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.

Erlendur Haraldsson

See talk:Erlendur Haraldsson. This one will solve itself as soon as I have time to add more references, but for the time being I do not have time. Andries (talk) 13:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I added some positive remarks and as far as I am concerned this one is solved. Andries (talk) 06:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Not resolved. My edits got reverted. Andries (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

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

I removed a primary reference from Haraldsson's own book which you added. Reliable secondary sources should be used, especially for controversial claims. Goblin Face (talk) 20:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Notice, this is a BLP problem by omission of pertinent context, so I think in this particular case it is no problem to repeat the specific BLP problems

In addition to that you also removed David C. Lane's book review in which Dr. Lane stated that

Erelndur Haraldsson debunked some miracles:

http://www.integralworld.net/lane62.html "Although the Icelandic professor of psychology fails to get Sathya Sai Baba to undergo controlled experiments, he does nevertheless get to the truth behind many reported miracles. A number of them Haraldsson debunks, including the famous "resurrection of Walter Cowan" "

Andries (talk) 20:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

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

It seemed that there was a misunderstanding between Goblin Face and me due to different content of different editions of the same book. Andries (talk) 05:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Discussion moved back to Talk:Deepak Chopra per WP:FORUMSHOP.

null edit to date for archiving. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Donald Sterling

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

This person is at the center of a media frenzy in the USA right now. There are some minor problems at the article right now, mostly some less than neutral edits, but more importantly the weight of the incident is inappropriate with respect to the rest of the article. This has happened before, at the Phil Robertson article, which I cleaned up after the dust settled. That shouldn't happen in the first place. Can people give this article a once over and see if my concerns have merit? Some trimming might be in order. Thanks.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure the weight given the incident is completely out of whack (though I guess we don't need to quote Obama). That being said, it may make sense for a seperate article devoted to the incident. Especially since this will likely wind up sparking a lengthy legal battle. Calidum 04:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any glaring BLP issues with the state of that article. Cwobeel (talk) 04:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Nothing glaring,no. But there has been some vandalism and pov edits. Perhaps a dedicated article is in order.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

A bigger BLP issue is the related article V. Stiviano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Probably it needs to be AFD'ed. Cwobeel (talk) 04:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

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

More participants requested

This is another one of those articles where some feel that every horrible committed by the BLP needs to be documented. It seems Sterling has quite a list that can be collated, but what they text sometimes editors use to leaves a decidedly negative, and often unfair assessment. A current example is the Clippers organization refused to pay for a medical procedure for one of their coaches, and the text in the surrounding context made it seem like Sterling was a heartless bastard. However upon reading the sources (and in fact all of the sources used editorialize upon the "root" source) it seems the Clippers, like most businesses provide their employees insurance. The coach wanted a procedure out-of-network. The Clippers refused, as it would create a precedent. This seems like par for the course for most businesses. The only reason I can surmise it being used is to paint the subject in a negative light, and this is ignoring the fact that there is no evidence that Sterling was involved in the decision whatsoever. Two kinds of pork (talk) 13:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The article contained contentious claims about marginally related third parties, etc., had a bit of "citation overkill" and was a bit like placing thirty stakes into a vampire. The Wikipedia Van Helsings are our in force. Collect (talk) 14:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

more

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

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

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

And he is already in the "sports businesspeople" category under Category:Los Angeles Clippers owners, making the "sportspeople" category nicely useless here IMO. Yours? Collect (talk) 14:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

We appear to have another instance of reading comprehension difficulties -- in this case quite a surprising one, as the article contains the rather definitive passage "I'm a Jew", spoken by Sterling himself. The mind boggles… Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Oops et mea culpa, and your snark us not helpful here, -- the "search" function in IE8 went immediately down to the "comments section" on that. Leaving still the problematic category of "Jewish American sportspeople" when he is already in the "sportspeople" category as owner of the Clippers. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Natalia Poklonskaya - fan art in a BLP?

I just came across the article Natalia Poklonskaya. This person is a senior law enforcement official in Ukraine, who has played a significant role in the recent Crimean crisis. However, our biography of her instead chooses to focus on the fact that she is apparently popular with East Asian Internet users, and even includes a gallery of amateur cartoon fan art of her. This seems to me like a BLP issue - it may not be saying anything false about the subject, but it's plainly disparaging her and not treating a living person with the respect she deserves. The fact that our biography has fan cartoons of the subject but no actual photograph of her strikes me as pretty insulting, frankly. Is this kind of material really acceptable in a BLP? Robofish (talk) 00:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Firstly, there are no free "actual photographs" of her. A fair-use screenshot of her during her popular press conference was uploaded and deleted as per this discussion. There is simply no insult that there are no free "actual photographs" in the article. starship.paint "YES!" 02:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
• Secondly, it is absolutely true that the anime-style moe fanart has in part, resulted in Poklonskaya's popularity and fame on the Internet. This is the secondary thrust of notability for Poklonskaya, and has been noted by international media: BBC News, ABC News, Agence France-Presse, International Business Times and Russia Today. Now that Commons has been able to obtain free images of artwork of Poklonskaya, I find it absolutely encyclopaedic to display multiple artwork in the article to show that Poklonskaya is indeed a "Japanese anime art sensation". starship.paint "YES!" 02:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• It's not a problem to not have portraits of our subjects. Most of our biographies are without images, until the person dies. We should have a long wait before she dies, and I should imagine that for a person of her stature, a free image will become available before long. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 04:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• The images that are currently discussed are not used to depict the person, they are there to depict the internet phenomenon. Please don't confuse the two, since they have completely different implications. --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Not only "with East Asian Internet users". She is very (extremely, crazy) popular in Russia. The fact that she as a subject of fan art is not trivia cause it has been discussed by all the major Russian news networks (including the government ones), discussed many times over (cause there have been several memes based on her statements and there have been several songs written about her or using samples from her speeches and interviews). There's nothing bad and nothing contradictory in it. She and the fan art have been in the news for a month and a half now and still are. (To prove it, here's the latest song dedicated to her, it's on YouTube: [2]. The video already has 8.7 million views and its popularity has been reported by all the major news agencies in Russia, Belorussia, etc. For example, [3] (Interfax, the article also lists two other songs about her), [4] (ITAR-TASS). Just accept it as something absolutely normal. :D --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Robofish, don't you think that this is bit of a western-centric attitude on things? Western society isn't the only civilised society on earth, and you're essentially forcing the culture of your society on everybody else. Two of the most populous Asian countries on this planet do not see any moral or ethical problems with running news reports about the drawings, so why should an encyclopedia that claims itself as being fair and free of cultural prejudice do so? Wikipedia reports on what third-party reliable sources report about the topic, and not what editors feel is "ethical" or "moral", and what "should" be written on.

These things are all subjective, and all vary depending on individual user's beliefs and standpoints; there will always be conflict between different people's opinions, this is a natural trait of this universe—does that mean that people should delete things because they don't like them due to their own personal cultural attitudes? Let me tell you right now that in Japan, this kind of thing is hardly viewed as "degrading"; it's more expressed as flattering or admiring an individual. Would you say that Japanese society is "decadent and barbaric", or would you simply say that it's just a society that is a bit different to the one you grew up in? --benlisquare_T•C•E 04:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• The internet phenomenon is focussed on her looks and imply that an attractive woman cannot possibly occupy such a position of authority. It is therefore clearly sexist, and whilst it may be appropriate to mention and have an illustrative or representative image in our article, the kawai picture gallery give the very strong impression that sexist fancruft is appropriate and endorsed by Wikipedia. Having said that, the other language wikis are much worse, but what our sister projects do has no relevance here. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 04:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• That is a very westernised viewpoint. Your reasoning is based on personal assumptions, rather than hard evidence on the actual motivations for people to create the aforementioned content. If people on the other side of the world don't follow the same views, then that means that this view is based on a specific culture; in this case, a certain culture is being forced over others, and this is a neutrality issue. When I say neutrality issue, I'm specifically referring to the English Wikipedia, so this has nil to do with the sister projects. As many of us are/were raised in western societies, including myself, everyone needs to be aware of this, and how it may affect the way people think. In addition, your claim that the editors involved are simply cashing in on sex selling is rather close-minded, since again it makes culture-based assumptions. --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
• The internet phenomenon is focussed on her looks and imply that an attractive woman cannot possibly occupy such a position of authority. It is therefore clearly sexist - the words in green are opinion, not fact. I live in Asia, by the way, and I don't see it this way. starship.paint "YES!" 07:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

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

I agree. Also from WP:GALLERY:

The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject. Images in a gallery should be suitably captioned to explain their relevance both to the article subject and to the theme of the gallery, and the gallery should be appropriately titled (unless the theme of the gallery is clear from the context of the article). Images in a gallery should be carefully selected, avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made.

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

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

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

I apologize for my unwarranted assumption about the source of the images. If a particular image has been referenced in reliable sources and we have permission and/or the relevant license to use that image, then that would be an appropriate use, within the bounds of NPOV, BLP, etc. Gamaliel (talk) 16:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Would you agree that two or three would be enough? Obviously any more than that would be inappropriate, since they would be less encyclopedic and more decorative. How many do you think should be used? I've left a detailed rationale at Talk:Natalia Poklonskaya#Which images to choose?. --benlisquare_T•C•E 19:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why we need more than one. Gamaliel (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Imagine this: You are writing about a Nissan Hydra GTR (this is a completely fictional car that I just made up for the sake of this discussion). You can assume that plenty of your readers have never seen any before, and have no idea what one is. The Nissan Hydra GTR comes in two models: The GTR-X with twin-turbo engines plus a flat bonnet, and the GTR-Lite with a lower chassis and different rear body shape. If you only include an image of the Nissan Hydra GTR-X, readers would become inclined to believe that all cars of the Hydra series of vehicles share the same appearance. This is a problem. However, they then read the prose which states that there are two models within the series - this confuses them even more, since there is only one picture, but mention of two models.

Our article prose makes it clear that the internet phenomenon involves multiple drawings. Obviously, we cannot place fifty artworks within the article, since this is overkill and absolutely silly; hence, we go for a "minimum approach" and choose a number of images that a) does the job properly, whilst b) not being overkill. A small number of two/three images doesn't cause any problems in regards to WP:GALLERY as long as it is clearly demonstrated by captions that there is a reason for there to be two/three different images. --benlisquare_T•C•E 19:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

You're right, but we're not just talking about a fan art phenomenon here, we're talking about a living person, and there's two considerations your comment leaves out. One is the issue of WP:UNDUE, where you propose a gallery of images in an article otherwise free of them to illustrate a discussion that takes up one tenth of the article. The second is the issue of appropriateness towards a living person, balancing the need to document a legitimate phenomenon versus concerns that these images might be perceived as demeaning or sexist by or towards their subject. Gamaliel (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Different artists draw different impressions of things. Aphrodite features different impressions of her, including The Birth of Venus by Sandro Botticelli and Venus and Adonis by Titian. You cannot avoid this problem. If we only include one instance, then we are being one-sided. Yes, we are dealing with a BLP, but if we have enough sources, that should be ample justification, is it not?

Furthermore, in what manner are the proposed images in Talk:Natalia Poklonskaya#Which images to choose? sexist? They are depictions of human beings with no sexual element involved. It's not like the images are implicitly demeaning like File:Futanari.png (warning NSFW) would be. Are all images of women inherently sexist? --benlisquare_T•C•E 20:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

There are plenty of things on Wikipedia that are only illustrated with a single representative image. For example, I recently participated in a discussion on Talk:United States about what single image should represent each section of that article. Any single image obviously leaves something out, but we simply can't include galleries to illustrate every single section or concept. That was complicated enough, but that discussion didn't even have to deal with BLP issues, as we do here. I understand what you are saying to me about wanting to fully document a multi-faceted phenomenon, but these other issues trump that. Edit conflict: I already replied before you added that straw man about "Are all images of women inherently sexist?" We're not going to have a productive conversation if you insist on that kind of nonsense. Gamaliel (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

If I used a straw man, then let me ask you this: In what manner are these images different from other depictions of women? In what manner are they less acceptable? --benlisquare_T•C•E 20:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Didn't we want to discuss the content? Not trail off... Tutelary (talk) 20:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The idea is that we shouldn't use multiple images, partially because people might be put off by them due to percieved sexism. I'm trying to figure out in what way are the three images selected on the talk page sexist, since I have not had any definite or clear answer from anybody. Not one person has explained why, they just mention that it's potentially detestable. --benlisquare_T•C•E 20:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• To be honest I agree with Moscow Connection - We've narrowed the gallery down & should just source it like the other WP. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I've twice removed the gallery from the article. This is a BLP matter and this gallery should stay out until we have consensus that a gallery is appropriate. Gamaliel (talk) 19:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I've only reverted because at them moment it's a shit fest and it needs to stop, I'm not taking sides just dont see the point in edit warring. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

This isn't about taking sides in an edit war. This is about BLP. Consensus must be achieved before inclusion of controversial material involving living individuals. Gamaliel (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Gamaliel seems to be ready to violate WP:INVOLVED and lock and restore the article into his preferred version; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ANatalia_Poklonskaya&diff=606670477&oldid=606664303 Tutelary (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC) Discussing about content now.

