'only' French, German, and Icelandic have been 'verified'. This is a third obvious example of original research. The statement, drawn from the subject's own book, is well sourced, particularly as the article only states that Tammet 'says' he speaks these languages.

I notice that in every case the user's intention is to diminish/put in doubt Tammet's achievements. It follows a long-established pattern of vandalism and edit-warring behavior on the article by anonymous single-purpose users.

I strongly recommend speedy editorial intervention to prevent this from dragging on.

Oughtprice99 (talk) 12:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Exceptional claims of language ability need verification. There is no evidence of other languages spoken other than French, German and Icelandic. Impressive self-written claims which cannot be independently verified are not permitted in Wikipedia. I have removed the poorly sourced (circular-sourced), self-made claim.

My edit read, “In his memoir, talking about algebra, Tammet states not experiencing a synaesthetic response for letters.” On page 117 of “Born on a Blue Day” , talking about maths/algebra, Tammet wrote: “I found it very difficult to use equations that substituted numbers – to which I had a synaesthetic and emotional response - for letters, to which I had none.” I trust admin will agree that my edit is faithfully and accurately phrased. I have restored the edit. That said, if admin deem the latter wording is preferable, please insert the edit on my behalf. However, I assert that Tammet's wording is written in an awkward way and for ease of understanding my version is clearer.

I, and several administrators, have intervened previously regarding user Oughtprice99’s frequent, fallacious and disruptive conduct – leading to admin warnings and admin reverts. For example, user Oughtprice99 was recently stopped by admin (Bbb23) and myself for deleting irrefutable scientific findings and then pulled up again for altering the scientists’ comments – evidence of vandalism. Above, (talking about algebra) user Oughtprice99 falsely and oddly labels the edit as original research – twice reverted. These are just two examples, of which there are many, showing ill-intent or misguided judgement. There are a plethora of instances of invention and falsities, in addition to umpteen edit wars all involving the same user throughout the Talk Page. Several users have complained and it appears several users have felt sidelined or disheartened as a result of lengthy, quarrelsome exchanges with Oughtprice99. Bar some genuine objections, it is clear that the protectionist, COIN user (several users in Talk Page speculate is Tammet) is controlling the article and solely shaping the article with approxiametly 150 edits of late, and furthermore, obsessively acting to prevent ordinary statements from been edited in. To give an example, with desperation Oughtprice99 is defending vagueness over preciseness, e.g. preventing editors from inserting the full list of universities which have tested Tammet, and omitting/blocking the fact that the Icelandic interviewers spoke to Tammet for a few minutes (as quoted) within their programme content.

I petition admin to guard good points made and act to prevent user Oughtprice99 from instigating further disruption.XNQlo (talk) 17:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I have only two comments. First, I am not an admin. Second, the article has been fully protected by someone who is.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Wiki rules for living person bio articles are strict and require reliably published sources. Original research is not permitted. My edits simply conform to Wiki's guidelines for the reasons I have already given. Wikipedia editors are not asked to 'verify' information about subjects, but only to faithfully reproduce statements that have been reliably published.

Several major published media have stated that Tammet has learned 10 languages, including:

"Daniel Tammet can speak 10 languages, including Lithuanian and Welsh, as well as his own invented language" (The Independent, 23 July 2006)

"Daniel Tammet ... has learned to speak more than 10 languages" (Spiegel, 5 March 2009).

No self-made claim at all.

If you have a reliably published source for the 'full list of universities which have tested Tammet' (ie, not your own original research), please produce it. Otherwise, we need to publish only what the sources - reliable published major media articles - have stated to date. I had already updated the statement using a reference from a New York Times article on the subject.

Oughtprice99 (talk) 06:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Reply in a few days. Thank you for your patience in advance.XNQlo (talk) 12:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I have added detail to the original posting above to clarify further the points already made. Please forgive some of the overlap herein.

Exceptional claims of language ability need verification. There is no evidence of other languages spoken other than French, German and Icelandic. Impressive self-written claims and inconsistent claims made to the press (reported differently and reported as “can” speak) where there is no consensus and a self-claim of ability which cannot be independently verified makes for a poor edit. Put simply, anyone could claim in a self-written memoir to speak say 12 languages – it hardly makes good editing to include touted claims of grandeur absent of reported consensus and verification. To accept mention of self-made claims would reduce every Wikipedia biography to the temptation of distortion and PR filling.

My edit read, “In his memoir, talking about algebra, Tammet states not experiencing a synaesthetic response for letters.” On page 117 of “Born on a Blue Day” (publisher: Hodder and Stoughton, copyright 2006 Daniel Tammet), talking about maths/algebra in the leading sentence, Tammet (in his own self-written memoir) wrote: “I found it very difficult to use equations that substituted numbers – to which I had a synaesthetic and emotional response – for letters, to which I had none.” I trust users and admin will agree that my edit is faithfully and accurately phrased. I have rightfully restored the reliably sourced edit. That said, if admin deem the latter wording is preferable, please insert the edit on my behalf. However, I assert that Tammet's wording is written in an awkward way and for ease of understanding my version which, says exactly the same thing, is clearer. User Oughtprice99 falsely and oddly labels the edit as original research – obsessively reverted. This is clearly wrong. Also, Oughtprice99 originally complained the reproduced sentence did not include its context or a page number – both have been given. There is no justification to discuss this point any more.

I, and several users or administrators, have intervened previously regarding user Oughtprice99’s frequent, fallacious and disruptive conduct – leading to warnings and reverts (for example, see User Oughtprice99’s Talk Page). To cite an example of vandalism, user Oughtprice99 was recently stopped by a user and myself for deleting irrefutable scientific findings and then pulled up again for altering the scientists’ comments to suit his own bias – evidence of vandalism and COIN. Another example of vandalism by Oughtprice99 involves covertly adding wording not attributable to the original author (I can cite the sentence if requested). Also, I noticed in a recent BLPN, user Oughtprice99’s claims were denounced/rejected by two users and furthermore, Oughtprice99 was told he should not make personal assumptions about a user’s identity – same mistake made again. Be aware also that the same user obsessively reverted Joshua Foer’s reliably sourced (book published) criticism, upholding a consensus of 5:1 for several weeks (see Talk Page history) – mistakenly arguing to block a criticism before eventually being forced to concede.

Additionally, user Oughtprice99 also blocked Joshua Foer’s (Moonwalking with Einstein) criticism about Tammet’s face recognition ability. Citing a reliable, secondary source (World Memory Championships), the author highlighted Tammet’s gold medal Name/Face results and compared the findings with the Cambridge study “impaired” results. Note, pictures of faces are given, and upon recognition of the faces, the contestants have to recall the names). Science journalist and former US Memory Champion, Joshua Foer, outlined the anomaly in his award-winning book. A several user consensus was established in the Talk Page. User Oughtprice99 obsessively blocked all attempts to sensitively mention the reliably sourced, referenced point – demonstrating further dogmatic control the site. This edit is unresolved.

These are just a few examples, of which there are many, showing ill-intent or misguided judgement. There are a plethora of instances of invention and falsities, in addition to umpteen edit wars all involving the same user throughout the Talk Page. Several users have complained and it appears several users have felt sidelined or disheartened as a result of lengthy, quarrelsome exchanges with Oughtprice99. Bar some genuine objections, it is clear that the protectionist, COIN user (several users in the Talk Page speculate is Tammet) is controlling the article and solely shaping the article with approxiametly 150 edits of late, and furthermore, obsessively acting to prevent ordinary statements from been edited in. To give an example, user Oughtprice99 is defending vagueness over preciseness, e.g. preventing editors from inserting the exact list of universities which have tested Tammet (i.e. all major media sources state two universities only: Cambridge (ARC) and UC San Diego Center for Brain Studies). Also, user Oughtprice99 is misleading readers by quoting the NYT reference – he knows full well the reference points to the previous sentence – two, two word (adjective/adverb) unsupported insertions of no substance. To give yet another example, Oughtprice99 is obsessively deleting the reliably sourced fact that the Icelandic interviewers spoke to Tammet for a few minutes, as stated verbally in Icelandic and stated in English subtitles, as evidenced in the UK documentary, The Boy with the Incredible Brain. Moreover, user Oughtprice99 is deliberately misleading readers by not disclosing that the TED related sentence was copied from a website, specifically referenced as blog material which, constitutes poor and inadequate sourcing as per Wikipedia rules. A few users in the Talk Page have attributed misleading edits to Oughtprice99 before. Finally, I have also noticed that Oughtprice99 appears to have posted an originally researched finding about a female user’s background in a previous BLPN and posted a somewhat disparaging remark about author Joshua Foer in a user’s Talk Page – which I feel is disrespectful and unacceptable.

User Oughtprice99 is arguably taking ownership of the article and at times is abusing his privilege to edit the article – deleting reliably sourced edits, edit warring and obsessively quibbling on and on about factual edits from reasoning which is baseless and erroneous. The user has a long history of malpractice. Collectively there is a compelling case for admin to recognise the user’s often problematic and persistent disregard for Wikipedia rules and practices which, I have only partly summarized above. Can something be done to curb or stop further flagrant malpractice?

Regarding edit protection, one reasonable suggestion would be to indefinitely protect the reliably sourced edits I have made to prevent embedded alterations/deletions being made within legitimate future edits by user Oughtprice99 or an anonymous IP user. User Oughtprice99 has altered paragraph wording before while adding legitimate details to a citation (see edits related to scientific study findings – no activation of colour areas in regions of the brain).

It is reasonable to assume given Oughtprice99’s history further disruption is highly likely. There is evidence of COIN, insistence on OPOV only, vandalism, constant edit warring, controlling the site – the collective impact of which is spoiling the editing experience of Wikipedia users from editing reliably sourced material – i.e. inserting edits into the article from Tammet’s own self-written memoir. As a result few people edit now. I petition admin to act.

There appears to be three places for this discussion: here, dispute noticeboard and talk page. I suggest closing the BLPN and using only the dispute noticeboard and talk page - otherwise its going to get messy and awkward for users to contribute. If acceptable to admin, can this BLPN be closed. Thank you for your consideration in advance.XNQlo (talk) 11:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed the dispute resolution noticeboard has been closed due to pending discussion here.XNQlo (talk) 12:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

May Day arbitrary break

I'll start my comment by referring above parties (except Bbb23) to WP:DIFF. It's immensely helpful when you're trying to coax people who don't care a great deal (i.e., objective people) into reading your wall of text. This isn't necessarily the board of investigation. The above wall of text is indicative of one or several problems BLPN does not address, namely user behavior per se, which is the realm of WP:EWN and WP:ANI to name a few. Because some intelligible questions touch on sourcing, another appropriate venue may have been WP:RSN, if even only to invite the regulars into this forum to discuss. The gist seems to be a challenge to the claim that the subject speaks 10 languages. If I've missed a content-related issue, forgive me, but frankly it's WP:TLDR. Re-post the issue you're bringing in a succinct manner, and volunteers here won't miss it.

The subject speaks 10 languages; a rather noteworthy claim, of encyclopedic biographical significance to this subject in particular. So what. It's challenged. Go to sources. They're generally reliable, but we should ask who the sources are, who the ultimate sources are, and what they are reliable in reporting as fact. While verifiability is not an operation in original research, it is only a part of how we treat sources in question. Here, sources are secondary: they essentially report on primary source claims. So, on one hand, reliable sources objectively seem convinced-to-accepting of the claim that the subject speaks 10 languages. On the other hand, no reasonable reader could assume news, especially rather local news, to be competent to evaluate fluency among one, let alone ten, languages. Generally, journalists establish credibility and report accordingly, at the risk of their own credibility. In this case, I think, a tertiary or specialized primary/secondary source would be ideal: Guinness World Records, a well-published and reputable language study, another encyclopedia even.

On balance, the claim is just that: Daniel Tammet or someone reporting on him claims he speaks 10 languages; more precisely: he reportedly speaks at least 10 languages.^{[<ref name="Non-primary F00/><ref>Non-primary F00</ref>]} No comment on fluency, because the sources in question are of least reliability as to the fluency of an interviewee's performance of, say, ten different languages.

If there's another specific issue at hand regarding the subject or content, kindly re-post below. Don't forget diffs. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 03:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi JFHJr,

Thanks for your contribution. Your wording seems fair: 'He reportedly speaks at least 10 languages' with links to the reliable third-party published sources.

Other specific issues are raised at the top of this section, and on the article's talk page. Specifically:

- The user XNGlo insists that Tammet has been studied at precisely two scientific sites. He gives no source for this claim, which appears to be original research. A New York Times article from 2007(http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/15/garden/15savant.html?pagewanted=all) states only that he has been "studied repeatedly by researchers in Britain and the United States". Tammet's website states: "His remarkable memory, mathematical and linguistic abilities have been studied by some of the world's leading neuroscientists at California's Center for Brain Studies and the UK's Cambridge Autism Research Centre."

What about: 'Tammet has been studied by scientists at the Center for Brain Studies in California and the Cambridge Autism Research Centre in the UK'.

- The same user inserts a sentence stating that Tammet's Icelandic interview lasted 'a few minutes'. His source is a documentary subtitle that only shows the opening seconds of the interview. In the subtitle it says 'We will try to speak to Daniel Tammet in Icelandic for the next few minutes'. No reliable source that I know of gives the interview's actual duration. Did the interview last 5 minutes, or 10, or 15? We don't know.

- The same user has removed a referenced statement that Tammet was 'among the invited speakers at TED 2011 in Long Beach, California'. Source is Tammet's own blog. The user argued that blogs are not reliable sources. Wiki rules, however, state that blogs can be used when they are written by the subject of the article, and are not unduly self-serving. The TED website has a page showing Tammet's entire lecture (www.ted.com/talks/daniel_tammet_different_ways_of_knowing.html). The single sentence should be restored to the article.

Oughtprice99 (talk) 07:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't use Tammet's website or blog for anything that touches on his claims to notability. Those claims are generally open to challenge, and the subject's say-so doesn't win. Even his own book is inappropriate for sourcing a statement that he learned Icelandic in a week, as the article does now; it needs to be clearly phrased in terms of a self-published claim. On the other hand, using those primary sources for information about, say, his family background and personal life, would be alright. But when there's a more reliable third party source for the scientific investigation of what makes the subject notable, it should be used instead. Stick with "studied repeatedly by researchers in Britain and the United States."

Self-serving isn't the only problem; insignificance is also. WP:PRIMARY sources generally are insufficient to demonstrate a given topic is worth any weight, but they can be used to give some additional information within a topic that's clearly worth mentioning. Third party coverage is required to show the import of this subject's having been a TED speaker. If there isn't anything out there, let it go.