Calm down guys. I'd rather this situation not get any worse than it already is. --benlisquare_T•C•E 19:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Why is it imperative that the gallery stay in the article while it is being discussed? BLP trumps all other considerations, so make your case, and if you succeed, then the gallery can go in the article. Gamaliel (talk) 19:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

But we can't do that if the people being addressed don't respond to points that are made. Nobody is making any responses, people are just edit warring. Furthermore, I was under the impression that per WP:BRD, the status quo is restored following a bold change, and in this case, the bold change would be the removal. Finally, whatever the current revision is would be purely temporary; I don't see why all chaos would break loose if we have an intermediate revision whilst we're working on a final solution. --benlisquare_T•C•E 19:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, in general, but BLP considerations trump BRD. It's a moot point now, because another administrator has locked the article, so we can dispense with this INVOLVED nonsense. Gamaliel (talk) 19:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I only say it should stay for now to stop the warring, I'm not taking sides I'm actually trying to calm it down but seems I've done the opposite ....→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Your edits were well intentioned, but you know what they say about the best laid plans. The article is locked now, which I guess was inevitable and maybe the first thing I should have done instead of hoping people would refrain from edit warring. Gamaliel (talk) 19:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

To be honest It's a shame we (myself included) all edit warred over it and got it locked but I suppose what's done is done, →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Can we please stop talking about the edit war now? It's discussing spilled milk, no amount of discussion will put the milk back into the bottle. --benlisquare_T•C•E 19:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I think the response a few posts above me tells it best. The images were not randomly picked by Wikipedia contributors. They are what showed reliable sources and thereby have significance to be there. The images adds an encyclopedic benefit. Tutelary (talk) 19:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

You're right, I've responded to your comment above. Gamaliel (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Arbitrary break

Alright, we've had a bumpy ride so far. That said, much of the discussion is going here and there, and not much progress has been made. Many of the points provided aren't being adequately addressed, and this is one of the many problems we are having.

A summary of points that have yet to be addressed

First of all, the claim that the images are demeaning. Of these images:

Image most covered in mainstream media

Optional image, inclusion is purely up for discussion

Image with some coverage, but is done by a well-known, professional and mainstream artist

Proposed images on talk page

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

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

Third, the necessity of having multiple images. From Talk:Natalia Poklonskaya#Which images to choose?:

Would a carefully crafted selection criteria meet WP:GALLERY?

• The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject.

• Two or three images are able to adequately explain to the reader what is being written in the prose. Too many and it becomes inappropriate, any less and it doesn't do the job as effectively.

• Images in a gallery should be suitably captioned to explain their relevance both to the article subject

• Captions can be included to explain why the carefully selected images are of relevance. Reasons may include "this image was covered by X, Y and Z media outlets", or "this image was top-ranked for X consecutive days".

• and to the theme of the gallery,

• The gallery itself is self-explanatory, and a heading would make it even clearer.

• and the gallery should be appropriately titled (unless the theme of the gallery is clear from the context of the article).

• This is easily done.

• Images in a gallery should be carefully selected, avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made.

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

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

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

your second and third points are not BLP issues and should be discussed on the talk page for the article IMHO. CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

A point was made on the talk page that as long as the issue regarding images isn't settled here on BLPN, the admin will not lift the page protection (within the time limit). --benlisquare_T•C•E 21:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

As I do not see a BLP issue, I will not discuss it here. When page protection is lifted, I strongly reccomend getting wp:consensus on the article talk page before adding a wp:gallery CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Hold on a second: The issue of galleries was clearly being discussed above by a few people, regardless of BLP issue or no BLP issue. It was someone else who first brought up the issue of WP:GALLERY here, so it's only logical to seek a response here, where they are more likely to see it. People here on BLPN may not necessarily have the time to visit the article talk page. As long as people don't agree here about image use, nothing will change at the article, which is why I'm here to gauge the reasons, and find out why they don't agree. --benlisquare_T•C•E 21:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you really not see the potential gender issues arising from depicting a female law enforcement professional as a child-like fetish object? Do you really not see the WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK problem of having a gallery devoted to a mere one-tenth of the article text? Gamaliel (talk) 23:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

So by that regard, there's nothing wrong with File:Natalia Poklonskaya by As109.jpg then? I don't see any child-like features there. Come on, I'm being serious when I said that I'd like someone to explain it to me as if I were an idiot. I am not an American, or a Californian, or a Democrat Party voting Californian. These concepts are very very unfamiliar to me. I wasn't joking at all. Finally, if a gallery is the problem, is the solution suggested at Talk:Natalia Poklonskaya#The image gallery and WP:GLOBALIZE a valid compromise? Unlike a gallery, it takes up significantly less screen space, and two images can behave as just one image, see the Donkey/Mule example at Template:Multiple_image as an example. --benlisquare_T•C•E 00:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

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

The thing about fetish objects is that people who have that fetish will see sex in them, regardless of intent. Right now, somebody is masturbating to interracial cabbage, and Wikipedia can't help that. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:29, May 2, 2014 (UTC)

Apparently, not all fetishism is sexy. My apologies if I called anyone a pervert. Still, same basic deal. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:38, May 2, 2014 (UTC)

International Business Times: "global appreciation over [her] physical beauty ... fan art in which she is portrayed as an anime heroine ... 2ch, the largest online forum in Japan, clarified that she is not a sex symbol in Japan but more of a cute symbol" starship.paint "YES!" 04:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if this is a bulky answer but under the circumstances it is the best way I could come up with to reply to the questions of the blockquote just above. Please feel free to reply within this block so that we don't proliferate these blocks. I wanted to reply within the original quote block but I did not want to alter another editor's comment.

Would a carefully crafted selection criteria meet WP:GALLERY?

• The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject.

• Two or three images are able to adequately explain to the reader what is being written in the prose. Too many and it becomes inappropriate, any less and it doesn't do the job as effectively.

• Reply: The number is purely subjective. What job has to be done as effectively? If the job is to depict anime cartoons, one cartoon is enough. The anime style is characteristic enough to not need multiple examples of the art. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• The latter part of your statement is also purely subjective. "The anime style is characteristic enough to not need multiple examples of the art." That's quite a boldly generalised statement there. A similar train of logic would be to say "African Americans all look the same, therefore we only need one image in the infobox at the African American article", which I'm quite certain plenty of editors may take offense to. I would disagree with the opinion that the art style is characteristically the same. Hence, having two images with differing styles would be able to bring home the point quite clearly, just like how the 12 images within the infobox at African American does. Two is a much smaller number than 12, don't you think?

  By saying that we cannot display two artworks here to provide examples used in mainstream media, it's clearly a double standard being put into force. What job is being done by having 12 images or African Americans, 9 images of Turkish people, and 8 images of Argentines? They're providing examples, just like here. Why aren't the WP:GALLERY police chasing after them instead? Is it different because it's an infobox? Either address this double standard by asking the people involved in the African American article to fix their blatant "image-gallery-within-an-infobox" over there, or allow this article to join the club just like any other functional article, with just two darn images. No more, just two. --benlisquare_T•C•E 03:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I hope you realise that anime styles are not people and that this discussion has nothing to do with race, so let's try to keep well clear of this line of discourse. Mixing race politics and art criticism in a discussion is unwise. in any case, I have already made my points clearly. I will not repeat them because I don't see any benefit in doing so, other than to reiterate that the BLP is not the place to educate readers about anime variations at the expense of the BLP subject. If you don't agree with me, it is fine. Thankfully, this is a wiki and hopefully other editors can offer their opinions in the process of trying to resolve this through consensus. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:02, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• In both cases, we have examples. On the African American page, we have twelve examples of people that are considered African Americans by reliable sources. On this article, I would like there to be two examples of Natalia artworks as reported by reliable sources. They're different cases, but follow the same line of thought. --benlisquare_T•C•E 04:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• Images in a gallery should be suitably captioned to explain their relevance both to the article subject

• Captions can be included to explain why the carefully selected images are of relevance. Reasons may include "this image was covered by X, Y and Z media outlets", or "this image was top-ranked for X consecutive days".

• Reply: Gathering stats from the internet is OR and SYNTH and it is not a valid reason to include images in an article, especially a BLP. And this image was top-ranked for X consecutive days: Wikipedia is not Alexa Internet. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• They were examples. On the article talk page, the primary point used was that images used need to be well covered in sources. Remember: You entered this discussion above saying that the choice of images seemed arbitrary, right? This is to fix this problem that you pointed out. Would you still be unsatisfied after that, even though it was one of the main points you made to justify your opposition?

  People keen on the images have made multiple compromises already; it's rather unfair if those opposing continue to make zero position changes. Let me remind you that this article once had five images that were all arbitrarily chosen, with no reason to explain why those images were selected. We've come a long way already, but a solution is impossible to attain without the co-operation of the opposition side as well. --benlisquare_T•C•E 03:13, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) As I said above, a single image is enough to describe the anime style used to depict the subject of the BLP. I also explained why we do not need more than one image. I think that if we reach the point of repeating arguments between us, this is a clear indication of disagreement with little prospect of being resolved. It is also a good indicator that we should wait for other editors to offer their opinions. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• You say that we're repeating our arguments, but you still haven't elaborated your OR/SYNTH point. I've addressed your SYNTH concern, but you're not elaborating. This isn't constructive. You know quite well that as long as you don't say anything, I can't do anything. If you believe that this point has been addressed, say so; if you believe it hasn't, explain why. By disengaging and leaving, you've left this problem hanging, and your position vague. If the page protection is lifted, still nothing fruitful will come out of it, and people will continue to revert any changes despite that you haven't properly addressed a few points. If you disengage, you lose nothing out of it, whilst I do - this is the problem. Consensus should be built upon arguments, but it's hard to do that when one side only states arguments, and doesn't address counter-arguments. It's like the Taiwanese parliament.

  This is why I'm paranoid about people "running away" from the discussion, like a lot of people have above. People are very keen to disagree with something, but when asked to elaborate, they do nothing, or they claim they're too busy, or something else, whilst still leaving the impression that they're still right and that consensus leans towards their point. I'm not talking about you, I'm talking about the other people involved. It's too easy to disagree, and as long as nobody says anything, I can't do anything. Nobody on the opposition side has something to lose. --benlisquare_T•C•E 04:26, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• Images in a gallery should be carefully selected, avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made.

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

• Reply: The point being made would be that there are differing artworks with varying styles that exist, because by default the reader would not know this kind of information.: The BLP is not the place to educate the reader about anime and its various styles. And: Images in a gallery should be carefully selected, avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made. This is exactly what I was saying all along. There is no reliable source contrasting or comparing these images. If we do that, it is our own OR and SYNTH. And Images selected will have significant visual difference between each other is not really true. The subject may be depicted in various poses, full-body or portrait, but the general anime style is unmistakable in all of them. We do not need multiple cartoons to illustrate the anime cartoon drawing method and its subgenres. One cartoon is enough. If the reader wishes to get an education on the anime style they can always go to the anime article. The BLP is simply not the place to educate people about anime. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• "The BLP is not the place to educate the reader about anime and its various styles." That's not the point. This has nothing to do with "anime styles", this has to do with how different works of Natalia by different people appear different. c.f. the articles on classic Greek and Roman gods such as Aphrodite and Poseidon. (Yes, I am aware that they aren't BLPs, you don't need to point that out in your next reply. The point addresses the art issue.) The section within the much larger article is the place to educate the reader about the internet "meme". The internet "meme" does not have its own article because existing a section clearly suffices.

  Furthermore, your statement is slightly misinformed as well, since none of these images are "anime". Anime refers to a moving picture. Hence, the statement that the BLP isn't the place to "educate the reader about anime" is rather out of place. There is nowhere else on the entire project to demonstrate differences in Natalia artworks (not "anime", but artworks) except for this section within this article. The "anime" article is about anime, and not still art.

  "it is our own OR and SYNTH" Why? Multiple reliable sources show multiple artworks. It's not OR if it's done elsewhere.

  "The subject may be depicted in various poses, full-body or portrait, but the general anime style is unmistakable in all of them." - This is a subjective statement, and also contains the same logical misconnections as the above statement on "anime". Nowhere in the Natalia article does it claim that the images are "anime", so you should stop referring to them here as "anime".

  Saying that this looks the same as this, is like saying that this looks the same as this . Both artworks appear clearly different, however you keep repeatedly saying that "the general style is the same etc etc", even though the difference is clear as day for anyone with two eyes to see. If someone said that "Greeks look the same as Turks, because they have the same hair colour and eyebrow shape", I can assure you that you would probably get offended. Why, then, should you follow the same train of logic here? These images are not "anime", and they do not share any identical or similar characteristics which would put them into a same generalised category. In Japan, these images would merely be described using the umbrella term of "fanart", which involves more than just one art style. This image is just a regular painting style artwork that doesn't even follow the alleged conventions of "anime". This logic is not accepted anywhere else, so why use this logic here? I'm certain that if we changed the subjects around (e.g. Greeks and Turks), you too would not accept this logic. Please do not use a train of logic that you yourself would not accept. --benlisquare_T•C•E 03:27, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• As I advised you in my reply above, mixing race and art criticism is not a good idea. Now you have escalated this to using arguments of ethnicity with presumptuous conclusions. I have become convinced now that the best course of action is to disengage from each other and wait for the opinions of other editors. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• My bad choice of examples is only an excuse. Yes, I probably shouldn't have made an example relating to race, but that's in the past now, too late to change anything about it. My point regarding the logical disrepancies within your argument still stand as long as you do not address them, and if page protection is lifted, then I reserve the right to assume that you have given up on your logically flawed point. Remember - so far, you have resorted to plenty of subjective and interpetative arguments, and have avoided making any statements with a concrete backing. I have adhered to using facts more than "feeling", basing my arguments on word dictionary definitions ("anime" is not what you think it is) and logical derivations. Until the flaws in my reasoning are presented to me, I have the right to assume that concrete arguments have priority over subjective ones. --benlisquare_T•C•E 04:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• Art, by its nature, is subjective. Dr.K's statement that The anime style is characteristic enough to not need multiple examples of the art is therefore also purely subjective as well. It's opinion, not fact. I think that the three images above look different, therefore multiple images are needed. So do Davey2010 and GrindtXX from Talk:Natalia Poklonskaya#Images. Some viewers think that the images look the same, some people don't. The readers who think the images look the same, I don't see what harm is there for them to see an extra similar image. The readers who don't think the images look the same, I see them coming away misinformed by just looking at one image. starship.paint "YES!" 10:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
• Also, regarding The anime style is characteristic enough to not need multiple examples of the art, shall we read what the Anime#Attributes article say? Visually, anime is a diverse art form that contains a wide variety of styles that share few similarities to one another. Follows up with a link to this image. starship.paint "YES!" 10:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• Visually, anime is a diverse art form that contains a wide variety of styles that share few similarities to one another.
• Let's get real here. This particular subgenre of anime is not very diverse. The oversized eyes looking like those of aliens from Area 51, the thin lips, the similarly stylized straight blonde hair. Are we looking at the same cartoons? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• Probably not. Some might even say that your overgeneralisation is narrow-sighted, but like he said, people may see things differently, and it just happens to be that you don't see things in as much detail, probably because you're not interested in the subject. I do the same thing for things that I am apathetic to - home architecture, for instance. To me, houses all look the damn same (seriously, what's the difference), but that's because I'm apathetic to the topic of home architecture. Also, again, it's not anime, anime is a moving picture. If you're going to keep doing that, then you're not listening. You can call it moe-style, you can call it anime-like, you can call it animesque-style, you can call it manga art, you can call it fan art; you just cannot call it anime. --benlisquare_T•C•E 07:26, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

These three? , and .

(1) and (2) look similar, but (3) is markedly different from (1) or (2) in my opinion. We're not pressing too hard for (2) to be included now, only (1) and (3), so let's focus on those two. The origins of Internet popularity began with this video, which would explain the similar hair style, I wouldn't expect bushy or dark hair coming from any other art style. Everything about (1) is about the huge eyes, while nose and mouth is insignificant. (3)'s eyes seem much more proportionate to me, with an obviously more fleshed out nose and mouth. And how about their expressions? (3) is confident, (1) has a tinge of hesitation. I wonder why you brought up aliens and Area 51. Oh well. starship.paint "YES!" 08:02, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it is simple. Anime/manga cartoons feature oversized eyes similar to drawings of extraterrestrials such as those allegedly associated with Area 51 for example. Many drawings of ETs and anime cartoons are similar in their depiction of oversized eyes in relation to the rest of the facial features. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 08:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

So now you've demonstrated that you're not willing to be productive towards the problem, and only intend to continue mudflinging because your opinion is the only thing acceptable. --benlisquare_T•C•E 08:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

In what way is my opinion of the relative size of the eyes of these cartoons "mudslinging"? I think your attitude is anything but productive. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 09:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

The answer to your original point has been provided. In some cases, the answer is repeated multiple times. You choose not to read them because you notice that there is a yellow signature at the end of them. This is the non-productive aspect of what you're doing here. I'm not typing letters because I feel like it, I'm doing so to address your points, start showing some respect and acknowledge the words that I type out, instead of typing another comment which gives the impression that my words fell on deaf ears. This cycle is repeating ad nauseam and I've yet to see a change. --benlisquare_T•C•E 10:09, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• Seems to me that similarities between such cartoons and Grey alien#In popular culture are purely coincidental. From the Wiki-link above, grey aliens significantly entered popular culture from the early 1980s, stemming from new witness accounts of the Roswell UFO incident in the United States (not Japan) in 1978. can read History of anime, seems like TV animation had been prevalent in Japan by the 1960s. starship.paint "YES!" 09:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
• Anyway, I don't think (3)'s eyes are dramatically oversized, and I'm still not seeing, how is the reader harmed by seeing both (1) and (3)? It's quite obvious the benefit to the reader if he thinks (1) and (3) look different, but even if he thinks they look the same? I don't see confusion or incorrect information being conveyed. starship.paint "YES!" 09:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• It isn't so much about incorrect information being conveyed as it is about keeping the cartoons to a minimum in a BLP to avoid WP:UNDUE issues. Don't forget, it isn't the fault of the BLP subject that manga fans find her kawaii or cute. We should not use this internet meme to convert the BLP of the prosecutor into a cartoon showcase, especially if the prosecutor was in no way responsible for the craze. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 09:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• "it is about keeping the cartoons to a minimum in a BLP to avoid WP:UNDUE issues" - And this is already addressed. This has been explained multiple times, but you give off the impression of ignoring what I say. The gallery is being replaced by a much less conspicuous solution. --benlisquare_T•C•E 10:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
• I really don't see what's negative about the cartoons as it is implied through it isn't the fault. Benlisquare has said already, my side has been willing to meet you halfway in the interests of WP:UNDUE for the BLP. We've been editing the article from the beginning. We've added a fair use real-life image of her which was deleted. Regarding the article, WP:UNDUE was brought up, so we've cut the Internet popularity section and beefed up the other sections. Not long ago the Internet popularity section was 46% of the body. 45% of it was trimmed away and now the Internet popularity section is just 17% of the body. The "Internet popularity" content is out there but we're not adding it to the article. We've originally had a gallery of five images, step by step as we're arguing for five, four, three and now two. I think that the already reduced nature of the Internet popularity section allows for a marginally larger weight of two images than one, and that section in particular would rely on images the most. I guess it's easier to be a naysayer than a content builder, and it seems that nobody opposing is willing to budge. starship.paint "YES!" 10:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• I guess it's easier to be a naysayer than a content builder,...: You should consider this as an example of content-builders of other articles trying to offer advice about this BLP. One should not have to be a content-builder in this exact article to be able to express an opinion. In any case, the problem I have with this proposal is that what in effect this section amounts to, is an overblown, single-event, WP:TRIVIA section replete with pictorial examples of popular art. It is actually "Poklonskaya in popular anime/manga etc. culture". It is basically completely unrelated to the actual deeds of the BLP subject and it is imposed on it just because anime/manga etc. fans find the subject of the BLP "kawaii" or "cute". This cultural assault of the anime industry on the subject of the BLP is a useless diversion in the context of the actual BLP which is supposed to describe the life and work of the prosecutor, not an internet fad which is fueled by the anime/manga industry. Therefore, I think we should treat such sections with utmost care and regard for the BLP subject, and try to minimise them. Otherwise we run the risk of pop-culture, and associated industries, overwhelming this and perhaps other BLPs, creating in the process a BLP train wreck. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• It is already as minimal as it can be. It can certainly be bigger, however the people involved have chosen not to make it any bigger. A Russian computer game developer has announced that Natalia will be a playable character in an online battle arena game, for example. I'm not kidding - the people working on the article have had plenty of restraint. --benlisquare_T•C•E 20:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
• Natalia is not like other BLPs. She is ingrained in Internet popular culture. The reliable sources out there prove that. She has dual notability both as the Crimean Prosecutor and as an Internet phenomenon, essentially she's Edward Khil with a more notable job. Just because she did not purposely perpetuate it, doesn't mean it's not relevant to her. It's easy to dismiss it as a "single event" when you're not fully aware of what's out there because we've not included it in the article to pacify those crying WP:UNDUE. 1. Initial press conference video (with real life "couch" photos unmentioned) 2. Fan-art. 3. (unmentioned in article) video game characters. 4. (also unmentioned) second wave of videos... music video, "nyash" etc. It's time people recognized that this is the "life and work" of the subject here. Accidental, so what? She's an Internet phenomenon and that is half her notability. starship.paint "YES!" 01:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I've read over the discussion here, on the article talk page, and the DYK submission, and there is a key point that the proponents of the gallery are not quite grasping. Benlisquare makes a reasonable case that more than one image is necessary to fully represent this fan art phenomenon. This argument would be relevant if this article were called "Natalia Poklonskaya fan art meme", but it is not. It is the biography of Natalia Poklonskaya and must represent her entire life, representing each aspect in a proportionate way. Including a entire gallery for this single aspect of her life, especially when the article contains no other pictures, disproportionately over-represents this small part of her biography. The concern to respectfully, proportionally, and accurately document her biography overrides any concerns about fully documenting this fan art phenomenon with a large number of pictures. Gamaliel (talk) 04:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

If there was a real-life photograph within the article infobox, would you change your position? --benlisquare_T•C•E 04:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, per the article talk page, it is no longer the case that people seek "a entire gallery"; two images is hardly considered a gallery. Since the number of images is to be reduced, the issue of WP:UNDUE and being overwhelming has become much less of an argument. Since your statement explicitly says that the problem relates to "a large number of pictures", this no longer applies, because it does not matter what part of the world you are from, two is not a large number, unless you're counting polonium isotopes by gram. May I even argue that two 100×100px images joined together by {{Multiple image}} behaves no less than a singular image to a fresh reader of the article, than one image that is 200×100px. --benlisquare_T•C•E 11:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

It seems there is at least on editor on the talk page who still seeks more than two pictures: "As soon as the lock expires, we have the full right to put the gallery back." Gamaliel (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Well I can assure you that it won't happen, since doing so would become disruptive. Even I don't agree with restoring the entire thing. --benlisquare_T•C•E 02:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Excellent points Gamaliel. I fully agree. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

On image use and WP:UNDUE

In practical (read: realistic) terms to a reader, there is little difference in conspicuousness between these two:

Two lizards

One lizard

The total image size is the same, and the number of thumbnail frame boxes are the same. That's all the reader will notice. Don't dwelve into the technicalities behind template usage - the average reader will care very little about these intricate details. The reader is only concerned about what he sees. You can argue about how "technically two files are used", but this is something that readers have little concern over, and things such as WP:UNDUE are designed to relate to what kind of content readers find, and not things like load on the servers or anything like that. Readers are the primary audience here, and not technical staff or contributors. As long as the pixel size is low, and there is only one frame, there is nothing WP:UNDUE about using two images. I have yet to find a convincing argument explaining why the two lizards on the left would be more WP:UNDUE than the one lizard on the right. Formatting the two images like this is no different from me stitching two images together in Microsoft Paint and then reuploading it, the main difference is that it saves me the effort of opening up Microsoft Paint. --benlisquare_T•C•E 10:28, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

to claim that 1=2 is a sublime exercise in Newspeak. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not asking if one equals two. I'm asking if formatting it a certain way is less WP:UNDUE, and why. Please don't twist my words to suit your own conveniences. If it makes no difference, in the eyes of the community, then we may as well go for a gallery. If the community deems that there is indeed a difference in conspicuousness, then using the new method would allow for a greater compromise. Remember - a gallery is huge, this new experiment is not. --benlisquare_T•C•E 12:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Two flags

Two flags

How are these two different, from a layperson reader's perspective? Ignore the minor technical details (GIF format, 256 colour limit), they're the uploader's fault and not mine.

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

Single purpose account block requested

• Carson Block (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Muddy Waters Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Rondonvolante (talk · contribs)

Hi all,

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

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

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

Regards,
Daniel (talk) 07:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Indefblocked. Sole purpose account here to edit war over a controversial BLP and related topics. WJBscribe (talk) 11:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Akinwunmi Ambode

Akinwunmi Ambode is a candidate here in Lagos Nigeria vying for political office in the 2015 elections. The article Akinwunmi Ambode contains some irregularities as shown below:

• The article is not written from a Neutral point of view (NPOV)

1. "he ensured probity in the financial management of the limited resources and also plugged the loopholes that allowed for financial frivolities and recklessness."
2. "He was known as an achiever and performer."
3. "In addition, he was able to motivate the civil service staff around him and all were glad to have worked under him"
4. "Ambode believes that..."
5. "Ambode is a very active member of the..."
6. "This book tells the story of his life about giving back to humanity, his community and his mission of selfless service."