I find the "few minutes" quote from the subtitle problematic because I'm not able to verify any of the the documentary contents (I looked for a bit but didn't find it in a reliable place). A URL would help. But, from what you say, the video contains a statement of intent to speak with the subject "for a few minutes," and the text here reports a completed action. That's improper, unless the video actually shows the few minutes. If it does, "few minutes" need not be in quotes. JFHJr (㊟) 22:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi again JFHJr,

TED appears to be a pretty prestigious international event, and the subject's speech to the conference appears in full on the TED website. I also note that Wikipedia have articles on TED, and all past TED speakers, which would suggest notability.

'Studied repeatedly by researchers in Britain and the United States' seems fair to me.

I can confirm that the video shows only a few seconds from the interview, and agree with your conclusion.

The same user XNGlo repeatedly inserts a sentence statement from subject's memoir about him not seeing algebraic equations in synesthetic colors. I assume from what you say above that this would also be inappropriate according to Wiki notability rules.

Oughtprice99 (talk) 10:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

XNQlo makes some valid points. The quote from Tammet's book about non-synaesthetic response for letters is unquestionably acceptable. I do not accept the generalisation that Tammet has been tested by researchers in America and Britain. Why? I favour accuracy, i.e. only two centres of research are mentioned across all media sources. I suggestion the following: "Tammet has been tested by researchers at Cambridge University Autism Research Centre and UC San Diego Center for Brain Studies." I agree with XNQlo about self-serving claims of language ability without any test of fluency. It is not an appropriate edit. Regarding the matter about acceptability of blog material, it represents poor and improper sourcing, and so any quotes taken from Tammet's own website or his blog or any other blog is no good. I noticed that two, approximately one and a half minute clips of Tammet speaking in Icelandic are shown in the documentary. The interview was very short. It is handy to know how long the interview lasted as Tammet in his memoir does not disclose the duration of the interview. XNQlo is aiming for precision I think. The Icelandic interviewers mention "next few minutes" and XNQlo states "few minutes" - it is hardly original research. Just an observation . . . why has user Oughtprice99 created a single-purpose account solely representing the Tammet article?194.238.70.70 (talk) 10:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

If TED is so prestigious, third party coverage is even more appropriate. Other Wiki articles are irrelevant. I don't have the memoir to compare the synesthesia claim to, but if it's not supported in those exact terms, it should be removed. I'm not even sure the assertion has any value in a biography (it seems like trivia to me), but if it's accurate at all compared to the source, it should be phrased in terms of a claim.

Regarding the IP's statements: it is original research to assert something that is not contained in the source, or to use, say, a subtitle statement of intent to assert an event occurred. If the institute names appear in any reliable sources, and not just in self-publications, show those sources. What's called a generalization by the IP is actually what one reliable source in question truly states. I'll also point out that XNQlo (talk · contribs) is himself an WP:SPA, and I have lots of difficulty believing the IP is not actually XNQlo.

Both of you should learn to indent using colons. JFHJr (㊟) 20:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi JFHJr. Thank you for trying to help out. I appreciate the time you’re spending to help resolve matters. Several comments. I (XNQlo) and IP (above) are in different parts of the country. Secondly, I have provided the exact quote about non-synaesthesia for letters below:

On page 117 of “Born on a Blue Day” (publisher: Hodder and Stoughton, copyright 2006 Daniel Tammet), talking about maths/algebra in the leading sentence, Tammet wrote: “I found it very difficult to use equations that substituted numbers – to which I had a synaesthetic and emotional response – for letters, to which I had none.” My edit read, “In his memoir, talking about algebra, Tammet states not experiencing a synaesthetic response for letters.” Of the two which do you think can be used JFHJr, please tell me.

User Oughtprice99 states the video shows “only a few seconds” of the interview. Untrue. Approximately three minutes is shown. As the IP user also confirms. As per your suggestion above, it seems fair to remove the quotes. Agreed. Regarding the statement “he learned Icelandic in a week”, like you, I find it problematic as it stands. What would you suggest as an alternative?

As for language ability, there is no “press” consensus about number of languages spoken. Several articles cite different claims. Furthermore, should we really include journalist uptake of a notable self-made claim?

I agree with Oughtprice99’s original posting above but slightly changed: “Tammet has been studied at the Cambridge Autism Research Centre and the UC San Diego Center for Brain Studies.” Hope this is agreeable.XNQlo (talk) 01:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

About the synaesthesia: I'd leave out algebra, since it's not really helpful in making the point: "In his memoir, Tammet states experiencing a synaesthetic and emotional response for numbers, but not letters."

We can include language claims that appear in third party sources, even if those sources aren't competent to evaluate the claims themselves. When that's done, it's best to add indicative language: "Tammet claims to speak 10 languages." I'd leave out the Icelandic-in-a-week claim if it only appears in his self-publication. On the same subject, viewer commentary and description of a documentary is in fact original research if the information in question is not actually from the documentary: i.e., the duration of the interview. Leave it out. If there's anything worth stating about the documentary, it will be the actual contents, not a combination of shown, unshown, and subtitles, plus some information from the subject's memoir about the interview.

Finally, what reliable source is there about the institutes where the subject was studied? From what's been shown here, reliable sources haven't stated those two. What's more, none have limited the statement to the two. JFHJr (㊟) 03:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The suggested sentence "In his memoir, Tammet states experiencing a synaesthetic and emotional response for numbers, but not letters" risks appearing inaccurate as Tammet states in the memoir p.10 "My synaesthesia also affects how I perceive words and language. The word 'ladder,' for example, is blue and shiny, while 'hoop' is a soft, white word..." On page 11: "I can even make the colour of a word change by mentally adding initial letters to turn the word into another: 'at' is a red word, but add the letter H to get 'hat' and it becomes a white word." XNGlo's sentence refers to letters appearing in algebraic equations.

The Icelandic-in-a-week claim appears in a documentary film 'The Boy with the Incredible Brain' and several reliable published sources including Spiegel, 5 Mar 2009: "He learned Icelandic in a week for a TV documentary" www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,611381,00.html

Google search for 'Tammet TED' brings up over a million results. The TED website shows Tammet's talk in full (which has been viewed 600,000 times). TED's blog for the event, date Mar 4 2011, shows a photo of Tammet on stage with a quote from his talk. http://blog.ted.com/2011/03/04/ted2011-report-%E2%80%93-session-9-threads-of-discovery/ I think it's quite a stretch to suggest this is not a notable event in Tammet's career worthy of a single sentence.

I also notice that all mention of Tammet's documentary film, first broadcast on UK national television in 2005, has been removed from the article. Many third-party published sources refer to it. The documentary brought Tammet to public attention. It should have a sentence in the article.

Oughtprice99 (talk) 08:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Buddy Fletcher

Buddy Fletcher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

More eyes on this article are needed per recent events. I can't touch the article for the moment because of 3RR, but the history speaks for itself, as well as the silly discussion between an editor and me on the article's Talk page. I have to log off now as I'm going out to dinner. Thanks for any assistance.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Here are issues I noticed that might be subject to deletion. The lead refers to FBI and SEC investigations. The statement could be contrary to WP:BLP: "A living person accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until convicted by a court. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime before a conviction is secured." The harassment section mentions lawsuits against him with confidential settlements. The suggestion of wrong doing is very strong but with no proof because the outcomes are confidential. I am not sure there is sufficient reliable sourcing to include statements regarding his sexuality. Are these the topics you are questioning?Coaster92 (talk) 06:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, some of the material you are looking at was added after I logged off Wikipedia. Unfortunately, things got much worse rather than better. The stuff about the FBI and the SEC is sourced to that same WSJ article (the reference list is a mess with dupes and missing tags). I can only access the very beginning of the article as I assume I have to have a subscription to access the rest.

Unfortunately, except for one minor edit by Red Pen of Doom, the only editors of the articles are WP:SPAs and IPs (I'm not counting the editor with whom I was having a contentious dispute - although way off base, I think xe's sincere). I have removed two blatant copyright violations from the article (as an exemption to 3RR), but, otherwise, I am still taking a hands off approach. I suspect that this paragraph is also a copyright violation, but I can't access the WSJ source (even when the URL is fixed - it has a technical problem) to verify it:

In April 2008, three Louisiana public pension funds invested an aggregate of $100 million in Series N Shares of FIA Leveraged Fund, a Cayman Island hedge fund managed by Fletcher Asset Management. The terms of the Series N Shares provided for a preferential return of 12% per annum. In March 2011, the Municipal Employees Retirement System of Louisiana requested redemption of $15 million of its investment, and the Firefighters Retirement System of Louisiana requested redemption of $17 million of its investment. In June 2011, these two pension funds and the New Orleans Fire Fighter's Pension and Relief Fund requested a redemption of their entire investment in FIA Leveraged Fund. In January 2012, the three pension funds petitioned the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands to order that FIA Leveraged Fund be wound up and that two employees of Ernst & Young be appointed as joint official liquidators of the Company. In April 2012, the Court granted the petition and ordered that FIA Leveraged Fund be wound up.

Even if it weren't a copyright problem, it is redundant, as there is now material about the hedge fund issue scattered throughout the article.

One of the SPAs, User:Sjrcass, has a clear conflict based, not only on his editing, but on this lovely edit summary: "Removing promotional and inaccurate statements based on experience as Fletcher employee".

As is occasionally the case in onslaughts like this, there are some occasional acceptable edits thrown in. In fact, the one with the above edit summary, I would have agreed with, not so much because it was promotional or inaccurate, but because it was trivial.

This article has some history from last December, during which I removed an excessive amount of detail about various lawsuits.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I recommend a deep revert to December. I was involved in producing that version, so I'll see if another BLPN regular would agree. JFHJr (㊟) 02:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The December version above looks much better to me. There is no mention of the SEC/FBI investigation or harassment, which seem inappropriate based on WP:BLP as mentioned in my earlier comments. The December version still has the sexual orientation references and I am not sure if that is appropriate. Under [[WP:BLP] is stated:

Categories, lists and navigation templates/Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources. Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources.

I see that this policy refers to categories but wonder if these restrictions also apply in general in an article, ie, if a person has not openly stated their sexual orientation, should that topic be left out of the article if it is not related to their his notability?Coaster92 (talk) 04:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Right you are. Sorry I missed that. The sexual orientation doesn't belong. It's not mentioned in the prose, and wouldn't have much of a place, relevance-wise. JFHJr (㊟) 05:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC) Not sure how I missed that. I guess I got caught up in the diffs. JFHJr (㊟) 03:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

If you're going to restore it, I would go back to the April 9, 2012, version as there were some minor but good edits since your December 8, 2011, version. As for the "controversial" material, although I don't feel strongly about it, I don't think a brief mention (in the body only) of what happened recently would be inappropriate. I agree about removing the gay cat, not because it's not mentioned in the prose, but because the mentions don't satisfy WP:BLPCAT.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Right on. I think it's a better version. I'm also in agreement on having a brief mention of recent events that seem pretty well covered; what's there now isn't awful, but could be more succinct. The article generally has a problem with excessive detail, IMHO. I've given it a shot. JFHJr (㊟) 03:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I just had a look at what is there now and it looks much better. Except I see that the sexual orientation mention is still there, last few sentences under Personal and Education. Your earlier comment here agreed that it did not belong in the article. Oversight or change of mind? Interested to hear your thinking on this.Coaster92 (talk) 04:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Oversight makes it sound dreadful. Let's call it negligence. JFHJr (㊟) 04:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Good job. Unfortunately, Candle has readded material back into the lead, making it even more prominent than it was. I've reverted Candle's inappropriate edits, which he made without discussion. I've invited him to comment on the article Talk page and/or at BLPN. I've left a similar comment on the article Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I performed what I hoped would be a compromise edit, removing insolvency but retaining mention of the company, the subject's work, and his lawsuits. But it was basically undone with a new WP:SPA re-inserting the insolvency in the lead. This after 3RR was recently approached. I've reverted for now, but any more quacking and this may begin to go down WP:SPI Street. JFHJr (㊟) 22:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I've been watching your edits to the article, as well as your comment to Candle on the Talk page. I'm happy to leave you to it as, although Candle has for the moment stopped attacking me, my assumption is he'll respond better to you. If you need support, I'll jump back in. Otherwise, carry on. --Bbb23 (talk) 22:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi JFHJr, I saw that you took out the orientation sentences and Candle put them back in, so I took them out as I believe the topic could be potentially libelous. I wouldn't say "negligent", maybe "busy".Coaster92 (talk) 05:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the libel (untrue statements). It's pretty well sourced; do you think something is inaccurate? From what I can tell, you've removed uncontroversial prose on the subject's sexual orientation, claiming a basis in a discussion on removing the category. You've also said I previously removed it, but I don't recall removing that prose (diff please?). JFHJr (㊟) 05:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I've restored the material about Fletcher's male partner, although I pared it down to one sentence. It was well-sourced by the NYT and not even particularly controversial except perhaps for those who believe it's impossible for a person to have a same-sex relationship followed by an opposite-sex relationship.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. JFHJr (㊟) 23:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I stand corrected. Earlier I asked if it is appropriate to discuss a subject's sexual orientation if they have not self-identified as gay. I thought JFHJr agreed that the topic should not be included in an article if the subject has not self-identified and the topic is not relevant to the article or their notoriety per above-cited WP:BLP section, per the April 27 and 28 comments we posted. But it sounds like I misunderstood? From the references presented, it does not look like it is inaccurate. I am just not sure what the protocol is on the topic and would like to know. Thank you.Coaster92 (talk) 03:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The Litigation section remains unclear. The article has long presented this section as being comprised of only two cases-- both filed by Fletcher himself, and both on grounds of alleged racism. It would appear these cases were singled out in the first place (and this section created) to show some sort of persecution of Mr. Fletcher. Regardless of one's views on that subject, it would seem that if a Litigation section is to be included, that it includes all verifiable, well-sourced lawsuits involving Mr. Fletcher-- or the section be removed altogether. I, and other editors (charmingly belittled in the write-up above, apparently, as SPAs. Nice) have tried to list the other known lawsuits and had them repeatedly and immediately reverted by BBb23. This being the case, can BBb23 please explain why he believes these two particular lawsuits are the only ones meriting inclusion in this section? The reasoning behind this would be much appreciated the next time I see my edits removed. That being said, I have no objections to BBb or anyone else removing the Litigation section altogether. Unless Mr. Fletcher is a lawyer, or his life defined by lawsuits, its inclusion seems incongruous with the rest of the article. (BTW, happy to hear that you find my edits "lovely", BBb) Thanks sjrcass (talk) 01:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I call you a SPA because you are a SPA. I called your edit lovely because you have a clear conflict and shouldn't even be touching the article, although you're welcome to comment here and on the article Talk page. With respect to a BLP, there's a significant difference between inserting positive material and inserting negative material. The positive material may not belong, but the bar for putting in negative material is higher. The Dakota litigation received a lot of publicity, making it fairly noteworthy. I'm not as convinced that the Kidder lawsuit belongs. I'd have to look for more sources. Those that are there don't do a good job of telling what happened. Putting aside the primary source, one source says he filed a discrimination claim for back pay. Fine. The second source says he was awarded some money, but it's not clear the basis for the award. I took out the material that said that it wasn't for the discrimination allegations because the source simply didn't make that clear. Still, the fact that he sued and won is more notable than suits that haven't been resolved or resulted in supposed settlements. The sexual harassment suit resulted in a "reported" confidential settlement, so the matter wasn't even adjudicated. The other lawsuit apparently hasn't even been resolved, AND the material added to the article was a copyright violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

See BLP policy for reasons to omit sexual harassment allegations. The other suit involving a movie company seems itself not to be the subject of nearly as much note. The sole cite given in support only briefly mentioned the suit at the end of its article about another more prominent lawsuit. Encyclopedic biographies are not the news, and they don't have to report on everything within a given topic, contrary to the assertion above. Only events and details that are of enduring biographical significance should appear, and they should be given due weight. The reasons for removal have been given amply further above in this discussion. And the position taken by apparent former Fletcher employee Sjrcass (talk · contribs) above is contrary to core policies and guidelines. JFHJr (㊟) 01:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Also, thanks for clarifying the reasons for using SPA. It sounded a lot more like you were using the term to disparage all edits (and editors) that didn't agree with your own view, which is clearly frowned upon here (as you'll know, of course). That said, I will step out of the editing given the COI. However, it should be noted here, as a primary source (I was a Managing Director at Fletcher) that Fletcher has had an additional 2 sexual harassment suits that I am aware of. If there is a blanket policy for not including sexual harassment suits, then fine, leave them out. But I believe they define who Fletcher is as much as the Kidder or Dakota lawsuits-- insomuch as they are examples of behavior that is both apparently persistent, and apparently bought off with settlements. The two mentioned are well-sourced and the plaintiffs named. BBb also mentions that the Seven Arts lawsuit should be removed as it isn't resolved. I accept that-- but neither is the Dakota lawsuit. Should it not therefore also be removed? A recurring theme in the literature on Mr. Fletcher seems to be the much publicized "donation" of things (University Chairs, educations grants, movie funding), that ultimately turn out to be much less than promised, or non-existent. It is an important theme in his life and deserves, given the number of reputable fact-checked sources (WSJ, NYT, Boston Magazine) pointing it out, to be included in some way. As other editors have said, I have found BBb23s edits somewhat peremptory and "abusive." But I appreciate he/she is sincerely trying to do what is right by the guidelines here. I would ask, however, for there to be more balance in this article. In full disclosure, I was Fletcher's college roommate and close friend for years. I have stayed away from his life and story for over 15 years and have no desire to go back. But I do see that the truth (well-sourced, verifiable, balanced truth) needs to out-- not from an advocacy point of view, but simply because it is key to understanding Mr. Fletcher. Finally, if someone is a hedge fund manager, then I would have thought that the most important thing in their life-- what defines them-- is the success or failure of their fund. How can the insolvency and court-stated "worthlessness" of their fund not deserve more weight-- especially in the lead? Fletcher is a hedge fund manager and his fund has apparently lost over $100 million. That is not "unresolved" and it is not insignificant. That would seem to be lead material. Good luck and thanks for the consideration. sjrcass (talk) 11:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

First, thanks for clarifying who you are and your conflict and for agreeing to stop editing the article (I'll ignore your insults). Second, you shouldn't conclude that there is a blanket policy that sexual harassment lawsuits can never be included in an article per policy. That's not a correct interpretation of JFHJr's point. Third, the Dakota lawsuit may not have completed yet, but there was a lot of publicity about the problems at the Dakota leading up to the suit, which makes it more noteworthy, not as adjudicated litigation but as part of the broader story.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Matt Gunther

Resolved

 – BLP issues resolved: unreliable sources removed; challenged unsourced statements may be removed. JFHJr (㊟) 04:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Matt Gunther (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm trying to find Matt Gunther's death and HIV/AIDS stuff, but I found none reliable in either Google News or Books about his death. At least I found this same source under different terms: [2], [3], [4]. I'm still trying: [5]. --George Ho (talk) 15:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I've removed both current references in the article. One was at rame.net, which doesn't strike me as reliable at all, itself sourced to a usenet posting. Another was a Wikipedia link. Neither is acceptable for BLPs. JFHJr (㊟) 03:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Question: Are there sources that confirm his death? --George Ho (talk) 05:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe? They're not coming up on a fast and dirty search, if they're out there. Not everything's on the Googles yet, and between the genre and the past, the subject isn't hugely amenable to reliable sources to start with. Certainly, there are no sources that confirm his death in the article, so if you want to remove something, you've got pretty much free rein to challenge anything. JFHJr (㊟) 05:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Tô Linh Hương

Resolved

 – Disputed content reworded, per source. JFHJr (㊟) 01:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Tô Linh Hương (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

While the contents of the article on To Linh Huong are generally accurate the article is plagued by editorialised comments, such as 'Huong is the latest figure of the Crown Prince Party and from families of senior national and provincial leaders. This is usually portrayed as 'Red Offspring' by the public.[5]

Vietnam is one of a few nations that lets crown princes and princesses hold senior positions in commerce, especially in private equity. This allows them to maximize their profits and also brings them into regular contact with the Vietnamese and international business elite.

An easy solution would be to change 'Crown Prince Party' to 'Communist Party of Vietnam' and 'lets crown princes and princesses' to sons and daughters of senior officials...etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.252.50.185 (talk) 10:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The term "Crown Prince Party" does not appear in the source given; the closest term is actually translated into English as "Chinese princelings" in the source itself. At any rate, I've removed it in favor of a simpler statement to the same effect, following the source in question. Thanks for posting! JFHJr (㊟) 03:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Simon Watney

Resolved

 – Article stubbed for want of reliable sourcing. JFHJr (㊟) 01:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Simon Watney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I recently found a biography of myself on Wikipedia which began by getting my age wrong and appeared to have little idea of who I am, beyond some kind of obscure political grudge. An anonymous Wikipedia editor had understandably and correctly already expressed a stated concern that the article lent 'undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, controversies or matters relative to the article subject as a whole' etc.

So firstly, I am writing to thank the editor for his/her intervention.

Secondly, I have now corrected the biography and trust that the Wikipedia editor will now revise/remove his/comment relating to the version to which we both objected. Many thanks Simon Watney — Preceding unsigned comment added by Recusant boy (talk • contribs) 13:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Assuming you are Watney, my edits to the article will probably not please you. There was virtually nothing in the article that was reliably sourced. Except for one source, there was nothing except primary sources, which are generally not permissible, particularly for some of the claims in the article. You should also be aware that it's not usually a good idea for someone to edit his own article. See WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. The better approach is to identify yourself on the article Talk page and suggest edits with reliable sources. Thanks for your understanding.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Evelyn Lozada

Resolved

 – Poorly sourced/summarized content removed. JFHJr (㊟) 03:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Evelyn Lozada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is this page necessary? her bio on the Basketball Wives wiki page says exactly the same thing and is better worded anyway.

Seems to be put up by one of her publicists or fans — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.151.200 (talk) 13:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Some of it was copied from one of her promotional bios. Other than her role in the reality show, there's really nothing but trivia in it. I don't even want to evaluate whether she's sufficiently notable, a thankless task.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Dave Winer

Resolved

 – Disruptive editor blocked, BLP content reviewed. Re-post as necessary. JFHJr (㊟) 03:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Dave Winer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I believe more eyes may be necessary over on Talk:Dave Winer. Dave Winer is a technology writer and entrepreneur and an early blogging pioneer, but has a communication style that can get him into controversy.

I just declined a request at WP:RFPP to remove semi-protection from the article. One editor is very keen to include material about the subject that is negative, but seems to want to use sources that are fairly unreliable (including the gossip blog Gawker, seemingly on the basis of the argument that if Gawker is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, that must show that they are a reliable source). It'd be useful if some BLP-minded editors would have a look at these discussions and weigh in on the appropriateness of sources and recent editing to the article. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The editor mentioned above is User:Irelan12. His suggestions for adding criticism to Dave Winer's article can now be seen at Talk:Dave Winer. This may be a person who has had disputes with Winer in real life. Merely wanting to balance Winer's article is acceptable, but naked animosity will raise most people's eyebrows. An account with a similar name has previously been blocked for abuse of multiple accounts, per WP:Suspected sock puppets/Nirelan. See also Talk:Dave Winer/Archive 2 from 2008, where Nirelan is mentioned many times. Since Nirelan has been around the block here before, my thought is that any further addition of negative material at Dave Winer that is not supported by consensus should lead to a block. EdJohnston (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Irelan12 is a sockpuppet of Nirelan, who has been blocked countless times in the past, and whose whole career as a Wikipedian has been dedicated to the purpose of exacting revenge from Dave Winer over an incident that happened in 2007: originally Irelan failed in his attempt to get the article deleted, ever since he's been trying to get the minor incident of his conflict with Winer included in the article. Arguing from a personal grievance and against an overwhelming consensus, he's been disputing Winer's accomplishments, trying to have them minimised or removed. He's currently flogging a dead horse in the Talk pages of the Winer article. The current semi-protection of the article, incidentally, is a result of Nirelan's edits from an IP account.

The man has a strong conflict of interest, and it is tiresome having to defend the article against his baseless attacks. I recommend he be banned again immediately. ARK (talk) 08:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I've blocked Irelan12 as an obvious sock. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! ARK (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Irelan12 has removed the sockpuppet template from his user page and has edited the Winer page, violating a clear consensus in the talk pages. Has his block been lifted? ARK (talk) 07:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes he has been unblocked - see here - If the user returns to the previous edit issues/violations occur report him back here - or to the previous blocking admin, User:Tom Morris - Youreallycan 08:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

As soon as Irelan12 got unblocked, he made the edit he'd been threatening to make for days prior to getting blocked, ignoring the consensual view that this edit should not be made (see [6]). ARK (talk) 10:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

user:Nirelan currently reads: "This account was formerly used by Irelan12. It is not a sock puppet, but is an account to which the password has been lost, or which the user has abandoned." Surely Nirelan has managed to wriggle out of this only through some glitch in which the original Nirelan account was not properly blocked, as the discussion on the Nirelan12 talk page suggests? For the past week, Irelan12 has been up to exactly the same persistent trolling of the Dave Winer biography that earned Nirelan his block in the first place. ARK (talk) 11:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The admin who unblocked Nirelan appears to be inexperienced and has recently made another poor judgement in unblocking an account [source]. ARK (talk) 12:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The Nirlan account was only blocked for a month - way back in 2007 - see his block history - No, it was User:Jpgordon that unblocked the user - there is nothing much wrong with all the admin actions in regards to the user imo - I would block him myself as a single purpose disruptive account with a previous history of disrupting that single biography , but hes been unblocked on a technicality , so ... just keep your eye on him and report every violation he makes. - Looking at the edit history he has been editing as an IP also , - see this IP addresses contributions - I left User:Tom Morris a note to update him.Youreallycan 13:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

If the talk page User_talk:Nirelan#Block is any indication, the admin who imposed the block in 2007 intended it to be indefinite. But yeah, let's ask User:Tom Morris. ARK (talk) 14:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Irelan12 has just made a string of edits to the Dave Winer in egregious disregard of the talk page consensus. I would like to request that the article be reverted to the [last version] by user:MarkBernstein. ARK (talk) 18:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I did just that a moment ago, since the edits were removing information that would otherwise take lots of time and effort to recover -- including systems that represent a substantial part of the subject's technical career. I don't follow the details of the block/unblock history, but it seems clear to me that some action is necessary. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I have shown that Userland Software made Editthispage.com and that he did not invent podcasting or enclosures in the discussion. They want to add fluff. If they want to undo my edits they need to provide refrences.--Irelan12 (talk) 19:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

So the original Nirelan account of early 2007 was blocked only for one month, allowing him to escape the indefinite block for block evasion on a technicality. Nirelan went through a whole Muppet Show of sock puppets, however, and Nirelan2 was blocked indefinitely. This should be sufficient cause to block user:Irelan12 indefinitely, rather than blocking him merely for 48 hours, as is the case right now. ARK (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Here's a list of other Nirelan blocks, including the indefinite block for NickIre. ARK (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Nick Irelan has been banned from Wikipedia after a discussion at the Wikipedia administrators' noticeboard. ARK (talk) 13:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Chris Wattie

Resolved

 – BLP vios removed, merger proposed. JFHJr (㊟) 03:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Chris Wattie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm flagging this article because someone added the man's student number to the piece. I removed it but as an IP editor it's possible this may be reverted either due to that fact or for another reason. I believe the inclusion of student numbers is a BLP violation. The article also needs to be policed as I spotted several other cases of statements being made without source, such as an unsourced claim he ghost-wrote a book for someone (which is a double-BLP scenario). As Wattie was involved in a controversy back in 2006, the article in addition needs to be policed to make sure facts are indeed correct and that the potential for bad-faith editing is minimized. 70.72.223.215 (talk) 20:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I removed a large paragraph from the article because it was a blatant copyright violation. Unfortunately, that leaves little in the article except the controversy. I have no idea whether he's notable (beyond that single event).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

It looks like Chris Wattie could meet the notability criteria per WP:Notability: "Any biography: The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times...[He received honorable mention under the Ross Munro award.] Creative professionals: Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals: The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." [He is a journalist with a major Canadian publication.]Coaster92 (talk) 05:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Eking out ANYBIO with honorable mention? Really? JFHJr (㊟) 20:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

You left out the journalist part (WP:AUTHOR). By Coaster's interpretation, every journalist with a major publication would be inherently notable. Wow. Besides, there's no in-the-article-evidence that Wattie satisfies the "widely cited" criterion Coaster quotes.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I left it out because I couldn't make sense of it. Having a job and being regarded as an important figure are different things. JFHJr (㊟) 20:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