• Ambode's heritage (which the article claims to be Epe, Lagos) has been reported to be something else by the biggest newspaper publishers in the country (http://www.thisdaylive.com/articles/lagosians-warn-against-emergence-of-non-indigene-as-fasholas-successor/175913/)

In summary, Wikipedia's policy of BLPs advises they be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone. I would therefore like to request the article be modified to adhere to these guidelines and not be used as a political tabloid tool as it currently is in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tadegoke (talk • contribs) 08:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

That article is basically a resume, lacking sources for most of the material there. Not sure if the subject of the article pass any of the criteria for notability either. I'll research a bit and clean it up or send to AFD if I don't find anything. Cwobeel (talk) 03:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Paul Stam

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

This Article is obviously written with a bias. The NC House Representative has been an elected official for 14 years and only one topic highlighting one issue is highlighted. Why? - Patty C — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.192.107 (talk) 10:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

It may need cleaning up, but we will not delete it, as he's automatically notable. I'll tag it and try to fix it. Bearian (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any WP:UNDUE problems. Bearian (talk) 19:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Leon Ockenden

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

Concerns have been raised on the article talk page regarding the legitimacy of the information provided in the article, specifically with regard to Ockenden's early years (which I removed here pending verification). On the face of it the claims do appear preposterous or a joke being presented as fact, but I can't review the youtube link to verify what, if any, is accurate. .--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Watching. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Walworth Barbour

Good afternoon,

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

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

Thanks for that? Are you sure? The LBJ Library says it's him at [5]. In the interim, I've removed the link. Hipocrite (talk) 18:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

It is him. The picture linked to by Bcasey1966 is listed as being from the National Archives but I cannot verify that for copyright purposes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Kevin Barrett

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

There is a lengthy section in the article on Kevin Barrett that describes an arrest without a conviction. It's unrelated to the topic for which Barrett is known, and appears to be nothing more than a smear. While Barrett's article should definitely describe his controversial stands, this appears to violate WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE. What say you all? 70.235.86.50 (talk) 21:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree, I removed the section, and I was reverted. Other opinions are welcomed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Mark Miller has identified this as a "page ownership issue". The section has been removed by four different editors (1, 2, 3, 4) and the removal has been reverted three times by Capitalismojo (1, 2, 3) and once by Hyperionsteel. It's time for some new eyes on the article. 71.139.142.181 (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I feel no ownership of this article at all, I was not the one who made the initial restoration. I will be happy to see this edit made if it was supported by either consensus or policy. This section was created in 2008, deletion without discussion seems unwarranted and was unexplained at talk. I note that one of the section deletions attributed the deletion to AVOIDVICTIM. The subject of the article was not a victim, the policy does not apply. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Antonio Giordano

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

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

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

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

AFDed - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Antonio_Giordano Cwobeel (talk) 03:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Peter Thiel

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

Should the lede say "German-born" American? Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 02:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

If he is, and there are reliable sources that attest to that, why not? It is a biography after all. Cwobeel (talk) 03:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

We are talking about the lede and because WP:MOSBIO says to use the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable. Does anybody know when the subject became a US citizen? --Malerooster (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:OPENPARAGRAPH "Ethnicity ... previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability."

I have provided lots of sources that show that it is relevant to the subject's notability.

Most contemporary sources describe him as German-born, e.g. Evgeny Morozov, To Save Everything, Click Here: The Folly of Technological Solutionism, Perseus Books, 2013 here. Often, Thiel is even laballed as "the German businessman, who co-founded PayPal" (e.g. Daily News) here Per WP:OPENPARA → 3.2. the info is "relevant to the subject's notability." - if not relevant, why does the media mention it all the time? → please see the other refs provided in the lead of the article →

• References

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

WP:OPENPARAGRAPH seems clear enough here - being German-born isn't what makes Thiel notable. It certainly doesn't belong in the first sentence of the lede, and I can't see any compelling reason to include it in the lede at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

The consensus, small sample now, 3-2, has formed. I know this isn't a vote, but I will wait a little longer and then revert to the prior version that only included the subject's present nationality. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Peter Rees (producer)

There's a disagreement between some editors and the apparent subject of the article going on on Peter Rees (producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The editors want to include a statement that the subject, a TV producer, had to leave a TV show after a prsenter received a severe electric shock. The source cited is a YouTube clip of the prsenter giving an account. Insufficient source for this acusation, in my view. But in any case, the prsenter doesn't allege a causal link in the clip anyway. The other editors seem to be more interested in COI allegations than BLP so more eyes on this article would be a good idea. DeCausa (talk) 08:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this is not at all true. The content that DeCausa refers to was added in 2013 by an editor whose only ever edits to Wikipedia were these edits to the article. Nobody else has argued that the content be included in the article. The restoration of the edits have been the natural result of an editor claiming to be the subject adding original research and inappropriate claims about the hosts of MythBusters to the article,[6] and then completely destroying the article with a subsequent edit.[7] When the edits were reverted, the claim was restored to the article in the process of reversion. The offending claim has been removed by DeCausa,[8] who has explained his action on the talk page,[9] and whose actions I supported.[10] The issue now is that of COI and legal threats by the editor, who has yet to prove that is who he says he is. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Donald Sterling accusations of a third party being a Prostitute

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

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

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

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

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

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

K Camp

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

All I did was add the discography section, add citations since there was zero before and removed all the opinion garbage that the person that wrote the article had in there so the article was not tagged for deletion for not being notable or for another reason. I did not write a single bit of the prose besides the first sentence "K Camp is an American rapper." I seriously would not like my name attached to that article at all, because I did not write it. I honestly do not care what happens to the article, but the subject clearly meets WP:MUSICBIO. STATic message me! 03:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

@STATicVapor: My apologies; you showed up a lot in the history so I assumed you were primarily responsible. I linked your name to ensure you saw this discussion, not because I wanted this "on your record" or anything like that. --NYKevin 04:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

So what is it exactly you want to be done to the article? I believe I cut all the inappropriate content that was there when you made this edit. STATic message me! 04:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what to do (which is why I'm here instead of just fixing it myself). But it still has serious problems with the areas I described above (e.g. "K Camp took his talent a little more seriously..." is basically unverifiable fluff, an album is described as the "best showcase" for something, etc.). Either that material has to be reworded, or it has to go. --NYKevin 19:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Satpal maharaj

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

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

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

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

Pernilla August

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

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

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

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

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

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

My saying its probably no big deal does not exclude anyone from the courtesy of replying. The diffs are old, but, as they could be viewed as even remotely threatening that is why I reported it here. If I overreacted to the edits in question then let me know so I don't make the same mistake. Threats or anything even perceived as threatening are taken seriously here, no? There is no justification for not replying or leaving some kind of recognition of my post before archiving!! Quis separabit? 14:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, just a slight over-reaction ;) - revert, warn and ignore per WP:DENY. GiantSnowman 14:07, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

However, it's better to think something is wrong and bring it to wider attention (only to be ignored or told there's nothing to do), as opposed to there being something actually actionable and doing nothing about it! GiantSnowman 14:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Catherine Bosley now at AfD

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

Jaiyah Saelua

Jaiyah Saelua is an international footballer who identifies as a fa'afafine. All the press items which involve interviewing the subject make it clear that fa'afafine is the primary identification [12]. In some, teammates are quoted using female pronouns for the subject [13]. They play in the FIFA men's league. The article identified the subject as transgender and the talk page as a trans women. As far as I can see fa'afafine should be used in both of these places. The fact that the western media is translating this non-western gender into western concepts in order to explain things to the readers is of no concern when it comes to WP:MOSIDENTITY.

Oscar López Rivera

• Oscar López Rivera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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

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

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

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

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

All Congresspeople

The issue at Michael Grimm (politician) is asserted to include all Congressmenpeople.

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

The edit involved is [14] with the claim in the edit summary: Then please change every single Rep. who has been redistriced on Wiki. That is what happens with re-disgtricting. Do not RV. This is how it is to be display

On the Talk page: [15]

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

So far I have found absolutely zero RS sources for claiming that Rangel succeeded Grimm. Congress counts seniority independent of "district numbers" and thus it is inane to haveWiki[edia make a claiminWikipedia's voice that Grimm was succeeded by Rangel. The same "decision" is inded found on other pages = such as Rangel's BLP, and is fully as ludicrous there. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

So this is a problem that does not appear on pages dealing with female members of Congress?? How odd… Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:50, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I presume it does affect every member of Congress who is subjected to this peculiar editing style. I emended the title to "Congresspeople" per your important contribution. Thank you. Collect (talk) 19:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Son Na-eun

Son Na-eun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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

walworth barbour

Walworth Barbour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The picture that is posted on the page for Walworth Barbour is not a picture of Walworth Barbour. I am a family member, and I have asked multiple family members and we are in agreement that this is not a photograph of Walworth Barbour. Please remove this photograph from this page. Here is a link to a webpage with a true photograph of Walworth Barbour. I am not sure of copyright rules for this picture, if it can be posted on Wikipedia. Please advise. thank you.

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

I checked the source [16] and there is no mention of Barbour, so I have removed the photo from the article. Cwobeel (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Found a confirmed photo of Walworth Barbour at the National Archives, and added to Commons and the article. Cwobeel (talk) 16:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Cwobeel - are you sure you got that picture from where you said you got it? Hipocrite (talk) 18:35, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

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

@Cwobeel: Where in the National Archives? Or was it an offline search? I'm asking because I couldn't find it earlier. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN:. It is referred as such here: [17] and here [18]. Cwobeel (talk) 21:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Aleida Guevara

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

[Aleida Guevara] Inappropriate information. i.e. She was born in Cuba in a dustpan? Her religion is Fartism? Her child's name is Satan? Her award is in farting? inaccurate information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.51.224 (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Petty vandalism, reverted. Thanks for letting us know. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Michael Tobias

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

Well the article is fully protected so I guess we won't have to worry about it too much :) §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Josiah Neeley

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

Article containing references only to the website of the foundation that publishes the subject's work. Article created by a user with a problematic history of self editing. David in DC (talk) 15:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Watchlisted. Cwobeel (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I did a bit of research and it does not look like this person fits the notability criteria. I'll AFD it. Cwobeel (talk)

Looks like a clear A7 speedy to me, so tagged as such.--ukexpat (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Clear A7, gone. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Arthur G. Bedeian

Arthur G. Bedeian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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

RfC at Template talk:Infobox officeholder

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

barbara roche

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

Removed some crap, & watchlisted. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Aaron

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

Gillian McKeith

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

Understatement of the week. Guy (Help!) 10:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Lt. General Frank E. Petersen

- I corrected his date of birth from March 3, 1932 to March 2, 1932 (the accurate date) and his picture was removed. How can I get the picture back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaylemp (talk • contribs) 17:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Please do not start posts with a space, as that causes formatting problems. The problem is caused by you removing the closing bits on the date field, which damaged the rest of the code. Add }} at the end of the date field. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Cecialia Brækhus

Someone have edited her profile 1. May. Where she was supposedly defeated in a fight the 24. April. I cant find any information about this. Please check this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anders1985 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

taken down https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cecilia_Br%C3%A6khus&diff=607596936&oldid=606582654 Mosfetfaser (talk) 07:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Ted Kaptchuk

Violation of WP:BLP by MMCC66 (talk · contribs) with this edit. Thank you. New England Cop (talk) 02:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

bria valente

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

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

Thanks

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/219992/Celebs-party-for-High-St-hook-up — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.122.34.224 (talk) 05:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Tabloids are not reliable sources, removed. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

William French Anderson

William French Anderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article has massive laundry lists of patents, honorary doctorates, Society Memberships, Chairmanships of Major Symposia etc etc. It all seems rather overkill to me, perhaps an experienced BLP editor can have a look & see if all this is within policies & can be trimmed? NB editor User:Magioladitis added a COI template, but nothing on the article talk page. I shall ask him to comment here. 94.195.46.49 (talk) 22:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The BLP chainsaw has taken care of it. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the surgical strike! 94.195.46.49 (talk) 02:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Biased article: Elena Udrea

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tiffany Limos

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

I would like some help in working out a content issue with this article. I have a lot going on in real life and now adding to that is an editor who seems to think that whatever they get approved by the subject and her lawyers should be what is posted here on Wikipedia. This is a big pet peeve of mine, subjects (mostly Hollywood actors/actresses) who feel that Wikipedia is a PR platform for them. I'd like someone else to take on this article because I'm having to put too much effort into not biting off the other editor's head over this. I'm sorry if this isn't the exact place for this particular situation but WP:COIN suggested that this was better than COIN. Thank you, Dismas|^(talk) 03:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I have my doubts about the notability of this actress. I encourage other editors to take a look. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Vanessa Kerry

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

Additional eyes requested

• Peter Youngren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I will also be requesting this at WP:COIN.

I encountered this article recently at the copyright problems board, and rewrote it to address copyright issues. The article had been under the attention of Youngren's business, it seems, and the rewrite (which is unfortunately mostly negative, since that's all the sourcing I could find) is not pleasing to them, as a result of which they have been blanking content. I would really appreciate assistance if anyone is able to help out to make sure that the content is properly balanced - I suspect that there must be more positive out there than I have found. It would also be helpful if any uninvolved editors can assess the sources being used. I checked WP:RSN but didn't find any discussion of them; however, ChristianWeek is cited in a number of articles already and seems to be widely referenced as a specialty publication on the web (for but one example, see reprint of a story here: [19]). I'm not really familiar with specialty Christian publications of Canada. :)

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

Noel Cox

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

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

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

Larry Dvoskin

• Larry Dvoskin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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

Scott Krug

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

REmoved. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Gary Null Article

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

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

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

For reference: Gary Null (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In the last day or two, Ian McGrady has made a flurry of edits (roughly 50, ranging from minor to enormous) to the Gary Null article. In rapid succession, he has watered down, minimized, and deleted content critical of Null; added spurious and dubious attacks on individuals who have expressed negative opinions of Null; larded the article with badly-sourced and misleading content supportive of HIV denialism; copy-pasted big chunks of self-serving CV; and fluffed up the article with promotional phrasing. Ian McGrady has made no effort to use the article talk page to discuss his very substantial edits to the article, either before or after.