This is only tangential, but has anyone glanced at the related WP:1E article, 2006 Iranian sumptuary law controversy? I was thinking it best to redirect and merge information about Wattie into that article, but I'm left wondering whether the incident of false reporting is actually notable itself. It wasn't even much of a controversy. It was bad reporting that got condemned and retracted. Encyclopedic? WP:NEWSPAPER? JFHJr (㊟) 20:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Without directly responding to your question, my guess is the Wattie article should be AfD'd. However, going through WP:BEFORE with a journalist isn't fun because you have to sort out all the obvious links to articles he's written from the secondary sources about him that might make him notable.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I've proposed merger. I don't think this BLP demands a full AfD. But if that turns out to be the case, it'll probably go. JFHJr (㊟) 21:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I am happy to hear input about my comments and reference to the notability policy. I was not attempting to make a determination, merely point out a possibly relevant policy I found. I don't really fully understand the responses or the tone but would like to hear about why the policy does not apply if anyone cares to.Coaster92 (talk) 04:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for my tone. As for the substance of what I said, I don't see any evidence in the article that Wattie has been widely cited by his peers or successors, so I don't see notability as a journalist.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Wattie did author the Contact Charlie book but I see the point, that every author is not necessarily notable. It looks like he has authored many articles as a Canadian journalist, which would make him well known, but perhaps not notable by Wiki standards. I searched around but did not find reliable secondary sources about him or much of significance about his book. Anyhow, this article is not about his book or his ongoing journalistic endeavors so merging it would seem to make sense.Coaster92 (talk) 04:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Although I'm not adverse to seeing the article merged or AFD'd, what makes a print journalist any different than a television news reporter? We have plenty of articles on them. Yes, someone who is just local generally doesn't rate an article, but there are plenty of TV journalists who are included here primarily based on the fact their stuff gets shown nationally on things like CTV or CNN. If we're going to introduce bias against one genre, then the other needs to be policed as well. I'm not necessarily saying Wattie fits the bill even in an inclusive sense, not being familiar with him beyond the Iran thing, but I'd be careful about setting precedent if none already exists. This isn't an AFD debate, but if he's authored major books as the article claims (whether as himself or as a ghost-writer) that probably establishes notability beyond the Iran thing. 70.72.223.215 (talk) 13:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry. Things don't get AfD's here, and we all know it. I've witnessed firsthand a growing consensus at AfD regarding the notability of journalists; precedents at AfD are in fact the reverse of the precedent you've described. That's part of why I've proposed merging instead of a full AfD, though I'm still pretty sure this particular subject wouldn't survive there, even on journalistic ad hoc considerations that fly there. I'm not seeking to delete the article or its history, and will even throw in a WP:TOOSOON, in case guidelines are made for journalists, or the subject becomes more objectively notable. So never fear, this is not a deletion discussion. I've proposed merger. Consensus may kick it. It's up to anyone to propose deletion thereafter, but if your concern is with journalists, I hope you'll start a thread at WT:Notability (people) called Journalists. JFHJr (㊟) 03:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Stephen F. Cohen

Resolved

 – Challenged content removed to talk page for better sourcing. JFHJr (㊟) 19:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Stephen F. Cohen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please note that the final paragraph here (reprinted below) is entirely fictitious and defamatory. It should be removed immediately:

In 2012 Cohen was nominated for an award for the World's Most Influential Interviewee for his well thought-out arguments and his well practiced hand gestures, providing many historians globally with note worthy "sound bites". Due to Cohen's exquisite taste for modern art, which is often on display behind him as he informs the world of Russian history, he was greatly praised all around the globe, thus resulting in various emerging groups naming themselves 'the Cohenists'. Furthermore, Cohen's quote when talking about war in the Russian countryside in the initial years of the 1920's "You hit them with one fist (swift movement with right hand)... and then hit them with the other fist (again, a swift movement with his left hand)... But, isn't that a form of class warfare?" earned him the highest form of praised which was given to him in the form of a golden medal with his face engraved in it.

The same applies to the fictional reference, which should also be removed (as I believe no such work exists):04:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)75.69.32.194 (talk) How to give Interesting Interviews in Old Documentries: A study of the effectivness of hand gestures and background Modern Art in dictating your opinion, 2001, ISBN 9780195088889 Pub. 2001 by by Oxford University Press

I am not sure how this statement is defamatory. No reference is given for it so I added a "citation needed" tag.Coaster92 (talk) 05:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I did a google search and found nothing - the section seemed possibly fictitious to me and as its disputed and complained about here I moved it to the talkpage - please cite it if you are able to and replace - I did the same with the book as it returns no search returns and the isbn appears to be false/not working - moved to the talkpage - again please cite and replace if you are able. Youreallycan 09:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to flag this

Niall Dunne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

On the talk page the subject of this article has posted some proposed text along with references. Some of the references aren't great (youtube, wikipedia), but much of it seems salvageable. If no one gets to this in the next few days, I will try, but I thought I'd bring it to attention here in case someone can help more quickly! Thanks!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I've left a note on the talk page and substantially edited the article. It was a hot mess. Now it's a little cooler, but it still has problems. The BLP is almost entirely dependent on self-publications, which is problematic. It seems most of the additions the subject requested had been inserted wholesale, which baffles me given the problematic sourcing. This previous version looks better than what I've produced, but I've decided to leave most newer claims in case they can be sourced, though I think many unsubstantial and unsubstantiated claims might as well go. Objectively, there also appears to be a notability issue. I've tagged the article accordingly, but I'll wait for more eyes before moving forward. JFHJr (㊟) 19:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

User:MurasakiSunshine‎#Lawsuits with the Mogen clamp

MurasakiSunshine recently added some dubious material that had been removed from Mogen clamp due to BLP concerns, amongst others. In addition to often-poor sourcing, I am particularly concerned about the unnecessary identification of individuals through their full names, especially the child named in the final paragraph. The user has refused to remove the child's name. In my view this violates the presumption in favor of privacy — what do others think? Jakew (talk) 10:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

JakeW is grasping at straws. All of the information on my page is available by public record and anyone with Google can find that information. Obviously parents and children did not mind sharing their identities with the public as they posed for pictures, gave their names, shared details of their legal case and the judgement, the nature of the lawsuit, and gave interviews. That is consent to the public knowing about their situation. People who don't want their name in the paper do not go to publications and give interviews for millions of people to read about. Also, I don't need to source anything that is written on my personal page because it's not a Wikipedia article. Since my sourcing is "so poor" according to JakeW, maybe these people or companies don't even exist. (MurasakiSunshine (talk) 10:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC))

(edit conflict) Agree on the child's name. Per WP:BLPNAME, "caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event" and "the brief appearance of names in news stories" is not sufficient justification for inclusion. MurasakiSunshine's justification that "they went on record in public ... I'm guessing they'll be okay with having their name and face out there" applies only to the parents, how can we know or decide that a nine-year old is OK with this, and that he'll still be OK with this in 10 years time? January (talk) 11:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Terrel posed for pictures to be used by the press as well. (MurasakiSunshine (talk) 11:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC))

He's nine years old, he would hardly have understood the possible implications of the information being included in Wikipedia. Also, BLP applies in all namespaces including your user page, see WP:BLP#Where BLP does and does not apply. January (talk) 11:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Consenting to be featured in a publication is consent to have that publication passed around. If you don't want you story out there, don't go to the news. And my sources are valid and available on Google. Anyone Googling "Mogen clamp injury" would be directed to Terrel's story. What difference does it make if I put the story on my page, which will be read by maybe 10 people, or if a million people find it on Google? (MurasakiSunshine (talk) 11:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC))

A nine-year old cannot give informed consent. Re your argument about Google, that may be the case now but the news stories will become less prominent on the web as time passes, Wikipedia on the other hand ranks very prominently in search engines and it could be very embarrasing for him if our article ended up as the top hit on his name when he's at high school or looking for work. User pages also appear in search engines. January (talk) 11:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

So, the news should never report on anything about people under the age of 18, even when they consent and their parents consent and Wikipedia should never report on those stories? And do you know how many Terrel Halls there are in the world? It's not as if he's got a unique name. And again, you overestimate the popularity of my Wiki page. As it's still rather recent news, it's still popular on Google. I can promise you that 99.9999% of people who know Terrel Hall, Jr. had his glans amputated during neonatal circumcision did not find that out from my Wiki user page. (MurasakiSunshine (talk) 11:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC))

I'm not commenting on what the news media should do, I'm only commenting on what Wikipedia should do. The issue here is inclusion of the name, I don't think anyone has proposed that we don't include this story at all. January (talk) 11:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

If I remove it, anyone who clicks on a link to the story from my page will clearly read "Terrel Hall, Jr." So, what does it matter if I remove the name or not if people are going to find the name out anyway if they bother to actually research the story? It's just kind of pointless in my opinion when as soon as they read the story, they're one click away from his picture, name, his parents' names, and where he lives. (MurasakiSunshine (talk) 11:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC))

(ec) In the article I removed names but left the story. I'm not sure that the story should be included on a user page, which (per WP:USER) "should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content". But that's largely a separate issue from BLP concerns, so I won't press the point here. Jakew (talk) 11:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who searches revision will find the name. Anyone who does 1 second of research will find the name. (MurasakiSunshine (talk) 11:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC))

We know we can't prevent people from seeing his name in news articles and we're not trying to, but putting it in Wikipedia makes it more visible and more prominent in search engines, which will become increasingly significant when this story is no longer recent news. On your user page, you are clearly at this point using it to store your preferred version of disputed content which is not acceptable per WP:UP#COPIES, particularly when the content is disputed on BLP grounds. January (talk) 12:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not disputed. Even if I removed Terrel's name, I posted that story based on details of the case file, interviews, and major news publications. I can back it up. Also, it's not insignificant. This child had his penis destroyed by a doctor who was forced to pay him nothing and by a circumcision clamp that is still in use and people believe is safe. If I knew five or six people lost their glans penis to the Mogen clamp, I would definitely not opt for the Mogen clamp to circumcise my son with. (MurasakiSunshine (talk) 12:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC))

Anyway, I've got to go to work so I'll remove Terrel's name for now. (MurasakiSunshine (talk) 12:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC))

Common sense should win out here, not the need to put out every bit of information available on a particular person, the more so when a minor child is involved. It's ridiculous to involve a minor and, in my opinion, should be avoided if at all possible.Hushpuckena (talk) 05:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a no-brainer. I have removed it per WP:BLP. Also, Murasaki Sunshine, please learn to use colons to indent. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Lee Clegg

Resolved

 – Problematic content removed. Re-post as necessary. JFHJr (㊟) 01:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Lee Clegg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The subject of the article is a soldier involved in a controversial shooting incident in Northern Ireand. A new editor is adding the names of other soldiers he was on patrol with at the time. I've reverted the addition once per WP:BLPNAME but they were added back and the article is under the Troubles 1RR restriction. Inclusion of names of soldiers who served in Northern Ireland can be very contentious, particularly ones involved in controversial incidents. Could someone else take a look please? Thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

update - User:Ukexpat has removed the names again - Youreallycan 17:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Shelley Moore Capito

Resolved

 – Proposed edits declined. Article edited for sourcing. JFHJr (㊟) 03:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Shelley Moore Capito (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In the interest of fairness, I edited the page of Congresswoman Shelley Moore Capito. In her article, Ms. Capito repeatedly references her father, who is Arch A Moore Jr., who was convicted of bribery and spent time in federal prison. This information was sourced from the United States District Court, Southern District of WV, and added to her references to her father in her Wik bio. I now notice that this factual material has been deleted, the Governor is still mentioned repeatedly, with NO mention of his conviction and incarceration is included. Walter J. Price III (Redacted) PS I would be HAPPY to post this material again, I'd even use MY name as its source gladly.... Ms. Capito I do not believe should be able to mention her politician father and then delete his prison conviction, as he was convicted for violation of the public trust WHILE IN OFFICE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.203.11.145 (talk) 22:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Why is the father's criminal record relevant to the article about the daughter - are you trying to make some kind of "sins of the father" or "the acorn never falls far from the tree" point?--ukexpat (talk) 00:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that her father's record is not relevant to the daughter's article. However, there were a few references to the father in our article on the daughter. Two of them I removed as unsourced and/or unnecessary. The other was mere family background, and with a tweak, I left it in.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Janet Mason‎

Resolved

 – Deleted. JFHJr (㊟) 05:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janet Mason (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Janet Mason‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article about a questionably notable pornstar might have a kayfabe problem. Pornographic actors and actresses are unusual in that they are required (or, at least, it is highly financially advantageous for them) to remain in character when dealing with both professional and social media. Additionally, pornographic actors and actresses typically maintain the fiction that they are playing themselves on screen. As such, using industry trade rags for statements about their sexual preferences seems questionable to me. Others? Hipocrite (talk) 11:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

William M. Bulger

Resolved

 – Content removed. JFHJr (㊟) 03:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

William M. Bulger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article is libelous in calling the succeeding President a "hand picked staffer"

His successor, Jack M. Wilson, was a distinguished educator who came to the University from Rensselaer Polytechinic Institute, where he was serving as the J. Erik Jonsson '22 Distinguished Professor of Physics, Engineering Science, Information Technology and Management. He had also served as interim Provost and as a Dean and research center director.

Wilson has won many awards for his academic work.

Prior to being recruited, by a national search firm, to UMass, Wilson did not know and had never heard of Wiliam Bulger. The search was conducted by the Board of Trustees to find a leader for the planned UMassOnline Online University. Prior to becoming President Wilson was the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs and not "a staffer." He had no prior ties to Bulger and never socialized with him outside of scheduled University events.

The characterization here is clearly libelous. It must be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.63.210.73 (talk) 15:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the phrase to which you object was removed by User:Jcacques a few dozen minutes after you posted this message. I also note that the entire paragraph in question is entirely uncited, and will template it as such.

Please avoid making assertions as to what is and what is not "libelous", as Wikipedia has a policy of no legal threats, which can result in people's ability to edit being removed. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Lydia Cornell

Lydia Cornell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Her birth year has been under dispute for years. Recently a number of sources have been brought up in the article and on the talk page in an attempt to resolve this dispute.

No one disputes that she was born Lydia Korniloff in El Paso, Texas. El Paso birth records give a birth year of 1953, which is what is currently in the article. There's a voter record currently noted in the article with the year of 1956, but is so skimpy on details that is may be for another person entirely. There are many popular media sources that assume a 1957/58 birth year. While Cornell's official website does not provide a birth date, the profile at her radio talk show site gives 1962, which is the likely source for press releases and many weblogs. A detailed list of sources is here.

Additionally, 75.84.246.248 (talk · contribs) appears to be representing Cornell in some fashion, and has asked for time while they prepare a complete biography.