Mr. McGrady was making so many edits in rapid succession that it is difficult to tease out exactly what he was doing with each one—and it's not clear that he thought them all through, or that his edit summaries are an accurate record of what he did. For example, with the edit summary "Deletes potentially libelous assertions made by Barrett, a delicensed psychiatrist", he does cut out a 'Controversy' section (which McGrady had himself created earlier: [20]), but also adds in hagiographic biographical material and a copy-pasted CV. Particularly given his acknowledged personal bias with respect to this article's subject, we would be far better off restoring the article to its original state and discussing proposed edits. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

As an aside, and per my note on Talk:Gary Null#Invitation for further participation in editing this page by the entire community, I've reverted the article to a May 8 version of the article immediately before Ian McGrady's large number of substantial changes. I would strongly suggest that he propose and discuss his edits on the talk page before trying to introduce them into the article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

What text in the article is a problem? Why? What reliable sources support the view that the text is a problem? What text should be added to the article? Why? What reliable sources support the addition of the text? Johnuniq (talk) 01:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Rob Reep

New article appears to be written by the subject. Have tagged with COI tag which as been removed and reinstated. According to WP:COS this practice is frowned upon. Unsure of next step concerning articles written by the subject. Any suggestions?--Egghead06 (talk) 02:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

The article has still multiple issues. I added the appropriate tags and watchlisted. Cwobeel (talk) 02:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Y Removed all material that was violating WP:NOR, mostly self-serving resume-like material. Cwobeel (talk) 03:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Robert Lewandowski

This revert - reinsertion of BLP material - is the matter under dispute: [21]

Here is the talk page discussion [22]

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

It is trivia, and entirely inappropriate in a biography. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Andy, and have reverted said edit. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Not trivia, but I accept consensus in this matter. As for Volunteer Marek edit warring over the issue, he should be ashamed. I asked him to raise the matter here and he chose instead to edit war. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:57, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Uh, Walter, I did raise the issue here. Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Marek, AndyTheGrump, and Darkness Shines, please explain how it's a minor incident. I would never say charges being pressed against everyone would ever be minor. Considering the background of the situation, I would hardly consider it minor. Even without the charges. Kingjeff (talk) 22:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree, it is trivia and doesn't belong in a BLP. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I, too, oppose adding this trivial incident to the BLP. It's nothing more than an angry 17 year old giving the raised middle finger gesture to a professional athlete. I encourage other editors to comment as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

On the talk page, I explain how it's not "nothing more than an angry 17 year old giving the raised middle finger gesture to a professional athlete." Kingjeff (talk) 00:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

If you are referring to the fact that the incident happened shortly after it was announced that Lewandowski was changing teams, then I am sorry, but in my view that does not justify adding discussion of this utterly trivial incident to the article. If I (and several other editors) are missing something, Kingjeff, why don't you try summarizing your argument again, which I simply don't understand. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Mark Versallion

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

Russell Targ

Re the article Russell Targ, characterisation of the subject's research that is almost certainly of a defamatory character is being repeatedly posted by User:TheRedPenOfDoom. See for example https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russell_Targ&diff=607964099&oldid=607962185 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russell_Targ&diff=607944060&oldid=607942517. --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing defamatory in describing pseudoscience as pseudoscience. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

What you say is perfectly correct of course, but the courts might not accept your implicit presumption. A subject may at one time be genuinely pseudoscience as the scientific method is not being followed, but once a rigorous scientific approach is adopted, it is no longer pseudoscience and such an assertion becomes libellous. As I noted in the talk page, the question of whether the claims are valid is irrelevant. For example, the claim that neutrinos may be travelling faster than light was not pseudoscience even though a fault in the equipment was ultimately found, because the scientific method was strictly adhered to.
I gather that Targ has been trying various alternatives that preserve the element of scepticism without making defamatory suggestions, but these have invariably been reverted by User:TheRedPenOfDoom. --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Ignoring your evident attempts to stray into WP:NLT territory, I would like to know which sources you are going to cite for your assertion that Targ has used "a rigorous scientific approach" in his investigations into 'remote viewing' - other than Targ himself, since we don't permit self-serving autobiographical material, even for your personal acquaintances. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not threatening legal action, just warning the person concerned that his putting himself at risk. I should imagine Targ has sufficient resources to take him to court if he felt like doing so, and take the wind out of his sails. I don't propose to fall into your trap of quoting a source for my assertion, but just point out that it is the job of journal referees to judge such issues and propose that a paper be rejected if it has methodological flaws. It is very easy of course to engage in armchair criticism and invent reasons why there might have been errors. See 'how to debunk just about anything', at http://dandrasincom.ipage.com/Newscience/Newscience/zen_2.html (thank you, Dan!). --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, since you have failed to take the hint, and have made it clear that your references to 'defamation' and 'libel' were intended as a 'warning', I am going to report the matter at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Report all you like, I'm not bothered. I don't rely on WP's approval for anything. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: Brian Josephson has now been blocked per WP:NLT. [23] AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: Brian Josephson has now been UNblocked per [24] --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Jai Prakash Menon

Jai Prakash Menon is a BLP about an Indian IT-executive which since he unexpectedly left his previous employer has included information about his very abrupt departure, a story that is sourced to multiple very reliable sources (The Hindustan Times, The Economic Times India and others), and was also carried by many other major news sources in India (including The Hindu Business Line). The material was not added by me, all I have done is "defend" the article against SPAs with a possible COI removing it (and also adding promotional material to the article). Suryasingh31 (talk · contribs) is the most prominent and determined of those SPAs (a determination that lead to full protection of the article, with Suryasingh31 starting his work again as soon as the protection expired). The only source that contradicts the other news stories is a short interview with Menon himself, without editorial comment, which I see as a primary source.

I have no interest in the subject or the article as such, and as I said I did not add the material, but I would like a review of what the article says about Menon's quick departure from Bharti Airtel, i.e. if it's being given undue weight and should be removed, as Suryasingh31 and the other SPAs want. Thomas.W ^talk 10:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

• TheRedPenOfDoom has now gone through the article and removed tons of puffery and peacockery, but there's still a need for a review of the part I mentioned above, just to have something to show future SPAs. Thomas.W ^talk 17:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

• TheRedPenOfDoom has edited the article and it looks balanced. However, in a BLP, dedicating 1 complete paragraph (4 lines) to single negative event is against the philosophy and spirit of wikipedia which clearly states that, without named references and supporting artifacts, any defamatory/negative statements should be avoided in BLP.suryasingh31 ^talk 12:35 07:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.160.104.254 (talk) (Corrected time stamp of edit) Thomas.W ^talk 07:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• "A single negative event" makes it sound as if it's a minor event. If it had been a minor event it wouldn't have been covered by virtually all major newspapers and news sites in India, all telling the same story. And it's quite telling that the only source I managed to find that carried Mr Menon's denial of it is a news outlet owned/controlled by the HT-group, his new employer. Thomas.W ^talk 07:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment: And Suryasingh31, as IP 59.160.104.254 (see above where the IP self-identifies as Suryasingh31) is right back at whitewashing the article again. Thomas.W ^talk 07:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Dick Cheney and The Huffington Post

Upon archiving Dick Cheney article I have stumbled on ref 163 as being Huffington Post, a reliable source which was discussed previously in various discussions about Huffington's reliability, and I have mixed feelings about it. I found the same ref only in Politico which I think is more reliable then Huffington, considering that the previous discussions regarding Huffington were calling it a blog as I just read. Should I change it, or should I add it, or should I live it as is, since I will do archiving either way in some time? I thanking all responders in advance!--Mishae (talk) 18:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

IMO If one ref was controversial as a "blog", use the Politico ref. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

O.K. What about the Washington Post, is it as unreliable as Huffington? Also, is Politico reliable, or its too is a "blog"?--Mishae (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment: The Washington Post is one of the most trusted newspapers in the US while The Huffington Post is an Internet news site and blog, so they have nothing in common except for having "Post" in their names. Thomas.W ^talk 19:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

So, O.K. That clears up my mind, thanks.--Mishae (talk) 19:39, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, WaPo is generally considered a strong reliable source. Politico is a mainstream media RS and is not a blog. Huffington Post has to be closely looked at. Generally it is considered reliable but it has quite a number of invited blog pages, columnists and op-ed writers who are reliable for their own opinions only. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

olly murs

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

• Olly Murs discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Brian Day

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

The [Day] biography is largely uncited and reads like a heroic movie plot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenshockington (talk • contribs) 19:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Lenshockington, I have tagged the article for needing more references and for unencylopedic tone. It would of course be desirable that someone actually fixes the article, but experience unfortunately shows that chances for this to happen is slim. Thanks for notifying. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I have cleaned the article up a bit, and watchlisted it as well. Cwobeel (talk) 02:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Ignazio Ciufolini

• Ignazio Ciufolini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A while ago a series of SPAs whose contributions are limited to editing this biography insisted on inserting a "Misconducts" (seriously) section detailing an incident where the subject was accused of using "sockpuppets" to submit papers to ArXiv critical of his competitors. The original discussion ended with agreement that the source for the controversy was essentially ArXiv itself, which made it inappropriate at best. There were also concerns about weight. Now there's apparently a new source, a Discover Magazine blog that mentions the controversy. My problem with this is that the source is indeed a blog, written by someone under a pseudonym. Which also invites us to peruse other blogs for more information, in addition to the blogs used as secondary sources to re-insert the information. In other words, all this can be sourced only to ArXiv itself or blogs. In my opinion this is not sufficient to justify including it in the subject's biography, especially not by SPAs. But perhaps other BLP-savvy editors disagree. Here is a relevant diff. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Now, the situation is substantially changed because of the appearance of several reliable, independent, third-parties sources. It is a Letter to the Editor in a peer-reviewed journal like Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, and several blogs from all over the world in different languages. At this point, continuing to censor this aspect is unacceptable. Why FreeRange Frog deliberately ignore the peer-reviewed Letter to the Editor in the Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, and the non-anonymous blogs in Italian and Serbian? Why does he focus on the anonymity of Neuroskeptic in Discover (magazine)? It seems that he is only interested in my alleged "conflict of interests" or to whatsover wiki-paranoid excuses (the anonymity of Neuroskeptic...), not to the facts! It is a shame! Rambilon (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

• The article in Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology is a peer-reviewed article which is not a primary source on these alegations, but a secondary source (it reports that the archiveX moderators as the (possibly intermediate) source of the alegations). As a secondary source it seems strong enough to support very carefully worded misconduct assertions. I've looked for to see whether Ignazio Ciufolini has used any right-of-reply avenues, but I'm not seeing any. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

@Stuartyeates: It might be peer-reviewed but it's still a primary source, since the author is the one making the allegations about Ciufolini. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

My reading of the full text is that the ArXiv moderators were making the allegations "“This submission has been made by G. Felici, a pseudonym of Ignazio Ciufolini, who repeatedly submits inappropriate articles under pseudonyms, in violation of arXiv policies.”" and "“This submission has been removed because ‘G.Forst’ is a pseudonym of Ignazio Ciufolini, who repeatedly submits inappropriate articles under pseudonyms. This is in explicit violation of arXiv policies. Roughly similar content, contrasting the relative merits of the LAGEOS and GP-B measurements of the frame-dragging effect, can be found in pp. 43–45 of (Ciufolini, 2007).”". Whether or not the allegations were subsequently withdrawn is another matter. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

References

References

Russell Targ--Remote viewing is not Pseudoscience. Change it now please

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Remote viewing is not “pseudoscience.” Please immediately drop that inaccurate and insulting term that you have scattered throughout my Wikipedia bio-page. Wikipedia’s definition: “Pseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status. The term pseudoscience is often considered inherently pejorative, because it suggests something is being inaccurately or even deceptively portrayed as science.”

There are a number of reasons that editors at Wikipedia should not characterize remote viewing as pseudoscience, when it is not characterized that way by the informed scientific community.

1--In order to publish our findings in the 1976 Proceedings of the IEEE, we had to meet with the Robert W. Lucky, managing editor, and his board. The editor proposed to us that we show him how to conduct a remote viewing experiment. If it was successful, he would publish our paper. The editor was also head of electro-optics at Bell Telephone Laboratory. We gave a talk at his lab. He then chose some engineers to be the “psychics” for each of five days. Each day he hid himself at a randomly chosen location in the nearby town. After the agreed-upon five trials, the editor read the five transcripts and successfully matched each of the five correctly to his hiding places. This was significant at 0.008 (one in 5!, 5-factorial). As a result, he published our paper on “Information Transmission Over Kilometer Distances”.

2—In our 23 year program for the government at SRI, we had to carry out “demonstration of ability” tasks for the Director of CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency, NASA, and Commanding General of the Army Intelligence Command. (The names are available upon request.) For the CIA we were able to accurately describe and draw a giant gantry crane rolling on eight wheels over a large building, and draw the 60 foot gores, “slices” of a sphere, under construction in northern Russia. The sphere was entirely accurate, although its existence was unknown at the time. The description was so accurate that it became the subject of a Congressional hearing of the House Committee on Intelligence. They were afraid of a security leak. No leak was found, and we were told to “press on.”

3—Remote viewing is easily replicated and has been demonstrated all over the world. It has been the subject of several Ph.D. dissertations in the US and abroad. Princeton University had a 25 year program investigating remote viewing with more than 450 trials. Prof. Robert Jahn also published a lengthy and highly significant (p = 10-10 or 1 in ten billion) experimental investigation of remote viewing in the 1982 Proc. IEEE.

4—The kind of tasks that kept us in business for twenty-three years include: SRI psychics found a downed Russian bomber in Africa; reported on the health of American hostages in Iran; described Soviet weapons factories in Siberia; located a kidnapped US general in Italy; and accurately forecasted the failure of a Chinese atomic-bomb test three days before it occurred, etc. When San Francisco heiress Patricia Hearst was abducted from her home in Berkeley, a psychic with the SRI team was the first to identify the kidnapper by name and then accurately describe and locate the kidnap car. I was at the Berkeley police station and witnessed this event.

5—Jessica Utts is a statistics Professor at the University of California, Irvine, and is president of the American Statistical Association. In writing for her part of a 1995 evaluation of our work for the CIA, she wrote: “Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well established. The statistical results of the studies examined are far beyond what is expected by chance. Arguments that these results could be due to methodological flaws in the experiments are soundly refuted.… Remote viewing has been conceptually replicated across a number of laboratories, by various experimenters, and in different cultures. This is a robust effect that, were it not such an unusual domain, would no longer be questioned by science as a real phenomenon. It is unlikely that methodological flaws could account for its remarkable consistency.”

6--Whether you believe some, all, or none of the above, it should be clear that hundreds of people were involved in a 23 year, multi-million dollar operational program at SRI, the CIA, DIA and two dozen intelligence officers at the army base at Ft. Meade. Regardless of the personal opinion of a Wikipedia editor, it is not logically coherent to trivialize this whole remote viewing undertaking as some kind of “pseudoscience.” Besides me, there is a parade of Ph.D. physicists, psychologists, and heads of government agencies who think our work was valuable, though puzzling. Torgownik (talk) 00:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)Russell Targ, May 12, 2014

See WP:RS, WP:NOR, and WP:COI. We just summarize published sources. Published scientific sources refer to remote viewing as pseudoscience. Your personal claims about your life don't change that. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

And as I already explained on the Help Desk, "pseudoscience" has become a cool thing. It's not defamatory, it's congratulatory. It's an easier path to accepting this change than the upstream way you're taking. Also consider WP:TLDR and maybe add some line breaks, even arbitrarily. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:53, May 13, 2014 (UTC)

Torgownik, you can always contact Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Contact us - Subjects. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rodrigo Crespo

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

Please note that the references for this page lead to links that do not reference this person at all. For example:

• http://www.vuenosairez.com/cds/bossa-n%C2%B4-stones/314
• http://www.sion.com/musica/notas/html/201007151745/lanzamiento.html
• http://robertoramasso.com/contratar-a-daniela-herrero/
• http://www.mtv.pt/

make no reference whatsoever to back up the claims made in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UCBerk (talk • contribs) 10:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The sentences they are attached to make multiple claims, and they're intended to back up just one. The VuenosAirez one is for the album's sales, not for whether Crespo produced it. RobertoRamasso likewise only says Herrero won the award.

But yeah, still misleadingly formatted and undersourced. I took the MTV bit out altogether, till someone points out a specific page. As for BLP, do you have any reason to think the unsourced stuff is false or damaging? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:49, May 15, 2014 (UTC)

dawn Landes

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

There is a disagreement between myself and another editor over a factual question: whether the subject of the article dawn Landes should be referred to as dawn Landes or Dawn Landes. The other editor, who believes that dawn is the correct usage, has reverted several dawn -> Dawn edits by others over the years (most recently my own). I contend that Dawn Landes is currently the correct usage, based on the way her first name is spelled (with a capital D) on her website (http://www.dawnlandes.com/), Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/dawnlandes), and record label site (http://westernvinyl.com/artists/dawnlandes.html), as well as the liner notes of her most recent album, plus virtually every reference to her in music websites. The other editor counters by citing her MySpace page (https://myspace.com/dawnlandes) and covers of her earlier albums, adding that the references that I cite are not under the subject's control and being produced by people who are ignorant of her wish to use lowercase for her first name. I would counter that the references he cites are older and may be evidence the subject may have once wished to be known as dawn, but has since dropped that wish.

This issue seems to revolve around several interesting questions: What should be done in an edit dispute when otherwise reliable sources conflict? In such a dispute, is higher weight to be given to more recent sources? Is it legitimate to make claims that some sources should be considered unreliable because they are not under the control of the subject? And where does the burden of proof lie in a question of whether a person prefers to use non-standard case in their name, with the editor claiming that the non-standard case is correct or with the editor claiming that standard case is correct?

I think both editors agree that the bottom line is that the article should spell the name that this living person wishes to go by. The dispute is over determining what that wish is. The other editor has adopted the position that dawn/Dawn Landes clearly wishes to be known as dawn, but I am dubious that the references he cites are sufficient to draw that conclusion. Without a clear statement from the person herself, I believe that recent sources outweigh older sources.

Does anyone have thoughts on how to resolve this impasse? Thank you. Rickterp (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

On the surface, this seems to parallel the situation in the E. E. Cummings article, which uses capital letters. —C.Fred (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I think this is very simple: Use the legal name of the person for the article, and mention in the lede the alternative spelling, as in: Dawn Landes, also known as dawn Landes (born December 5, 1980) is an American singer-songwriter and musician originally from Louisville, Kentucky. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Pseudonyms, stage names and common_names. Cwobeel (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

See also bell hooks - another person using a non-capitalised name. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

It appears that this has come up often enough to merit mention on the MoS (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Items that require initial lower case):

Some individuals do not want their personal names capitalized. In such cases, Wikipedia articles may use lower case variants of personal names if they have regular and established use in reliable third-party sources (for example, k.d. lang). When such a name is the first word in a sentence, the rule for initial letters in sentences and list items should take precedence, and the first letter of the personal name should be capitalized regardless of personal preference.

AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

bell hooks and k.d. lang are good examples of how to handle cases where a person has made it clear that she wishes to be known by a name with non-standard case. The crux of the dispute over dawn Landes is whether she has indeed made it clear that she wants to be known as dawn Landes and not Dawn Landes. For both bell hooks and k.d. lang that wish seems pretty clear and is evident in both references officially associated with these persons and third parties writing about them. In the case of Landes, I would argue that the evidence is ambiguous at best (official sources conflict and third-party sources overwhelmingly use Dawn Landes) -- however, the other editor in this dispute believes the evidence is clear and convincing that dawn Landes is correct and the cases of Dawn Landes are erroneous. Rickterp (talk) 14:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Rickterp and Mareklug: I see a smattering of sources using a lowercase dawn all in 2007 (presumably when a myspace username could have been created), and a tidal wave of sources (from her and third-party) after 2008, including the name on her book, her tour posters, and a current fact-checked interview in the New Yorker where it uses an upper case Dawn. The New Yorker asked her how she spells her name before they ran an interview with her. Usually I would say that preference here should be taken into account, but this is not a k.d. lang situation and I don't see anything like a clearly stated preference or common usage here. It strains credulity to think that she has had no control over anything she's been involved with for the last six years. k.d. lang is clear and consistent with everything she is involved with (right down to her Facebook page), and throughout her career. E.E. Cummings famously used lowercase on a couple of projects but he preferred caps in most things; we use his main preference. We shouldn't use a preference we only guess she may have theoretically had in 2007 and has never shown again. Even the myspace page bio uses an uppercase Dawn now. Places like No Depression use uppercase, and they wouldn't shun a fun preference in a performer's name if it existed. I think the lowercase spelling should be mentioned as an alternate spelling, but I don't see anything that would be a BLP issue with using an uppercase Dawn in most places.__ E L A Q U E A T E 03:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Here is a current project she has undeniable control of, today. I see no evidence that she prefers the usage on her 2007 album above her clearly more common usage. In 2008 she was clearly touring upper case and that's consistent to the present day. I don't think we should act as if she prefers something she shows no evidence of currently preferring.__ E L A Q U E A T E 13:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your scholarship and reasoning, such as they are. I see that you already took upon yourself to resolve this issue the "Dawn" way. Rather than continue more in this vein, please allow me this one note on the thread post facto:

1. The bio on her up-to-the-minute MySpace page complex is authored AND signed by some Heather. Heather glosses incompetently, or perhaps in keeping with some manual of style where she initially published that blurb "dawn's music", which is in lower case as a matter of historical record.
2. The album "Fireproof" where dawn famously did the cover and put her name on it reads "dawn Landes" and is not from 2007 but later.
3. The argument from New Yorker's typographical choices is spurious. We know that The New York Times famously decided once upon a time to reverence everyone per Mr. and Miss, Mrs., persons of non-honoric preference be damned, never mind transsexuals with obvious distaste for one of the choices. Let's don't reason speciously that this implies dawn had any say in how they printed her name. Ditto the above mentioned Heather's bio evidence.
4. It is a matter of your assumption that dawn regulates in any way her Kickstarter page typography, or that she controls it or pays it any attention, even if she does. It may be a contracted-for or friend-provided item. Or Kickstarter's own defaults/preferences. Suffices to say it is DAWN LANDES in all caps everywhere there, except in the one typographical place where it may well function as chez typographical manual of style.
5. Everywhere else but in Heather's bio copy, dawn consistently has dawn Landes on her MySpace page, be it the main navigation (incidentally, for your amusement, click to see who shows up as the top fan) and again, it is your assumption, rather curious at that, that all this dawning results from the page itself dating from early bronze age, and that dawn just could not be bothered to update it to up cased, correct as of now. Please note that all the credits for her as composer -- on subpages dedicated to albums -- are ...dawn Landes. On every song, including songs well after 2008.
6. Yesterday I wrote her a personal note, but suppose she replies, I will just sit on it and have quiet satisfaction. Wikipedia process has deviated me into an information pervert. Shall we say. Kindly regardez (ici, sic), --Mareklug ^talk 01:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Fæ

I am requesting action to be taken in compliance with BLP#Non-article space.

The allegation that I, User:Fæ, "attempt[ed] to subvert the committee through [my] position as chair of the UK Wikimedia chapter" has been made at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Statement_by_Kurtis and despite this being challenged as unsourced with repeated requests for evidence to be put forward, @Kurtis: has refused to remove the allegation or provide sources that can validate the allegation. Kurtis appears to be misinterpreting the Arbcom proposed remedy[25] - "For numerous violations of Wikipedia's norms and policies, Fæ is indefinitely banned from the English Language Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed one year after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter." - which had a consensus support from Arbcom, with individual comments (this ban was successfully appealed six months later). Individual comments were not supported by Arbcom as a whole, they are comments and were not themselves evidence. None of the individual comments by Arbcom members states that I used my position as chair of Wikimedia UK (I was the Chairman of the UK charity in 2012) for subversion, I am certain that any Arbcom member would be aware that this would require verifiable evidence. This is potentially a claim of an unlawful act and requires robust sources to support it. I firmly refute the allegation, and am deeply concerned that Wikipedia is being misused to make false allegations about the real life of one of its contributors. In the UK all trustees of registered charities are required to have their legal identities on public record, consequently this is an allegation about my real life identity and my professional career, rather than my Wikipedia account.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 07:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

From my perspective, I did not make any allegations; I was repeating what several members of the Arbitration Committee asserted in 2012. Review the comments featured in this subsection, specifically those of SirFozzie, Jclemens, Hersfold, and David Fuchs. Other comments in the findings of fact section further establish a consensus among the active Arbitrators in the 2012 committee that this event took place. I will however apologize for saying that he was "using his position as chair of the Wikimedia UK chapter" in requesting action, which is erroneous in that he likely never used his position to try and get the WMF involved. It was not my intention to slander Fæ (just the opposite, in fact), or mislead anyone about his intentions. Kurtis ^(talk) 08:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

It is public knowledge that I approached a WMF employee during Wikimania 2012 about a private matter. In the months previous to the Arbcom case they had helped me in support of a related police investigation. This was in response to a campaign of off-wiki harassment including multiple claims about my personal life. They decided to approach a friend of theirs on Arbcom to discuss the matter, someone I do not believe I have ever met myself. This was not at my direction nor request, as I made explicitly clear with a complete and uncontested statement before the Arbcom case was closed, you can refer to my statement on the related talk page history (the page was removed from view due to concerns raised by other parties about non-respectful comments made during the case). I have never seen any related statements made about the approach to Arbcom, nor had it explained to me who made statements, this has remained confidential to Arbcom. Consequently I have never had the opportunity to refute or respond to evidence presented, nor provide any additional context. I have had no formal nor informal contact with any employee of the WMF since with regard to the case.

Individual comments by Arbcom members are neither evidence, nor are they the consensus reached by the committee. It would make sense to stick to quoting findings of fact, rather than interpret individual comments.

Thank you for striking some of your words. I would prefer that any unsupported allegations are removed from public view. The comments do not help the case in hand, and even when struck are likely to cause later readings to be taken with an assumption of bad faith along the lines of "there's no smoke without fire". --Fæ (talk) 12:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I just did some digging around at this page, and I have to say, it's one of the more convoluted messes I've encountered in my time here. I was not aware of the extensive talk page discussion taking place at the time. However, I'm not entirely sure I'm willing to throw my full weight behind your account of the events that transpired. Your claims of privacy concerns would hold more water if your real life identity was not already public knowledge. This factoid is just one of many discrepancies that leave me unconvinced. I'm sorry, but that's just how I see things. I will say this much: my initial parroting of what I had read was at least somewhat erroneous, and I apologized for it. But I doubt my comments will in themselves cause you any harm, especially when similar (or worse) allegations from far more credible sources remain intact. Kurtis ^(talk) 15:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree the case was convoluted and messy. I found it hard to follow at the time. I am not asking for you to "throw [your] full weight behind [my] account", I am asking you provide a verifiable source for the allegations that you have made about me, and have now left published on Wikipedia and seem to believe that is okay because you have struck the text but repeatedly refused to remove it. I am uninterested in your beliefs about my privacy, my legal identity is public knowledge, I said as much above, this was not the privacy issue and is not the issue here.