Given all of the above, what year of birth, if any, should be included in the article and with what sources? --Ronz (talk) 16:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Given WP:BLPPRIMARY says, "Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth," I've removed it from the article. --Ronz (talk) 19:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

We've now substantially sourced evidence that the 1953 year is correct. Unless someone is going to dispute that she is not Lydia Korniloff, then I don't see any problems with adding it to the article. I'd like to see others opinions given how long this has been disputed. --Ronz (talk) 02:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

If she attended junior high in 1966 and finished college in 1976, then that would put her DOB at right about 1953. The 57', 58', and 62' dates are not possible unless this is the wrong person. — GabeMc (talk) 02:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC) To clarify, the 57/58' dates are not technically impossible for an advanced student, but 62' would have her graduating college at fourteen, a rare thing indeed. But still, not technically impossible. — GabeMc (talk) 02:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

We don't know when she attended junior high or college, or at least we don't have sources for those dates. Sources say she attended junior high after moving to New York in '66. We don't have any sources for the dates when she attended college. We have sources, one with a picture, indicating she was nine in 1963. --Ronz (talk) 16:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Frank Luntz

Resolved

 – Non-compliant material removed per source given. Article watched. JFHJr (㊟) 03:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Frank Luntz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The following sentence on Frank Luntz's wiki page is false: "During that time, he helped Gingrich produce a GOPAC memo that encouraged Republicans to "speak like Newt" by describing Democrats and Democratic policies using words such as “corrupt,” "devour," "greed," "hypocrisy," "liberal," "sick," and "traitors."

The memo is wrongly and falsely attributed to Luntz. I have now edited the section twice, yet the sentence reappears.

You are correct to remove this material, as the source being used to support it does not mention Luntz's name at all. I have left a note on the article talk page to that effect, and I will also watchlist the article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Craig Brockman

Craig Brockman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Numerous persons with this name - one being a highly decorated NYPD WTC Recovery Team member. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.136.241 (talk) 16:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Its not clear what you are intending/requesting - please explain in a bit more detail if you want editors to be able to investigate - thanksYoureallycan 16:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Nicki Minaj

Nicki Minaj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have reported this on the actual talk page so someone may handle the issue, but I feel it's worth noting here too because it does raise an issue regarding use of sources. In a nutshell, Minaj publicly states one birthdate, but a Dallas Police Report posted to TMZ and cited by the article states a different year of birth. (The report is linked to twice, in the articlespace and the infobox). Which is fair enough. But the article does not address the context of that police report. It just uses it as a source. So you have an article suggesting a legal issue involving the subject by way of sourcing, without providing balance in the context. Was she found guilty? Cleared? Charged at all? Is it before the courts? Has she issued a denial? Etc. You see what I'm talking about. As a BLP-eligible article I feel uncomfortable with a police source being used without some sort of balance, or even just a "In 2010, she was the subject of a police complaint about XYZ but the complaint was dropped/upheld..." I have confidence the folks who police that article will handle the issue, but the circumstances might be worth examining as the BLP policy continues to evolve. 70.72.223.215 (talk) 13:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi - Its not optimal - It appears to me that the subject of the article was the complainant - At least all the really personal details have been blanked out - I would just remove the link to the external from the citation - so that we cease to link to it but continue to use it for the dob - as soon as there is less contentious reliable location to cite the dob I would remove that one completely. - note - I removed the link to the tmz pdf and as I said, left the cite details - I also removed the note that said, her date of birth is various but the police report is definitive - this seems undue also and unnecessary, considering she was the complainant only in a minor incident. - as I said, if you find another reliable report of her dob then replace it completely. Youreallycan 14:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Mark Hateley

Resolved

 – Vandalism removed. JFHJr (㊟) 03:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Mark Hateley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Read the 'Journalism' piece of the article. Suggest this is removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.136.80.37 (talk) 15:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the report - I removed the violating content and warned the user that appears to be a multiple issue vandal - an ip address - User_talk:194.32.182.7 from Scottish power in Glasgow - editing/vandalizing from work - whatismyipaddressYoureallycan 16:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Brian Coleman - some attention please?

• - Brian Coleman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I recently posted here asking for help with this article. I'd be most grateful if some could be provided. It's a shopping list of political/personal attacks, some of which look reasonably sourced, others very dubiously - I just removed one entirely based on YouTube. --Dweller (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, its a cited partisan attack. - requires npov editors to tweak it up for weight - I did a couple of sections - pick a section - any section - Youreallycan 16:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Forward (generic name of socialist publications)

Resolved

 – BLP violation removed. Article at AfD. JFHJr (㊟) 03:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forward (generic name of socialist publications) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Forward (generic name of socialist publications) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I submitted this as a candidate for deletion because:

1. - it is Patent Nonsense (CSD:G1)

# - it is being used for a blatant political attack which constitutes a violation of WP:BLP.

1. - it appears to be being gamed by a compromised account
2. - the only two sources on the page are invalid because the first does not concern the topic and the second is related to the political attack above.
3. - it cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources.

I have thus submitted it to be deleted. Unfortunately, a user with a history of racist edits (including removing sourced material from Hate Speech regarding international consensus on hate speech laws) is opposing and has made some seriously incivil comments, including stating that they believe attempts to tie Barack Obama to "socialism" are somehow "not political." I need more eyes to look at the article and advice on how to proceed. The edits made trying to tie the campaign of Barack Obama to "socialism" are clearly political and violations of WP:BLP and without them, there's almost nothing else left to the article other than some seriously messed up WP:OR. SkepticAnonymous (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Stephen E. Ambrose

Resolved

 – Moved to a more appropriate forum.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Not a living person, but still an egregious case of unbalance. I've raised balance issues in the past to no avail and was outnumbered. It would be great if we could get more editors on this one. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you speaking of the entire article or just section 3 entitled "Criticism"? Although I have only contributed to the two paragraph subsection therein on the Pacific Railroad (a subject on which I have also written several books), it seems to me in reading over the rest of the entire section that all of the criticism's noted are well referenced and properly cite objective sources that support many instances of factual errors and/or apparent plagiarism in Ambrose's published works. If you disagree then please be specific about what you mean by the article being "far too skewed in the direction of a hit piece" (as you have contended on the article's Talk Page) and provide objective sources that support your contention. The issues of plagiarism and factual errors in Ambrose's books were (and continue to be) very significant issues in their reliability as reference works. To ignore or minimize them (as CheeseStakeholder appears to suggest) would, in fact, constitute a far greater "egregious case of unbalance" than not including the section in the article. Centpacrr (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm talking about the slant of the entire article, and the excessive space devoted to criticism, which dominates the article. Not being a living person, I've started a discussion at NPOVN as suggested below and request that this discussion be closed out. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• I suggest taking this discussion to WP:NPOVN. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Brian Nelson (screenwriter)

Resolved

 – Hoax/vandalism reverted. Re-post as necessary. JFHJr (㊟) 02:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Brian Nelson (screenwriter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello --

I am Brian Nelson, the subject of the "Brian Nelson (screenwriter)" page.

This morning I was informed by my daughter that the photo on my Wikipedia page is no longer a photo of me, and that the entry begins with a remark that "Bryan Nelson" (not even my name) used to be an assistant to Andy Dick and is rarely seen without his signature scarf -- neither of which is true of me. Additionally, the new photo on the page of this scarf-wearing guy still carries a caption from the previous photo which WAS of me, a caption referencing the 2007 writers' strike.

Wikipedia pages about problems in the histories of living people suggest that I should not get involved in editing these mistakes myself. And my attempt to request info on how to correct this was followed by advice that I should not post an e-mail here. I'm no Wikipedia expert, so heaven knows if I will ever be able to find the message board on which this note will appear -- I throw myself on the mercy of the court.

Thank you, Brian Nelson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.238.49.42 (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted the changes you referred to. My guess is there's some college student out there with the name Brian Nelson and some very bored friends. Theoldsparkle (talk) 17:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Junior Seau

Resolved

 – Death confirmed. JFHJr (㊟) 02:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Junior Seau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please keep an eye on Junior Seau, given that there are reports of his death in a shooting at his home. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Death confirmed. [7] Possible suicide. R.I.P., he was an excellent linebacker. The Interior (Talk) 22:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Richard Land

Richard Land (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Jlgowls has repeatedly deleted references Richard Land's involvement in plagiarism, despite those references being sources. A question directed at Jlgowls has gone unanswered, and there has been no discussion / explanation for removing those references on the entry's talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BluesTowerJoy (talk • contribs) 21:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Give the other editor some time to respond, but you've done the right thing by posting to the talk page. The USA Today reference is good, but you need to consider the WP:WEIGHT of the issue in terms of the subject's whole career. The Interior (Talk) 21:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I recognize the weight issue. But the person is question is the point person on ethics for the Southern Baptist Convention, though, so the plagiarism issue seems to me worthy of inclusion. BluesTowerJoy (talk) 01:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I think we should include it, but I think that having a dedicated section heading for it may be placing a lot of emphasis on it. It'd be best if we did some re-org, and placed it within a neutrally-worded section, perhaps "Career". The Interior (Talk) 02:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The reason I have repeatedly removed the references is because the so-called plagarism charges are not valid. His board looked into the issue, and there was not any plagarism! Too, he most certainly did not "admit" to any plagarism! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlgowls (talk • contribs) 20:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so are we to believe USA Today has fabricated this quote, ""On occasion I have failed to provide appropriate verbal attributions on my radio broadcast, Richard Land Live!, and for that I sincerely apologize. I regret if anyone feels they were deceived or misled. That was not my intent nor has it ever been," [8]? The Interior (Talk) 20:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

In addition, I don't think it's true that his board has dismissed the charges. What they said was this: "Dr. Land has admitted that he quoted sections of articles related to the Trayvon Martin matter in his Richard Land Live! radio broadcast without giving clear and proper credit to the authors of those articles. We understand that additional instances of this kind in connection with the Richard Land Live! program may come to light." http://erlc.com/article/statement-from-erlc-trustee-executive-committee/ BluesTowerJoy (talk) 14:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem seems to be recurring. JLGowls has been blocked, and now a new user (Arg2003) is deleting material without discussion.BluesTowerJoy (talk) 11:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Harvey Pitt

Harvey Pitt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is libelous information in the criticism portion, such as him being responsible in any way for the housing/mortgage crisis. This needs to be taken out and the person who inserted it needs to be banned from making any additions to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Gettingitaccurate (talk • contribs) 22:12, 2 May 2012

This bio had a lot of both positive and negative info, some unsourced, some sourced to primary sources, some to opinion pieces. I've trimmed it down. It'll have to be expanded using better sources. As to banning the user, we would need to see a continued pattern of breaking our policies, and that would only be after discussion with the user. The edit I believe you're referring to was a bit problematic in terms of WP:NPOV, but nothing blockable. The Interior (Talk) 22:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Clivel 0 and User:Johannes due

Johan Galtung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
These users add a libelous, highly POV and grossly undue section, with the libelous and POV title "Accusations of anti-Semitism", to the article Johan Galtung (the article already has a criticism section, btw.). They also tried to add this material to the Norwegian version of that article, where it had to be removed by administrators and the article protected to prevent its readdition. (Galtung's daughter-in-law is Jewish, so this is a particularly offensive accusation in this case). Tertoger (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm unsure of the nature of your complaint. It appears that the material you are removing is very well sourced, with references to HaAretz. Although consensus should be obtained when adding material like this to the article, it appears to me that you are simply removing well-sourced material; there's a word around here for that. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

That's right, the word is maintaining the WP:BLP policy, and users who repeatedly add defamatory material need to be blocked, per policy. It does not matter if there are (one-sided) sources for POV-worded cherry picked material, adding an attack section with the libelous title "Accusations of anti-Semitism" is a violation of the BLP policy. Apart from that, this is classical example of WP:UNDUE as well as WP:NOTNEWS, the attack section/POV cruft section is also completely unencyclopedic. We do not simply make an entire section called "Accusations of anti-Semitism" in Barack Obama's article merely because someone opposed to him says so. Let me remind you that the identical section was removed from the Norwegian Wikipedia article by an administrator as a violation of the BLP policy and the article protected for that reason. Something's that's a violation of the BLP policy on the Norwegian Wikipedia, in an article about a Norwegian person, is probably also a violation of that policy here. Tertoger (talk) 18:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

HaAretz is hardly a good source for a debate in an obscure publication in Norway, in the Norwegian language. Tertoger (talk) 18:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Why? Do you imagine there are no native Hebrew speakers who can learn Norwegian? If you have a problem with HaAretz, take it to WP:RSN. I get the impression you are having a hard time with the notion of editing by consensus. There's another word around here for that. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Latif Yahia

Latif Yahia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Prior threads: first, second, third.

A new WP:SPA has appeared just after the failed AfD initiated by the subject (now blocked) via ORTS (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Latif Yahia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)). The editor in question has reverted material against consensus, namely to include editorializing and puff that does not actually appear in sources offered, removal of reliably sourced text, and poor changes in formatting. The editor has repeatedly restored a youtube cite. I've explained the need for third-party coverage, but given that article's editing history, I'm doubtful the new SPA will come to terms. For now, it would be good to have another editor or two help keep an eye on things, perhaps to strike an appropriate editorial balance. Thoughts? JFHJr (㊟) 19:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I've been watching, and, unsurprisingly, you seem to be doing fine keeping the article in check. I'll jump in if needed.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, the matter is apparently ongoing at OTRS. JFHJr (㊟) 05:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

And thanks for watching. It's important to me that we achieve consensus among those who understand BLP policy. I can fight alone, but I can't get that consensus without more eyes. Thanks again. JFHJr (㊟) 06:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Rick Thomas

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Thomas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Rick Thomas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

According to BLP policy, "Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

This article is horrendously written and completely unsourced... I'm sort of amazed it hasn't been deleted already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.90.105.56 (talk) 10:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Heads up! Article stubbed, nommed for deletion (see link above) *but* have stumbled across a series of either totally unreffed bios or bios reffed to forum posts or blogs all related to the band Mushroomhead, the content is unencyclopaedic, the different people all appear non-notable and most of what is posted is pure OR, PEACOCK, WEASEL and/or in violation of BLP.
• Could editors to this noticeboard go through the following (s)hitlist, stubbing and AfDing as they see fit as I have to get off-wiki now and cannot deal with this can of worms alone? Thanks in advance.
  • Waylon Reavis
  • Jeffrey Hatrix
  • Steve Felton
  • Tom Schmitz
  • Jack Kilcoyne
  • John Sekula

CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 17:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Mitch Vogel

The Gunsmoke episode of McCabe is somewhat similar to an episode in which Mitch Vogel played the son of an outlaw and whose mother had died. I believe the sheriff's name was the same but there were notable differences in the out come as his father was lynched before Marshall Dillon arrived. Either there were two different stories or the one listed in the article is inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rawleigh Man (talk • contribs) 12:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe Gunsmoke often used recycled scripts (I know the radio show did), so this may not necessarily be a mistake. Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Paul Walker's Filmography

 Done

Paul Walker also starred in the movie Bobby Z alongside Lawrence Fishburne. I cant remember the year the movie came out though. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.110.114.66 (talk) 14:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The move is already listed as "The Death and Life of Bobby Z," in the filmography.Hipocrite (talk) 14:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Joel Gilbert

Resolved

 – BLP stubbed for reliable sourcing. JFHJr (㊟) 19:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Joel Gilbert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Gilbert does not appear to be a notable individual, his only claim to fame being a handful of self-produced direct-to-DVD documentaries on conspiracy-esque subjects, and belonging to a local cover band. All of the external links are to pages Gilbert himself owns. His page has been tagged for notability for over a year and a half.

Moreover, it appears that Gilbert himself (or someone close to him) may be responsible for nearly the entire article. The page was created by 'Sweethominy,' and roughly half the edits are by that same individual. Sweethominy has made only one edit on any other Wikipedia page, and that was to add a reference to one of Gilbert's videos to another page. As such, the page appears to be little more than a self-congratulatory effort at pretending he is a notable individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorencollins (talk • contribs) 14:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joel Gilbert (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - comments here virtually a dupe of comments there.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Ira Einhorn

Resolved

 – Semi-protected 2 weeks. Re-post as necessary. JFHJr (㊟) 19:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Ira Einhorn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have attempted to make the article more WP:NPOV, but an IP editor refuses to let me make any changes. For background, he is a former environmental and anti-war activist from the 1960's who was later convicted of murder. There is controversy over his role in the creation of Earth Day. The IP editor is reverting to a [[9]] which is potentially troublesome as the lede goes on a rant that says he is lying. This is at least very POV. My version attempts to simply list the [opposing] sides. I have reliable sources saying that he was an activist in the 60's and 70's, and that he has claimed to be involved in Earth Day, and other sources disputing this. But the user keeps reverting that. The exact truth of his exact involvement is not something I personally know.

I apologize if this is not the right board to take this to. I am not certain if the IP edits constitute libel or not. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I've requested page protection because the IP is not participating in discussion despite several attempts in edit summaries, talk page, and user talk page posts. JFHJr (㊟) 18:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

My request was declined, and the Czech IP was blocked for 2 days. During this time, a New York IP repeated the edits. Harizotoh9 re-requested protection; it was protected for 2 weeks. JFHJr (㊟) 19:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Rick Carlisle

Rick Carlisle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I went to high school with Rick Carlisle, currently the head coach of the Dallas Mavericks. It says he attended Worchester Academy. This is untrue. Rick went to Lisbon Central High school in Lisbon New York. He graduated in 1978 and then pursued his college ambitions.

Never has he attended Worchester Academy as Lisbon Central is a school that serves K-12 grades and I graduated in 1977 and my brother graduated in 1978 with Rick. I even have the high school yearbook to prove it.

Thought you might be interested in this as your website's information regarding his school is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.28.127 (talk) 15:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing the error here. Unfortunately, the changes you made are not supported by a reliable source. The yearbook in question might be reliable, but I'm not sure how editors will consider its verifiability; old yearbooks can be hard to obtain. A citation to it might be helpful. In the meantime, I've removed mention of any school since it's currently unsupported. JFHJr (㊟) 16:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Sources say that he went to both schools. [10][11] I've restored and sourced the information.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Apologies for missing those. JFHJr (㊟) 18:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Nathan Brown

Nathan Brown (producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am Nathan Brown and this bio page is being used by a disgruntled former partner to libel and defame me. I would like the page deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.168.210 (talk) 17:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

User adding defamatory content warned, [12], does this person actually meet Wikipedia:GNG?

To IP, we don't know who you are, if you are who you say you are, and are notable, the article will be kept (except in exceptional circumstances), for the moment the insults have been reverted and the user warned. Anyone care to dig a little deeper? CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 17:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

It's a mess. I've slashed it to one sentence. The rest of it I could not make heads nor tails of. I'm not even sure what he is. One of the cited sources didn't mention him. The other said he presented an award. And the last was his own website, but the About link went to his article here. The name is common, and without having a clue what he's supposed to be notable for, I was unwilling to do searches, so I just nominated him, and we'll see what happens.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Brown (producer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Mervyn King (economist)

The article on Mervyn King (economist) contains a section that reads like an essay from someone ideologically opposed to his views. The references cited include journalists with a similar ideology. It doesn't seem neutral to me. The Parson's Cat (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Your right - welcome to en wikipedia - policy and guidelines here are weak and implementation of them is even weaker - content here is biased and partisan and attracts biased users because of that weakness of policy application - recent additions this report is related to were by User:Iloveandrea - a user I have encountered previously in regards to disputed additions in regard to living people - Youreallycan 19:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you really have to seize every opportunity to criticize policy and, in this instance, unnamed editors (and bolded yet)? If you want to change policy you believe is too weak, then go to the policy Talk page and start a discussion. See WP:SOAPBOX.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The cause of the report is relevant, completely relevant - as is making as many good faith npov contributors as possible aware of the fact. As for attempting to strengthen and implement policy here ...experienced users have recently commented how it has become impossible, a waste of time attempting to improve policy - all we can do, and all I am prepared to waste my valuable time on these days is respond to reports of violations as best we can - I also made some corrective edits to the article content and removed a copyright violating picture and identified the user responsible and made him known to others so that others can watchlist - thanks Youreallycan 06:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Just so it's clear, I am generally supportive of your contributions to improving BLP articles. My comment wasn't intended to diminish those contributions. Also, you've achieved part of your purpose as I am now watching the King article and grappling with the user you mentioned. Sigh.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for saying that Bbb23 - I knew it anyways but its nice to hear it. As for the other user - Iloveandrea - sigh indeed - the exact same profile/edit pattern occurred when I last met them - sure - their additions are more or less cited, but its written from an undue and opinionated position - .... and "add some positive content then" just doesn't cut it - Youreallycan 17:08, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

If you think it's a "waste of time attempting to improve policy", then kindly refrain from attempting to do so here. As suggested, see WP:SOAPBOX. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

You are just unable to stay away from me are you - you appear to be fixated on me - coming to wikipedia and making a single edit to snipe at me , after I have repeatedly asked you to observe a voluntary interaction ban, totally unnecessarily just repeating the comment fromBbb23, another one for my report Youreallycan 08:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Freshman essay. C-minus at best. Full of pinions not clearly cited as such, and without any balance thereto. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Did some edits - got reverted by an editor who liked it as it was. Sigh. Collect (talk) 15:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

3RR warning given to the persistent editor. Collect (talk) 15:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Heh, I know your heart was in the right place, but you also reverted some valid intervening edits (mine), which I have tediously restored. I also removed all those ridiculous quote boxes per WP:QUOTATION. The article is truly messy, particularly for such a notable figure.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

So finally someone (Collect) has the good manners to leave a link to this page. Good, because it means that I can point out that Youreallycan has never encountered me before; s/he simply saw on my talk page that I made a couple of edits that other people didn't like and decided to then engage in sheer fabrication. Let her/him show an article where we've discussed any BLP together before. S/he won't be able to, for the reason already given.
"'add some positive content then' just doesn't cut it"—but it does. Are you saying we should balance Hitler's article with positive praise? If the criticism is mainstream and widespread, it is fair to be included regardless of any whining about 'POV'. If you can find some overall positives about King's governorship, please make me aware of them; I've already asked this and been met with silence. I'm having stuff chopped out from a criticism section because it is POV: perhaps the individuals concerned can explain how it is possible to mention criticism of someone without involving a point of view. I can tone down the bits of the article that I wrote, but to argue that it is POV to have the article assert such inconvertible facts that he didn't understand what the consequences of massive housing bubbles would be; that there were people there who knew what they were talking about who did know what the consequences would be; that he had a Greenspan policy of letting bubbles grow unchecked and contrast that policy of inaction with successful action taken in other countries (China, Australia); that his policy of price stability was an unmitigated failure (even King admits so); and that the guy has a real attitude problem according to any number of current and former colleagues, is utterly ridiculous. I've had cites chopped out that are from the Financial Times for god's sake. It's the pathetically transparent attempts to whitewash such abject failure that is so nauseating. Like I said, I can tone it down, and I was unaware of policy regarding quote-box usage (no point in trying to argue that one), which is what I think the real problems are, but cutting bits out purely on the basis that you have a soft spot for Mervyn King (more likely his hero, Alan Greenspan) is not acceptable. Note I've not tried to chop out any positive praise—those who insist on balance, and who thus assume that there are positives to balance the negatives, have so far failed to provide any. The rest of the article I have not done anything with, and I couldn't care less about. A few basic, uncontroversial criticisms are not too much if expressed more delicately.
~ Iloveandrea (talk) 18:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

By the way, to give you some idea of the stupidity and ignorance that is now attempting to 'correct' the article, they introduced and Wikilinked a journalist called "Dean King of The American Prospect". NO SUCH TAP JOURNALIST EXISTS. So ignorant that they haven't heard of Dean Baker, an American economist who was writing an article for the magazine. What next, reporter Paul Kingman of The New York Times? This is the calibre of person I'm reduced to dealing with, people so ignorant they invent a journalist who should have been an economist, and can't even recognise the error. Do me a favour and stay off the article if you don't know what you're talking about. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 18:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Your comments here ("whitewash" "nauseating" "whining" "soft spot" "Hitler") are as over-the-top as your edits to the article. Criticism of a BLP has to be applied with some attention to phrasing and weight regardless of whether there is counterbalancing material. As for YRC, he can take care of himself, but he doesn't have had to have discussed anything with you to have seen your edits and formed a view as to your approach.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

"the exact same profile/edit pattern occurred when I last met them" He has not met me. That was the claim; I ask for proof to the contrary. We're not talking about forming an opinion about me. "Hitler": you don't appear capable of even understanding why I picked him as an example. As for my tone here: if people want to adopt sneering arrogance towards me, you can bet I will do the same in return. At least there's some justification when I do it. Here is who they mistook Dean Baker for, some obscure "author of narrative non-fiction on adventure, historical and maritime subjects". :-) Pretty funny. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 18:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

We met on the George Osbourne biography talkpage link to that issue - where you did exactly the same as you are doing here- adding undue opinionated content which resulted in what was imo - attack content - you appear to have been back there doing the exact same again also - I have reverted your opinionated POV alterations there although a user I have a following problem with, User:Nomoskedasticity followed me there and as usual reverted me yet again - Youreallycan 19:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I've come across the same editor and come to the same conclusion. Before your revert, the article George Osborne was little more than a hatchet job. And it's hardly alone - so far as I have seen, this editor's writing on these subjects has been strongly biased. That applies both to BLPs and other articles - see the article United Kingdom Conservative-Liberal coalition government austerity programme or recent changes to Project Merlin for example. Kahastok talk 20:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I've corrected the Dean Baker/King error. It was apparently introduced here. My assumption is it was inadvertent, meaning Collect wanted to note the name of the journalist and confused it because of Mervyn's last name - Collect can better address that minor issue if he wishes to. Your unwarranted personal attacks, along with all of your other comments, aren't going to help your position. You're just shooting yourself in the foot.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Mea culpa on the confused edit <g>. There was a lot to try dealing with, and I did not want to make to many edits at one time even whee te article was a melange of non-utile argumentation about the living person. Collect (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

---George Osborne--- George Osborne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ah, suddenly all niceness. "Your unwarranted personal attacks..." I really must bring your attention again to the fact that I did not set the tone here; I jumped in halfway through, remember? Don't like my tone? Take it up with the people who were posting here before I arrived. "confused it because of Mervyn's last name..." No, really? Thanks ever so much for pointing that out. You could run Ed Witten close for smarts, no question. I couldn't do this without you. Jesus, do you actually read what I write? or are you just too limited to comprehend it? I know the source of confusion—it could scarcely be any more obvious—the fact of it was so utterly hilarious that I decided to remark on it. "George Osbourne"—I'm sorry, who is this person? I don't know him. Do you mean George Osborne? You STILL can't even spell his name. Really quite a concentration of rank stupidity and ignorance I've found here. Comical: I see someone's set up a re-direct to assist with this sort of benightedness. I repeat my observation that this is the calibre of mind I am forced to deal with. Do you have any idea how degrading this is for me? to be forced into discussion with such pea-sized intellects? people who can't spell names? people who mistake obscure authors for economists that get name-checked in the NYT? Yeah, I'm really humbled by the mental capacity and expansive knowledge displayed by the people here.

Youreallycan's evidence: When I go to the talk page I see no mention of Youreallycan, but I see Off2riorob... I see. So people like to switch accounts, do they? But tell me: do you switch accounts often? or do you just flit onto a new one when your bias has become so obvious that getting through wholesale, protective truncations for your beloved Tories and their supporters in central banks becomes too much of a chore? Makes me very suspicious of you—do you run socks? Am I allowed other a fresh start? with a new IP address perhaps. That would really come in handy, make my life easier. Did you see Youreallycan/Off2rio eliminate even a mention of Osborne's almost sexual relationship with Murdoch and his cronies? I left it a short while then just added it back. It's still there in Gideon's (Private Eye, no credit) article, and rightly so.