Your defensive statement that others have made worse allegations, is not a free pass to use Wikipedia to publish your own unsourced and false allegations. --Fæ (talk) 15:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

First of all, how was I being defensive? All I said was that my comments will do very little in the grand scheme of things. Anyone can Google your name, and they will find all sorts of relevant information about your activities — much of which has been blatantly misrepresented, and that is a shame. I'm sorry you've been the victim of such a vicious harassment campaign, and that the situations you've been involved in here have presented obstacles to your employment opportunities. But the hard lesson here is that the internet is in the real world, and what you do here can have actual consequences. This is something I know all too well, believe me.

As to your second point, I really don't think I've said anything that isn't already considered public knowledge by a broad variety of people, and my statement is no more accessible than any others made about it. Nevertheless, I have acquiesced to your request to remove the stricken text. If that's all you wanted from me, and you feel so strongly about it, then I don't see why not. Hopefully what is in place now is to your satisfaction. Kurtis ^(talk) 16:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The word "Nigger" Wikipedias definition and its depiction can this be changed?

Can this be changed for the betterment of black people in America this is not jim crow. this is 2014 and I feel Wikipedia is better than this. Thank You, A concerned College student.

It's not clear precisely what you are asking for. HiLo48 (talk) 08:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

If you have ideas about improving the article Nigger you are welcome to discuss them on the article's talk page. Before you do so please read WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. This is not a BLP issue as such - unless the term is being used inappropriately in an article about a living person. If that is the case please tell us which article has the problem. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Scott Lash

Scott Lash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) request edit

I would like my date and year of birth excised from Wiki page on me. This has hurt my employment prospects and chances of obtaining research grants. A friend of mine has edited my page and deleted year of birth several times, but it keeps being reinstated. Can you please help me on this?

Many thanks

Scott Lash — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magicrover (talk • contribs) 08:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I am sorry to hear that the Wikipedia article is causing you problems. I believe birth year is a core information about a person that Wikipedia will not censor. We are however supposed to have reliable sources for all information and currently I can not see any sources for the birth date so maybe it should be removed on that ground (if sources are not forthcoming). Regards, Iselilja (talk) 09:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I re-added the date of birth since it is listed in Lash's authority file at the Library of Congress. However, I am not sure about Wikipedia's policy in such cases (see WP:DOB). In 2010, we had a similar case regarding George Lusztig, who wanted his DOB removed although it was published in the International Who's Who. Back then, my opinion was overruled and the DOB was removed. Right now, I feel like Wikipedia needs to find a general solution for cases like this, since there are more (for instance, some Brown University IP keeps deleting Oded Galor's DOB, so I suspect similar motives there, too). --bender235 (talk) 11:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: I started a general discussion about the validity of WP:DOB at Talk:BLP. Feel free to join. --bender235 (talk) 18:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I am completely clueless as to how someone's date of birth could affect their employment prospects (unless it is incorrect of course), given that anyone employing someone would ask for their correct date of birth as a matter of course. Could anyone (including the OP) enlighten me? Black Kite (talk) 18:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Not all countries have laws that protect people from age discrimination, as we have it in the U.S. I think it is the case with this person. Cwobeel (talk) 18:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

There was an actual case on Wikipedia of an actress wanting to obscure her birth year. She had made efforts to put out she was younger than she actually was, saying that helped her get parts. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I totally understand this in the case of an actress, but we are talking about an academic here. Am I being completely naive here when I say I still don't understand the problem for someone who does live in a country with ageism related laws (The Equality Act 2010) in place? Black Kite (talk) 18:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

It's impossible to prove age discrimination, and it happens all the time. I'm a mature person still seeking to be active in the workplace. I've had questions in interviews like "We have a pretty young crew in our company. Do you really think you would fit in?" The implications are obvious, but there would be no record of that question having ever been asked. I sympathise fully with our OP's question. HiLo48 (talk) 22:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I totally understand, but what do you do? Do you lie about your age? I don't know where you live in, but where I do, you are required to provide identifying documents or anyway state your date of birth when you sign a contract -and it is expected that it is the real one. Also, it remains complete nonsense that we are asked to remove public and essential biographical information. If he has problems with his age being public, he could ask the source publishers to remove it; then we would comply since we would have no source to base our claim on. --cyclopia^speak! 14:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Is the DOB for this BLP, though well sourced, a necessary addition to this article?

• No. Remove it, as it is causing the subject (we assume it's the subject) problems through no fault of their own.Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
• No. Remove it. Cwobeel (talk) 04:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
• Yes. Year of birth, and in general the age of a person, are critical quintessential data expected in a bio. The information is fully public so we are not causing the subject any problems which already didn't exist before. If the subject complains about his age being listed, he should ask to the source publishers for it to be removed, not to us. --cyclopia^speak! 14:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose removal. I'm not answering the question because it is a leading question. Nothing is necessary to an article (except a name, I suppose). Should it be in the article? Yes. It is standard biographical information. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose removal per NeilN - it's well sourced, standard biog info. It's also findable (as it is well sourced) by a prospective employer irrespective of what is in the article.--ukexpat (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
• strong support of removal of month/day as it is a PII identity theft issue, and is currently covered by WP:DOB. courtesy delete on year as a courtesy for this marginally notable person, as the birthdate adds very little of encyclopedic value, and is based on a primary source. This user would probably qualify for WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE of the entire article and I think we should surely extend that to a bit of information that is as unimportant as this. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Your "identity theft" argument is moot, since Lash's full date of birth is available from other sources, including German Wikipedia. Deleting it from English Wikipedia does not lower the "identify theft risk" (if there is any) one bit. It's pure privacy theater at the expense of encyclopedic precision. --bender235 (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

@Gaijin42: I wonder if there's a reply under way for this. --bender235 (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Bender235 I thought I had replied, I must have left it in an abandoned browser window. en.wiki is the #1 hit for the guy. Other sites are much more difficult to come by (Searching for Scott Lash Birthday/Dob/Birthdate etc don't come up with anything.) The de wiki is the first hit for the German google, but as the subject is not german, does not live/work in germany, and has no interaction in german as far as I can see, its much less likely anyone is searching for him in German imo. That information is available in obscure or foreign language sources is not the same as making it be the very first thing that happens on google. Virtually every bit of information about any person is available on the internet - that is not an argument to add it into the biography. In any case, there is a policy specifically covering this for the month and day, and local consensus cannot override a policy such as WP:BLP. If you want to try and change the policy - feel free, but I think it is unlikely to go anywhere. As to the subject's actual objection (the year, due to age discrimination) As I said, I think we can remove it as a courtesy, but there is no policy requiring us to do so, and I do not intend to fight to have it removed at this point (As it has been re-added I believe). Gaijin42 (talk) 18:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Policy aside, you actually believe deleting Lash's birth date and/or year will make it any harder to obtain this data for any criminal person interested in identity theft? Because that is your argument. The picture you're drawing is a criminal who gives up because the information he wants is not the #1 Google hit. Do you actually believe in this fairy tale?

The same goes for Lash's original argument (supposed the OP was actually him). His year of birth is listed on every major national library in the world. Does he really believe erasing it from Wikipedia will dumbfound potential research sponsors? Is he a university professor or what? --bender235 (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose removal - Per unconfirmed identity of a warring claimant and that the data is reflected by the Library of Congress. At minimum, a year should be included, if not the precise date per WP:DOB. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Questions:

1. What gives you two reason to believe that the anonymous user above actually is who he claims to be?
2. WP:DOB says if full date of birth is deemed sensitive, just add year of birth. That wouldn't solve the supposed age discrimination issue, would it? So what do we do? Add nothing and claim his year of birth to be missing, based on our ad hoc WP:BLP extension?
3. Since this whole “discrimination on something” and “information that hurts my employment prospects” issue is just the starting point of an awful slippery slope, it'd be interesting to hear how far you guys would go. Is arguing “Wikipedia mentioning the fact I did not graduate college hurts my employment prospects” enough of a reason to blank, say Steve Masiello's article? What if a person fears gender discrimination? Do we clear his/her (oops!) article of gender-specific words and maybe the person's surname? --bender235 (talk) 06:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I did make the assumption (and so stated) that the poster is the subject. We know this could be verified if push came to shove, but why bother? If you insist, I'm sure they would verify their identity. If other subjects want to request similar information be removed, we should afford them the same consideration. Two kinds of pork (talk) 07:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

But what is your solution to (2.)? Do we follow WP:DOB by adding his year of birth only, or do we establish a new rule by removing the information entirely? --bender235 (talk) 08:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

My !vote for deletion is much weaker on the point of the year. It is not covered by policy, and is not nearly the privacy/security issue. However, as it is also of minimal encyclopedic value, and the user would probably qualify to have his entire bio deleted if they asked, I don't see the harm in the courtesy. Per your question about Masiello, his educational status has been specifically noted in multiple secondary sources (not just as part of an "infobox" data dump), so no, I would not extend that there. If there were newspaper or magazine articles discussing this guys birthdate that would sway me on that as well. Frankly I think the LOC is a primary source that we should not be using in general. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Amar Talwar

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

I am Amar Talwar. I just happened to look at my Wikipedia page. There is some utter nonsense in there: 1. My father was not a minor IAS officer who amassed money. He reached the top of the service and was celebrated for his honesty and administrative abilities. 2. My genitals were not mutilated ever and are in perfect functioning order.

Where do you get this libellous information? Please make the necessary corrections immediately or you will be liable to legal action.

Yours sincerely,

Amar Talwar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.59.242.182 (talk) 14:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The vandalism has been removed. Thank you for pointing it out and I apologize for the embarrassment it has caused. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Marek Štěch

Following on from this discussion, but will summarise: User:Nazgul02 added derogatory information to the article about a year-old twitter scandal that was reported in one tabloid source, it was then removed by User:Cloudz679 as there was only a single source of questionable reliability, now it has been re-added with a second source, not a tabloid, but whose main topic is "why you shouldn't post on twitter when you're drunk" and gives the scandal a passing mention in a small subsection. Note that this information being added coincides with Štěch being called up to the Czech national team. More opinions on whether this is appropriate or not would be welcome. As I said in the WP:FOOTY discussion, the information is accurate, I'm just not convinced it's notable since it didn't seem to have much of an impact on his career. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 20:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Does WP:WELLKNOWN not cover this. The allegation is that he has tweeted racism. We do not have multiple, reliable third-party sources to back this up.--Egghead06 (talk) 04:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

There are three sources, in fact. Blesk (tabloid), Sport (regular sport newspaper) and Miloš Čermák's column, published at Ekonom (weekly newspaper). Please note that Blesk and Sport have the same owner Ringier AG, and they both use the URL isport.blesk.cz, but they are different newspapers with different editors. As for I'm just not convinced it's notable since it didn't seem to have much of an impact on his career. - I don't think impact on one's career matters. If we were to delete all information that have no impact on one's career in the end, we'd have to erase most of the articles on people. Nazgul02 (talk) 14:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

And take a look at Mario Balotelli#Personality, reputation and legacy. There is much negative information about him, often sourced by only one source. And most of it did not have much impact on his career. Does it mean that it should be erased from the article? I don't think so. Nazgul02 (talk) 15:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Elaine Brown

There has been a burst of editing at Elaine Brown today, which began with a new editor blanking the article with an edit summary using leftist rhetoric. Brown is a former senior leader of the Black Panther Party. After that was properly reverted, editing zeroed in on problematic sections of the article. Conservative activist David Horowitz, a zealous political opponent, has accused her of involvement in a killing 40 years ago. She was never arrested, tried or convicted in connection with this killing. I believe that the section describing these accusations is a BLP violation, and have removed it twice. It has been added back in. I would appreciate other opinions on the issue. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I have no knowledge or particular interest in the subject, my role involved patrolling recent changes, when I reverted an edit that nearly blanked the whole article. As for the section in question, my impressions hint that WP:BLPCRIME may apply, assuming the subject is not markedly notable for this accusation. — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The allegations are sourced only to a fringe right-wing writer and were published only in his own FrontPage Magazine, a highly-dubious and markedly-partisan source that is unacceptable for contentious claims about living people. It all unquestionably stays out unless there is evidence that someone outside Horowitz takes these allegations seriously. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

There needs to be some strong secondary sourcing on this. Horowitz is an eminently primary source and we cannot be a conduit to the spread of serious allegations such as these, regardless of their validity. WP:BLPCRIME is crystal clear on that point. The onus for said sourcing is on the user that is interested in inserting that into the article. Otherwise it should stay off the article. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

First, the argument against inclusion has so far been based on ad hominem allegations against Horowitz. While I do not dispute that Horowitz is a strongly partisan source, we should also note that at the time of the murder, he was a close friend/colleague of both the victim and the person he is accusing, and was himself part of the Black Panther school project. His allegations are based on personal experience and knowledge, and should not be so easily dismissed based on his contemporary politics. In fact, he points to this particular experience as the start of his turn from left to right. Second, there was another journalistic source cited in the blanked passage: the East Bay Express. I believe other sources can be located, but I will not be able to include them for a few days. I believe Hugh Pearson's Shadow of the Panther would be one, but can't get to it from where I am right now. Third, Brown has addressed the murder in her own autobiography, in which she smears the victim. In my opinion, as a key event during Brown's time as Panther head, the issue needs to be addressed in the article, within the guidelines of WP policy of course..Pokey5945 (talk) 12:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I trust you won't try to restore this material again until there's a consensus for doing so… Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy to discuss and research in a collaborative manner. I'm disturbed that some of the opposition is based on false assertions that Horowitz was the only source cited. I wonder how many editors have actually read the other sources.Pokey5945 (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Then you need to cite sources that aren't David Horowitz specifically making the claim that Brown was responsible - not sources that make oblique connections that may or may not have any relevance to the situation. You are talking about allegations of murder - this is not something we play with or allow to be inserted lightly. Who besides David Horowitz today claims that Brown was responsible? If the answer is "nobody," then it stays out permanently. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