Off2rio/Youreallycan/whoever: Can I make a request? Is it possible to have someone come here who has functioning brain cells? That would really help me interact in a less negative way. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 21:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)#

Yes - read the above comments and see the problem - User:Nomoskedasticity has 3rr warned me about the content - myself I hate the subject so what the f*** - the content User:Nomoskedasticity has added to the article is attacking the subject so ... The other supporter of this content , User:Iloveandrea clearly has npov issues on this subject Youreallycan 22:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

As I said on my talk page: I'm not endorsing any particular version -- I simply think it's inappropriate for you to revert >4 months of editing by 17 different editors. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

As I told you - and you can and should investigate and take total responsibility for the content yourself if you are going to add content to a Biography - Youreallycan 22:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• to be clear - I personally am opposed to the subject of the articles policies ... however - I hate biased contributions - the user Iloveandrea is following a pattern of POV contributions - User:Nomoskedasticity is reverting me and adding biased content, but he reverts me almost anywhere ... and the User:Iloveandrea has replaced their opinionated content Youreallycan 22:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Bleh - check Iloveandrea's recent talk page messages and the words "vast right-wing conspiracy" come to mind. Never mind that we have an article on government policy that refuses to make any attempt to put the government POV, and multiple BLPs being filled with streams of biased information. Apparently only a Tory voter could possibly want an article on George Osborne to do anything short of attack him for everything that he's done in the last ten years. Kahastok talk 23:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• User: Iloveandrea was blocked for three days , mostly for the his personal attacking comments in this thread. Perhaps NPOV editirs would go over his recent contribution history - especially to any content related to living people - if he returns to a similar patter I suggest we request a topic ban from all BLP article/content - thanks to all that contributed to resolving this - Youreallycan 15:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Eric Townsend

• Eric Townsend (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jason Townsend (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have recently come into conflict on a different article with an editor who is close to the subject. This BLP is unreferecned and the editor claims that "you don't need citations for indisputable facts - like that the sun is in the sky". His logic is that since he knows these facts they're indisputable. Since that other discussion was so recent I would like to request that someone neutral please check the Eric Townsend article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Does "puff" mean anything? <g>. And will someone prune the discography, please? Collect (talk) 11:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I've moved what looked like a WP:RESUME to the talk page. While some albums may be notable and noteworthy in their own right, the subject's particular contribution as producer should be sourced to reliable third parties in order to indicate encyclopedic and biographical significance. Likely not every credit will be significant in that way, but I imagine several will be if he's a notable producer. JFHJr (㊟) 18:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Amazing work editors. Appears that his brother, Jason Townsend requires a similar treatment, as does Tom Gulotta. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Pruned. JFHJr (㊟) 19:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Camryn: OTRS request to remove the full name of a minor, who is a public entertainer

Camryn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Regarding OTRS ticket 2012031210006461, it's been requested that all references to Camryn's full real name be removed from the article. The request cites privacy concerns and minor's rights protections rather than fears about diluting her brand or public image. This performer's name is publicly available in sources like an early Denver Post article, Getty Images, more Getty Images, Fan sites, Flickr, MovieFone.com, local news, Artist Direct, Rocky Mountain News, Star Tribune, Cineplex.com (movie credits), international news, PopCandies TV (youtube), and Hollywood.com. In other words, the cat's out of the bag, but there is still a responsibility to respect the privacy of minors. With a public figure such as Camryn, where is the line we draw in this case? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 19:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Since the Denver Post and Borneo Post are reporting her full name in the context of her career, rather than, say, a local school production, I see no reason that we should remove her name from the article.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

  Her representation has said they intend to seek the retraction or concealment of all instances of her name, particularly if they can't get Wikipedia to do so first. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 19:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• I haven't dealt with this specifically, but I don't see much harm, and I see a fair bit of good, in removing the name in all instances from the article. The dilution of important information people wishing to read about her is tiny. So I have some sympathy for the removal request. I am, however, pretty sympathetic to keeping the redirect from the full name to the article in place, as people searching for more information, after having read stories such as the ones you cite above, are to be expected, and it's silly to think that someone who already knows her last name should be denied the rest of her biography on privacy grounds at that point. Again, this is my first gut reaction, and I'd love to hear other thoughts on the matter. --joe decker^{talk to me} 19:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• It should be noted that her father is a notable person with an existing article here, and her mother is also active in the entertainment business and might be notable in her own right. See e.g. [13][14]. With due respect for the privacy of non-public-figure minors (and adults), I am not sure what values of privacy this request is intended to support.--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

  I wonder if part of their motivation is to keep her public reputation separate from her parents' notability. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 19:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

You may be right. However, since this is publicly-reported information, the cat is, as said, out of the bag. We have no responsibility here to cooperate in reputation management or manipulation of her public image in order to separate it from that of her father or mother. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Orange Mike. We don't unring bells or omit very basic information. Especially when it comes to any entertainer who voluntarily becomes a public figure, it's hard to identify what the removal of accurate information would achieve in terms of privacy, especially since her family relations are quite clear. At any rate, the correct order of operations is to seek retraction and removal from reliable sources first. If we're left with no reliable sources, we'll be more obliged to remove it. JFHJr (㊟) 20:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Joe_Francis

Joe_Francis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have a number of requested edits to this article as follows:

1. [Resolved. Thank you.]

2. Regarding the line: Francis and his company has come under legal scrutiny on a number of occasions. Recurring allegations include that footage of women engaged in sexual activity was used without the consent of the women, that Mantra Films engaged in sexual exploitation of minors, and that incomplete records were kept of participants in GGW videos." More neutral language could read: "Francis and Girls Gone Wild have come under legal scrutiny on occasion, including past allegations that footage of women in GGW videos was used without consent." Also, I point out that the source for this paragraph, is actually no longer available at the link. It is available here: http://www.vanessagrigoriadis.com/francis.html. It refers only to one case, the Gritzke matter, in which Gritzke alleged that her image/likeness was used without consent.

3. Regarding: "In June 2007, Francis and his company became the subject of a lawsuit claiming that images had been used without the subject's permission." Comment: this line should be stricken. The lawsuit referred to in the source article (brought by Plaintiffs Brooke Patsolic and Christina Brose, was dropped immediately when video evidencing their consent to be filmed was produced. See http://www.tmz.com/2007/09/28/francis-calls-b-s-on-girls-gone-litigious-claims.

4. Regarding the next line: "However, the plaintiff, Ashley Alexandra Dupré better known as the prostitute involved in the Eliot Spitzer scandal that led to his resignation as New York governor in March 2008, dropped the suit after Francis released footage showing her agreeing to be filmed." Makes more sense and is unbiased if it reads: "Ashley Alexandra Dupré, better known as the prostitute involved in the Eliot Spitzer scandal that led to his resignation as New York governor in March 2008, filed, and then dropped a lawsuit after Francis released footage showing her agreeing to be filmed."

Thank you. More on the way, but let's start here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaftergo (talk • contribs) 19:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Some changes made - hopefully showing a sense ofbalance, and removing asides about other people where the information is of no value here. Collect (talk) 12:08, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Talk: Seamus (dog)

• - Talk: Seamus (dog)

First a little background: Seamus was a dog owned by Mitt Romney in the 80's. Mitt Romney transported said dog on the roof of his car in a kennel for a half a day in 1983 and it's become controversial over the last few years.

One of the conservative responses has been a red herring, where rather than comment on what Romney did they deflected the subject to Obama's mentioning in Dreams from my father that he ate dog as a 6 year old in Indonesia.

Some editors on Talk: Seamus (dog) are convinced that this is relevant to an article about the Seamus controversy. In my estimation this serves only to disparage Obama and to distract from the Romney-Seamus controversy, which is the subject of the article obviously, and is thus a WP:COATRACK at best. Am I right to think that this is a BLP issue at worst? I am admittedly not as well versed in BLP policy as I should be, so I appreciate the input, thanks. SÆdon^talk 20:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Have any reliable sources connected these two topics (Romney-Seamus and Obama-dog meat)? If so, how many? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by connected. Some conservative commentators have pulled an IRL version of WP:NOTTHEM and pointed at Obama to deflect attention from Romney, but no one can "connect" the stories directly because the incidents are totally separate. Aside from the fact that a dog is involved in each, they have nothing to do with each other. SÆdon^talk 21:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I mean, are there any genuine news articles (not blogs or opinion pieces) which mention both in the same story? If the answer was 'no', then it's a no-brainer. Clearly a violation of WP:SYN and thus a WP:BLP violation. If the answer is 'yes', then the next questions are "How many? Are these two topics being widely compared by national news organizations?" I did some searching and I was able to find plenty of reliable sources which connected the two topics. On that basis, I would say it's not categorically a BLP violation to include this. Of course, it depends on what exactly our article says. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I see, thank you for clarifying. I don't disagree with your assessment when stated as such. Currently, there is some consensus to include a snippet regarding the white correspondents dinner comments made by Obama on the subject. This has been only somewhat contentious, and I don't oppose that particular addition. A few weeks ago User:Kelly added this; it was promptly removed and subsequent discussions resulted in a lack of consensus to include the material. More recently, an editor added [15], which is the passage I referred to above and with which there is not strong opposition. However, a couple resident conservative editors have pushed for more; I can't say exactly what because they haven't proposed any specific additions, just an NPOV tag. Anyway, I see that I've gotten too detailed now and I'm not sure that this is the appropriate venue now that you have mostly answered my BLP inquiry, but I appreciate your opinion and would welcome you to the page if you have any further input. SÆdon^talk 21:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Editorialising

• Capitol Punishment (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Came across this after the author's bio was linked on another board in an unrelated minor dispute over wording.

The only issue brought here is editorialising, characterising the living person. Specifically: "x, usually described as a disgraced former lobbyist"

It's wholly appropriate to refer to a conviction, charges, and sentence using appropriate sources. The article does so with "served four years ... in federal prison ... after being convicted of specific-charges-here" immediately after. Rather than stop at that the user insists the subject be characterised. He's seen sources call him "disgraced / corrupt / ex-con" therefore holds our articles must.

Press sources even reputable ones use lurid terms like scandalous! disgraced etc. It doesn't mean we should, even if do we put it in quotes.

My contention is even with living persons who've been the subject of controversy the content should be non-sensationalist, neutral, disinterested. We're not a tabloid. I tried referring him to the BLP Policy on tone, but he just reverted the wording back in. Thoughts? --92.6.211.228 (talk) 01:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

An interesting issue. The essential problem is this article is about Abramoff's book, not about Abramoff himself. Thus, putting in the material about what happened to Abramoff in 2006 at almost the top of the book article is inappropriate. However, Abramoff himself commented on the book in terms of his time in prison, so I wove that material in lower down as it relates to the book and gives context (his conviction and sentence) for one of his motivations for writing it.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Robert McMurtry

Resolved

 – Unreliably sourced content removed. JFHJr (㊟) 16:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Robert McMurtry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Robert McMurtry has not "recently embraced a belief in Wind Turbine Syndrome". What I have done is spend the last 4 years researching adverse health effects occurring in the environs of wind turbines. I have spoken at several government forums incluing municipal provincial and federal I have published a peer review journal the Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, July 18a case definition as well as diagnostic criteria for the diagnosis. Finally I have appeared as the lead expert witness for the plaintiff in the land mark Chatham Kent EnvironmentalReview Tribunal. The key decision was that adverse health effects do occur and that the debate should now be about how serious those effects are. Robert McMurtry CM, MD , FRCSC, FACS, RACS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.246.2.10 (talk) 04:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I removed it, mainly because the reference did not meet WP:RS. What the article needs is references, and some cleanup so that it doesn't look like a resume. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Phoenix Jones

Resolved

 – BLP policy allows this individual's true name to be included per reliable sourcing. JFHJr (㊟) 16:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Phoenix Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Phoenix Jones is a community activist who dresses in a superhero costume and patrols the streets of Seattle stopping crimes (yes, literally), helping elderly women and so forth, and purporting to set the example that a regular person can make a difference. Phoenix Jones is his masked activist name, he has a conventional identity that was generally secret until he had to disclose it in court (and this was covered by some news sources). There are editors at the article who've made something of a big deal of, so to speak, exposing his identity. One editor in the discussion page went the original research extra mile in supposedly unveiling his driving record.

My position is that his real identity is separate from his hero persona and is a private individual that should be given full protection of WP:BLP as applied to private individuals. I propose to remove the text revealing his real identity from the page. If some editor feels his real identity is notable enough to warrant it, he or she can attempt to start an article for that. Colton Cosmic (talk) 11:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Our BLP policy does not require keeping connected identities "secret" when they have indeed been connected in reliable sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

What about "[p]resumption in favor of privacy... people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private... When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories?" Colton Cosmic (talk) 11:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Your elisions distort the meaning of those passages and take them out of their proper context. This has already been pointed out to you on the article talk page. Kindly refrain from taking us as fools. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe I took you or anyone for a fool at all, Nomoskedasticity, and am genuinely surprised at that response. Neither do I believe I distorted that text at all by excerpting it as I did. I can't very well quote the entire policy. If I indeed somehow changed the meaning of those words, I assume you would be able to explain this more specifically? Colton Cosmic (talk) 12:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, in case there's anyone out there concerned by these privacy matters I further noticed one of our intrepid editors had pinpointed and linked Phoenix Jones' real life identity's personal Facebook page (which of course is meant for his friends and family and makes no mention of the Phoenix Jones persona). Why would our "helpful" sleuth do such a thing? Because it "could provide additional information for research and may point to more reliable sources of information." Colton Cosmic (talk) 13:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm marking this issue resolved. The traffic and Facebook information seem to have been removed (if I'm wrong, remove them yourselves: traffic citations are rather useless as sources, and the WP:BLPSPS apparently lacks information tying the name to the character.) As for the name itself, the talk page was a sufficient forum, and those in discussion there came to a consensus to include based on WP:BLP. See also WP:DEADHORSE. JFHJr (㊟) 16:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Race in lede?

if I've posted this in the wrong area, please advise.

I am trying to find if Wikipedia has a specific policy regarding mentioning a person's race in the opening lede. If a person was born in the United States but their parents were born in China do we say Chinese-American? You don't identify a white person as Caucasian-American. For example Wikipedia refers to Lucy Liu in the lede only as an American Actress. What I'm looking for is where Wikipedia specifically deals with this. I've tried searching. BashBrannigan (talk) 14:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Have you seen what reliable sources say the person self-identifies as? -- Avanu (talk) 14:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

In my experience, there is some amount of variation in articles on that point and I do not think there's policy that says "do this" or "do that." In the case of a Jeremy Linn for example I think it's inconsequential and accurate to describe him as a Chinese American. In the case of a Tiger Woods, IIRC he invented some term for his mixed race ethnicity, and I would consider us bound to respect that. If you feel awkward about identifying race in some particular article, I'd say just link a reliable source, and if there isn't one, leave it out. As well I don't see a problem with the term Caucasian American. Colton Cosmic (talk) 15:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

This issue is actually covered, albeit not perfectly in my view, in WP:OPENPARA. In the case of a person like Lucy Liu, it should say American as her parents' nationality is irrelevant to the lead. It would be harder if she had been born in China but moved to the U.S., say at 5 years old. I still say it should be American actress as that would be where she achieved notability.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the lead is usually not the best place for most mentions of race. It might be appropriate where a particular ethnicity is more or less congruent to nationality and it has context in notability, for example "Tamil Tiger," "Uighur activist," or "Navajo chief." Note this is pretty different from flatly stating "so-and-so is a Tamil/Uighur/Navajo." In the body, though, mentioning race probably alright with reliable sources. Categories are also less restrictive than mentions in the lead. JFHJr (㊟) 16:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Not including the "nationality" in the lead is generally a thankless task (note that American is not a race and even Chinese is not a race (Asian would might be)). The only time I've removed this designation from a lead is when there's a hopeless dispute about someone based on birth place, where they achieve notability, and even the ambiguity of the birth place. Then, I've suggested just leaving it out. That usually sticks for a short time before someone comes along and puts one of the disputed choices back in. Sometimes I just give up. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

"Asian" a race? You're kidding, surely. Many countries place much less emphasis on the issue of race than the US. And race is an unclear concept anyway. Please don't apply your own views to all articles. HiLo48 (talk) 02:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, pooh, even our article that you flippantly cite to discusses the fact that in some places Asian is considered a race. I agree that how you racially classify human beings is complicated and there is much dispute among scholars and governments on how to do it. Nonetheless, most people would agree that Chinese refers to a country and that Asia refers to a continent and that more people would be likely to label Asian a race than Chinese (or any other country in Asia). In any event, your last comment is unwarranted as the lead isn't supposed to contain one's race per WP:OPENPARA. I've also struck the word "would" from my comment and replaced it with "might" based on your charming comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The opening sentence should only give the person's nationality; "American writer", "British actor", or at most "Australian-Canadian" comedian in the case of clear dual nationality. The article on Martin Luther King leads with "was an American clergyman, activist, and prominent leader in the African-American Civil Rights Movement." The article on Muhammed Ali says "an American former professional boxer". Try changing either to "African-American" an see what happens! My experience is that it is BLP of Asians which editors (usually inexperienced) keep adding "Chinese-American" or "Japanese-British", etc. I think Wikipedia needs a clear policy on this. BashBrannigan (talk) 05:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Breanna Manning

Notification posted to Talk:Breanna Manning, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies, User talk:Adjwilley, User talk:SlimVirgin

I've got a serious problem with the article about Breanna Manning, which is currently undergoing a Good Article review.I've posted a bit about it here, but, put simply, the article wilfully uses pronouns and names that do not correspond to MOS:IDENTITY, which states:

Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the gendered nouns, pronouns, and possessive adjectives that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life. Nevertheless, avoid confusing or seemingly logically impossible text that could result from pronoun usage (for example: instead of He gave birth to his first child, write He became a parent for the first time).