There is another source cited: Ken Kelley.Pokey5945 (talk) 17:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The source does not claim that Brown was responsible. Kelley is also not an independent reliable source, because by his own admission, he was personally involved in the matter as well (as "PR agent"), and has a vested interest in putting forth some point of view. We're looking for independent coverage by disinterested reporters. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, if you read the article you'll see that Kelley actually does indict Brown. He was not personally involved in the matter; he did not start working for Newton until some years later. And he is a reporter, who, like most reporters, is on speaking terms and sometimes more with his sources.Pokey5945 (talk) 17:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

This is a re-insertion of a claim that BLP Elaine Browne received an order to kill based solely on a self-reported account. It doesn't matter what the article says if the person reporting it is also the same person involved in a "confession" that is not found in a single reliable source. This wouldn't fly at the Elaine Browne page or Huey Newton page, sneaking it on to a sub-page as settled fact is disruptive. it's a contentious claim about a BLP and needs strong secondary sourcing before being inserted. Anywhere on Wikipedia.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, I would ask you to assume good faith and not accuse me of "sneaking" anything in. I understand the basic purpose of BLP, I agree with the policy, and I try to abide by it. I don't understand the entirety of your argument. First, I don't understand why this "wouldn't fly" at Huey Newton, since BLP does not apply to him. Second, I don't understand why you consider this publication not to be a reliable source.Pokey5945 (talk) 15:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

BLP applies to any claim you make about any living person, even in an article that is not about a living person. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I do get that much, and it's why I removed the mention of Brown when I restored the cite to the Van Patter page. Another question: Why would BLP:CRIME apply to Brown? She has run for public office multiple times, been on TV multiple times, had her autobiography published by a major house and widely reviewed. It seems to me that BLP:WELLKNOWN is more apropos for Brown.Pokey5945 (talk) 15:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

This new edit is a clear attempt at directly linking the BLP to the murder. You didn't remove mention of Brown. Poorly sourced content about BLPs should be removed.__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I did remove menton of Brown from the Kelley cite accusing her of involvement in the murder. This cite does not accuse Brown of murder, but merely explains the context. There is no question that Brown was involved with the victim prior to her death. Brown mentions it in her own autobiography. I don't understand why this is controversial. Pokey5945 (talk) 17:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

And to your question, WP:WELLKNOWN is completely relevant here. You are attempting to put in BLP content that is not well-documented. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. Things like Huey Newton's "confession" about Elaine Brown are not treated as known fact by anyone but the original person who said it happened. That's not multiple reliable third-party sources. If these things were treated as more than unsubstantiated rumor, it would be a different story, but you can't spread rumor and insinuation about a BLP in Wikipedia's voice.__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted it and request that Pokey refrain from adding any material to the article until consensus indicates that it is well-sourced, meets BLP requirements and does not unduly attempt to draw connections where no mainstream sources have done so. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I am feeling a bit piled on here with the accusations. I would ask some of you guys to please see me as your colleague, not your enemy. I support the intent of BLP, and want to achieve a consensus. That out of the way, off the top of my head, here are some of the relevant sources: Heterodoxy, Mother Jones, New Times, East Bay Express, Salon, Hugh Pearson's book, Elaine Brown's book. Which are RS, and why or why not? Looking forward to a productive discussion....Pokey5945 (talk) 17:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Heterodoxy was published by David Horowitz. Not an RS. The Salon op-ed is by David Horowitz and doesn't make any accusations against Brown, presumably because Salon didn't want to publish potential libel. None of the other articles appear to make the claim that Brown was responsible. Oblique references and insinuations do not cut it. Name and quote the reliable, non-Horowitz-linked sources which claim that Brown was responsible. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

(1) Why is anything linked with Horowitz unworthy of mention? It pains me to ask this, because I don't like the guy. I don't agree with his politics or his style, and he once ripped me off by republishing my work without asking permission. But he is one of the voices accusing Brown of involvement in the murder, and that is a noncontroversial fact. (2) The East Bay Express piece explicitly accuses Brown of involvement in the murder. (3) The other sources, including various other Salon articles, discuss the context of the murder and Brown's involvement in that context. As does Brown herself. To achieve consensus, we need to agree on RS. I understand that direct accusations of murder will most likely not be in the article as part of this consensus--let's move on to the next step and discuss what will go in.Pokey5945 (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Because it's like citing Michael Moore for the accusation that George W. Bush committed treason. It's an inflammatory accusation coming from a known polemicist, and it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

(1) I completely agree that it's an inflammatory accusation coming from a known polemicist. However, polemics are not totally verboten on WP. If Michael Moore had been a member of Bush's cabinet, I think we would want to include the accusation. Horowitz had an analogous position wrt to Brown and Van Patter. (2) In the interest of reaching a productive consensus, I would ask you to suggest which sources and what information about this murder you think does belong in WP?Pokey5945 (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Colleagues, let me try to summarize where we are: (1) A source that editors have so far found non-controversial states that it is widely assumed that the Black Panthers were responsible for Betty Van Patter's murder. (2) Two people who worked for the BPP have publicly alleged that Elaine Brown was involved in ordering the murder. (3) Numerous sources, including Brown herself, discuss topics such as Brown's involvement with Van Patter shortly before the murder, and the circumstances leading up to the murder, and the suspicions of BPP involvement. In conclusion: What goes in, and what stays out, and why? Let's do some productive work together!Pokey5945 (talk) 18:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The BLP noticeboard is a poor place to start synthesizing murder theories from the primary sources you listed. Collaboration is great. Collaboration to roughly insinuate that a BLP is a party to murder is not. This is inviting speculation based on accusations that were not respected by sources when they were made. You admit the actual accusation is inflammatory. As it stands, there's an argument that heavily relying on Horowitz's opinion piece without secondary sources fails WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:PRIMARY. We can't use sources that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion. "Directly involved co-worker has a hunch unproven for decades" is an episode of True Detective, it's not a reliable source. If there's any credibility to this, it should be found in multiple reliable third-party sources and not somehow concocted here. If this requires synthesizing, it shouldn't go in, even if it wasn't a BLP. The sources call this an unsolved murder, where no one know what really happened. We can't go beyond the sources and we can't spread rumors just because rumors exist.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I would once again ask you to assume good faith. No one has made any suggestion that we synthesize murder theories or insinuate anything at all. Perhaps we could start here: Which of the sources I listed do you consider primary sources and why?Pokey5945 (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The addition you proposed on the article talk page relies entirely on speculation, rumor, guilt by association and suggestive innuendo. Someone opining that "so and so is suspicious" is not sufficient to support republishing allegations of homicide. You cite nobody who presents any direct evidence that Brown was involved - only scurrilous gossip-mongering of the "she must be involved because she sounds guilty to me" sort of nonsense that may have a place on Nancy Grace's tabloid trash TV show, but not this encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a place to dredge up 40-year-old allegations that have never resulted in arrest, charge, indictment or trial. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that WP should not accuse Brown of responsibility for the murder. However, when a multitude of scholars remark on her involvement with the victim and express skepticism as to her rendition of events, that in itself is notable. Again, I invite you to do your own research and writing if you don't like my version. So far, I seem to be the only editor who is knowledgeable about this topic and doing any constructive work on it. It would be nice to have some productive collaborators.Pokey5945 (talk) 20:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, no, it's really not notable and it doesn't belong in her Wikipedia biography. We're not a scandal sheet or tabloid. There is no evidence of any active investigation, there is no evidence that Brown is considered a suspect and there's no evidence anyone other than David Horowitz takes the claims seriously today.

The scholar you cite unequivocally states "no material evidence has ever been produced to link Brown directly to the murder." That pretty much ends the story — if there's no evidence, then there's nothing but speculation, rumor and innuendo. Wikipedia doesn't publish those things. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

An objective reading of the sources shows no evidence of "speculation, rumor, or guilt by association and suggestive innuendo." The basic argument here from people who object to including Betty Van Patter in the article is that Horowitz is not a reliable source. This objection, it seems, is based on Horowitz's politics. Horowitz is not a "fringe right-wing writer" has some have said. I personally don't care for his politics either, but he was in the Black Panther inner circle at the time of Van Patter's death. As a witness and reporter of these events, he must be considered reliable. Chisme (talk) 22:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, no, we don't have to consider him reliable, and we don't. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:47, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

You flat-out say "we don't have to consider him reliable," but you don't say why. Apart from your objections to his politics (you are the one who called hima "fringe right-wing writer"), why should Horowitz not be considered a reliable witness. Horowitz says how Huey Newton said Elaine Brown ordered the killing. Do you think Horowitz would make this up? On what grounds? Chisme (talk) 22:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Because FrontPage Magazine is well established as a non-reliable source on Wikipedia. See the myriad discussions on this issue over a period of years. There is a longstanding consensus that FrontPage is not a reliable source, and is particularly not a reliable source for claims about living people who hold political beliefs and views which are opposed by Horowitz. He is a highly-opinionated polemicist with an axe to grind against anyone remotely toward the left side of the political spectrum, and anything he writes must be viewed through this lens. There is a very good reason Horowitz's claims have apparently never been published outside of Horowitz's own house organs. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

So, for you, it all boils down to Horowitz's magazine being unreliable as per a Wikepedia discussion? What about Horowitz himself -- I mean his writings apart from his magazine? Some of this Bay Area Panther history comes from his book. Is that also to be dismissed? I point out again that Horowitz was in the Panther inner circle. The Betty Van Patter murder precipitated his moving away from his former left-wing views. Are his left-wing views -- the ones he held when he worked for Ramparts -- considered valid? Chisme (talk) 23:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes. It boils down to the fact that Horowitz's claims about anyone are suspect at best, and his magazine is a fringe right-wing house organ. He is well-known for producing scurrilous accusations, conspiracy theories, lies, fabrications and general nonsense. (For example, he has repeatedly claimed that American leftists are allied with Islamic terrorists.) Given that reputation, it is perfectly acceptable for Wikipedians to consider the strong likelihood that anything he writes about anyone who is today in opposition to his political views may be similarly baseless and unfounded.

When we consider that not a single other person can be found making these accusations, then it is blindingly obvious that Horowitz's fringe views do not have significant support in mainstream thought and are not taken seriously. When we further consider that these accusations are of a capital crime, it is again blindingly obvious that they have no place in an encyclopedic biography of Elaine Brown - just as the conspiracy theories about Vince Foster have no place in an encyclopedic biography of Bill Clinton. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

We're going to have to disagree. Believe me, you put me in an odd place when you have me defending Horowitz. I don't care for him either. But I do think his views as an eyewitness to the Panthers of the 1970s are valid. I also have no illusions about the kind of violence the Black Panthers were capable of. I saw it firsthand. It was painful to a lot of people. Chisme (talk) 23:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

There is absolutely no way that including such claims, based on a single source - any source - can be remotely compatible with WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

That's fine, we disagree. The fact remains that policy prohibits us from including this material in an encyclopedic biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Peter Ayerst

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

This person may have died. a forum post is the only reference I can find.--Auric talk 11:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Victoria Nuland and Robert Kagan

Material cited to Foreign Affairs, the Washington Post, and the Guardian is being repeatedly removed from this article on BLP grounds. (diff) It describes Nuland's husband Robert Kagan as being "regarded as a leading neo-conservative." Oddly, the same description with the same sources appears in Kagan's own BLP, where it is not being challenged. Are the cited sources too weak to support the text in question? Joe Bodacious (talk) 20:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Only one of those three references mentions Nuland in any manner: "A neocon by any other name" in The Observer, published by The Guardian. I would support telling the reader that Kagan is Nuland's husband, and that he is a leading neocon. Binksternet (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be all kind of wrongs with that article. The Multiple versions of the phone recording section is a Original Research mess. There are all kind of interpretations of what she said and what happened with very little sources, mostly just the tapes itself. Iselilja (talk) 23:26, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this: the same editor has now deleted that material from Robert Kagan as well, claiming BLP violation (diff), so we should probably broaden this discussion to include that article as well. Joe Bodacious (talk) 00:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Both articles have serious problems. In terms of describing Kagan as "neo-conservatism" (and then going off on a long WP:UNDUE tangent about it), the first source Foreign Affairs, doesn't really support it. It says he's sometimes regarded that way but that a different description is more accurate. And this is pretty much the only BLP-standard source. The Guardian and the WP articles are opinion pieces which aren't sufficient for a BLP. This is especially so since apparently Kagan does not see himself that way. If there are some academic or scholarly sources on this, that'd be different.

The rest of that paragraph is just WP:UNDUE, even IF this wasn't a BLP with a bit of sneaky WP:SYNTH thrown in to try and imply certain things to the reader.

For Nuland's article, Binksternet gets right to the additional point - those sources aren't even about the subject of the BLP. And the article has way too much OR in it, though the one being presently disputed (I thought about doing something about it, but don't even know where to start).Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)