Now, given the nature of her trial, it would seem it would be clear-cut to use female pronouns. But, since her gender incongruence has become public, there have been editors that have refused to correct the gender, despite the fact there is a massive section called "Gender identity disorder, demotion and discharge", on the basis that she is referred to as a man called Bradley Manning in reliable sources. However, her gender incongruence has also been covered by reliable sources, including the Lamo chats (which have been verified, otherwise they wouldn't have been used), and the New York source which talks about her transition starting in her teens and talking to a counsellor about genital reconstructive surgery.

As I said, it should be an open-and-cut case. MOS:IDENTITY is clear that we should refer to people as they would like to be referred to, if that is backed up by reliable sources (c.f. Lady Gaga, not Stefani Germanotta). It's especially exacerbated by the fact that being immortalised as male, as such a Wikipedia article does (in contravention of the facts), was something that Manning did not want, which means we have an ethical obligation to get it right.

As such, I've moved the article and am currently in the process of correcting the gender to her latest expressed identity, which is female. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Moved back. That was fairly arrogant to move a page when there is a consensus to keep as it is. What reliable sources are you stating for these concerns? Also, I don't see the sysop bit on you; how did you adjust move protections on this article?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Enforcement of BLP is recognised to be paramount and, as a foundation decree, can override local consensus to violate BLP. As to the sources, the New York source, as linked in the article, talks about how Manning started to transition to female in her teens. Her email to her superiors about presenting as female are documented in the records of the Article 32 hearing, as reported by ABC. And, massively as all, her chats to Lamo are clear that she wishes to be female. Despite how the press refers to her, it is clear that she identifies as female, which is the only thing needed per MOS:IDENTITY. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm lost. First, MOS:IDENTITY is a guideline, not a policy, and although I do see a BLP issue here, I don't see it as an egregious issue that warrants overriding consensus. Second, uh, what consensus? Other than an offhand comment, I don't see any discussion on the article Talk page about Manning's gender identity and how we should handle it.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I might add that regardless of any supposed consensus, controversial moves should be discussed. And "move wars" are very much frowned on. I ain't touching it, but I think the article should be restored back to before the move.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

"It's a guideline" is a bad argument; you should follow guidelines anyway, and while there is a bit of leeway with guidelines, when we're talking about BLP issues, that leeway doesn't exist. I do think, given what she said to Lamo in the chatlogs, that she was particularly unhappy with the prospect of being immortalised as male; while I appreciate that it's more of an ethical concern, BLP does concern ethical treatment of living people above all. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Berean that your moving the article twice (the second time after Berean moved it back) based on your unilateral interpretation of just about everything is wrong.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I too agree with Berean. I don't see a strong argument that the two page moves to the female title are mandated by BLP. I would support moving it back, until a strong consensus can be obtained to move. --John (talk) 21:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Consensus in this archive. Sceptre has screwed up the archiving with his move so those pages aren't currently accessible. Again, Sceptre, are you an admin? By what ability are the pages being protected? Why are Manning's attorneys still calling him a "he"?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Berean, thanks for the archive pointer.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree that this non-consensual move was an un-warranted and arrogant action. In addition your move has led to the page being listed as un-reviewed at WP:GAN, even though there is an active review underway. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm in agreement with Sceptre on naming. It seems fairly clear that Manning wishes to be referred to as "she" - this is very, very well documented. Given that it is so well documented, and given that we have to have this discussion at all, I think the "might be questioned" requirement is pretty well filled :P.
• We should try to follow guidelines wherever possible, particularly when they have important tie-ins such as our treatment of living people. Indeed, the only real reason not to follow it would be some argument as to why this article is an exception to that guideline, or an overriding policy. If people can present either of these things, I'm happy to change my mind and go along with keeping it where it is. Until then I would suggest we discuss it rationally and maybe focus on whether Sceptre's decision is the right one for our encyclopedic content, rather than whether he made the move elegantly and non-WP:BOLDly. Ironholds (talk) 21:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC) note; I accidentally posted this under my Foundation account. I'm not speaking for the Foundation, or in the course of my work :).

• What Manning prefers can be discussed after the article is restored. It obviously isn't as "clear" to others as it is to you and to Sceptre. In any event, no terrible harm will come to the article for Manning to be referred to as "he" while the issue is resolved.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

This move is a gross violation of WP:BLP policy, and should be reverted immediately. And where is the source for assertions that 'Manning wishes to be referred to as "she"'? The article cites none whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The article sources the fact that she started transitioning in her teens, that she had talked to a gender counsellor (NY mag) about reconstructive surgery, that she had told her CO of the situation, that she was found to have materials referring to hormone replacement therapy, and that she did discuss her gender identity issues with Lamo a lot. You'd have to be especially blind to read the Lamo chatlogs and conclude that she identifies as male. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The article provides no sources whatsoever that assert that Manning currently wishes to be referred to as "she", and likewise that Manning wishes to be known as "Breanna". You'd have to be especially stupid to take cherry-picked quotes from a private conversation as a public statement regarding Manning's identity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a difficult one; clearly the notable name here is Bradley, for which he is known. On the other hand he appears to have gender issues & may see himself as woman (this is a confused matter from what I can make out). The flip side is that his lawyers seem to be referring to Bradley as "he", and note Breanna explicitly as an "alter ego". I'd say things are far from clear and it is probably better to stick to the commonly known name, till such a time as his explicit preference is cleared up. I feel like having him at Breanna is very POV on the gender issue and probably a serious BLP violation as it stands as well. And just ot note, Sceptre, you really really should have discussed this first - and warring over the move is not a sensible solution. It significantly undermines your argument. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I've moved it back for now - pushing it suddenly to the female name (and changing the pronouns around Wikipedia) is a pretty major issue that needs to be dealt with carefully and sensitively. I have left Sceptre a note to this effect; it is unfortunate but it feels a lot like a pointy manoeuvre (score one for the gender identity crowd), it's not the first time I've seen it in action. I think this needs extremely sensitive discussion and broad agreement on how to approach the issue. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

And doing things "carefully and sensitively" would seem to imply that such changes should be sourced. They weren't. The whole claim regarding Manning's supposed 'gender identity' is based on cherry-picking words from a single private conversation in which he is clearly under a great deal of stress, and describes himself as confused over the issue. At no point has Manning made any public statement on the question whatsoever. The move was an act of POV-pushing soapboxing, and utterly inappropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, reliable sources say he is self-identified as "gay" which is not congruent with identifying as transsexual. Where clearly conflicting material on self-identification is around, it is not up to Wikipedia to choose the most contentious self-identification. Collect (talk) 23:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The sources say that she lived as a gay man in about 2005; it's not uncommon for trans people, before they identify as trans, to identify as homosexual. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I would add that these issues are quite complex. Whether it's common or uncommon, I've never seen statistics, but what Sceptre says certainly happens. In any event, it's somewhat of an irrelevant detour. At this point, the burden is on Sceptre to obtain consensus for any gender change to the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

That has to be the most ridiculous non sequitur ever posted on this noticeboard. Or are all gay men actually trans, but unaware of it? I must rush off and unilaterally rewrite a whole load of BLPs... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that sexual preference is distinct from gender identity, and that the realisation of either comes at different times. There have been trans women who have lived as gay men, later came out as trans, then became straight women. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I would like to say that the article does cite this New York story, specifically, the page which contains this:

“Bradley felt he was female,” the counselor told me. “He was very solid on that.” Quickly, their conversation shifted to the practicalities: How does someone transition from male to female? “He really wanted to do surgery,” the counselor recalled. “He was mostly afraid of being alone, being ostracized or somehow weird.”

This seems to me to be a pretty clear declaration of female identity. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

It is nothing of the sort - though what any ethical 'counselor' is doing repeating such private conversations is another matter. And how does this article - which consistently refers to Manning as "he", and describes him as "a lonely, five-foot-two, gender-questioning soldier" - justify assertions the Manning wishes to be known at present as 'Breanna'? It doesn't. Manning privately discussing issues relating to sexual identity cannot be taken as evidence that he/she has made any decisions, or indeed that he/she isn't still "gender-questioning". The whole argument is based on a selective interpretation of cherry-picked sources - and shows a remarkable disregard for the feelings of the individual concerned. How would you like your own private conversations regarding your gender-identity being used as a platform for POV-pushing and dubious stereotyping? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

You're pushing the POV that she is male. We source that quote to justify the claim that "he felt female, and discussed having surgery". Information about HRT was found in his room during his arrest. And then there's the Lamo chat logs, in which she says that upon discharge she would prepare to start to transition ("im just kind of drifting now… waiting to redeploy to the US, be discharged… and figure out how on earth im going to transition"; "i mean, i behave and look like a male, but its not “me” =L", "now… i spend a lot of time thinking of transitioning… im now very familiar with the process… and have a rough plan of how to get portions of it to work"). I'm uncomfortable about the way she was outed, but I'm also uncomfortable with the deliberate misgendering her when it seems pretty clear that she intended to transition upon her discharge. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

It "seems pretty clear" that you are cherry-picking sources to promote an agenda. Manning has made no public statement whatsoever on the issue, and you have no right whatsoever to use a Wikipedia article on him as a platform for your POV-pushing attempts to force an identity on him that he has not himself laid claim to. Find another location for your soapbox. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Andy, according to WP:NOR and WP:AT, we use the names that are most commonly used in reliable sources. To quote WP:AT: "The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name." Clearly Bradley is the more commonly used name. Drawing conclusions based on a leaked chat transcript that a 19-year-old Manning had with a stranger requires us to interpret a primary source in an inappropriate way (see WP:PRIMARY). Even if we have some secondary sources that say Manning considers himself/herself female (and the quoted sources seem to speak to me more of a person who has certain confusion and doubts than someone who is committed), do we have any actual evidence that Manning prefers to be identified or addressed as "Breanna"? GabrielF (talk) 01:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Gabriel, though I have every sympathy with the position that referring to Manning as Breanna is at least worth considering. He has wanted to transition for at least a couple of years, and he lived as a woman for a few days in Boston in 2010 to see how he felt about it. But the problem we have is this: (1) he has made no public statement confirming that this is still his position; (2) his lawyer refers to him as Bradley and "he"; and (3) the lawyer told the court that Manning had created "Breanna" as a female alter-ego. I don't know what he meant by that, but it didn't sound as though he was affirming that Bradley = Breanna. So all we can do is wait to see whether Manning says anything more about it, and in the meantime follow the reliable sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think a "public" declaration is needed; for example Billy Tipton was only found out to be transgender after his death. All that's needed is a reliable source that Manning identifies as female, which we do have. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The obvious difference is that Manning is a living person, so we do need a public declaration from him or his lawyer. We know that he identified as female in 2009–2010. Since then he's been through some very traumatic experiences, and transitioning is now not on the cards for some time. So he may have changed his mind, or he may still want to do it, or he may have suspended his thoughts about it until the trial is over. He's in the unfortunate situation where his gender confusion may become part of his defence, which is yet another reason he isn't free to explore and act on his feelings. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Concur with Gabriel, SlimVirgin, et al. We should follow the sources. Keep the article at Bradley Manning, though if anyone still feels strongly that it should be moved, it can't hurt to follow the proper procedure and file a request via WP:RM, just to put the matter to rest. --Elonka 04:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

"We know that he identified as female in 2009–2010". Actually, we don't. 'Identifying' is a public issue, self-evidently. Manning has made no such public statements, and all the evidence presented so far indicates that he is unsure himself regarding this question. That Wikipedia 'contributors' choose to misrepresent someone's self-evident questioning of identity as a 'declaration' says a great deal about their willingness to use Wikipedia as a forum for agenda-driven hogwash, and nothing whatsoever about Manning's actual position regarding the issue. This is bigotry, plain and simple. Sceptre is engaging in 'original research' of the most blatant kind to force Manning into a category that he has expressed no public wish to be assigned to. Wikipedia is not a court of law, and we have no right whatsoever to trawl through 'evidence' to impose 'identities' on individuals that they have not publicly asserted. And BTW, I'd have hoped by now that some of those who purport to be concerned with 'LBGT issues' would actually take into account the feelings of those who would rather not have stereotypes imposed by others imposed on them, but evidently my hopes are futile. Everyone has to be 'gay' or 'straight', whether they like it or not, and has to self-identify as 'male' or 'female' whether they like it or not. Utter bullshit, based on a gross simplification of the complexities of human sexuality, and of issues of identity in general... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

He lived as a woman for a few days in 2010, which included handing someone his ID when he went to get gas, and watching the guy's face as he looked at Manning (as a woman), then at the ID (which said he was a man). He contacted a counsellor about it, discussed transitioning, made inquiries about hormone therapy, told the army he was a woman, sent his superior a photograph of himself as a woman, and said of the leaks that he wouldn't mind being sent to jail for the rest of his life if only he didn't have to appear in the press as a boy. So it is clear that, in 2010, he had begun to identify as a woman, and not only to himself.

His arrest fractured that development and so he is in limbo. Maybe this is awful for him, or maybe he is glad he didn't continue along that path. The point is that we can't know until he makes it clear. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY says that we use the last known self-identification, which is female. We don't have any more recent self-identifications... Sceptre ^(talk) 16:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

We have his lawyer, we have the Bradley Manning Support Network, which was co-founded by his friend, and we have a letter from him to the army dated March 2011 in which he identifies as Bradley E. Manning. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

There's also a discussion at the Pump on the interplay between the guideline and other Wikipedia policies and guidelines.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

T.J. Parsell

Resolved

 – Unsourced material removed by another editor.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Someone erroneously entered the name of T.J. Parsell's daughter and that she was abandoned at age 16. This is untrue and libelous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.95.64 (talk) 00:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Jesus

"The Lord is one."-Jesus; Mark 12:29