• Quintin Jardine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Quintin, the subject of the above article, removed unsourced contentious material from the article, which then received possible vandalism.[1] Quintin's edits were undone. Quintin posted about his frustrations here. I then removed the material per WP:BLP.[2] I'm posting here to have the article receive a once over for any other BLP issues and to have it watched for a bit. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I've removed a heap of unreferenced info, tagged for improvement, and added to my watchlist. GiantSnowman 12:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Also watchlisted. Yworo (talk) 15:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Quintin asks that his birth year information be removed from the article. The source supporting that birth year is http://www.booksfromscotland.com/Authors/Quintin-Jardine. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons requires a high-quality source, so if someone else agrees, we should remove the birth year from the article since it only is sourced by http://www.booksfromscotland.com/Authors/Quintin-Jardine . -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Strange things afoot at Chris Stark - it's been edited about 100 times in the last 2 days by a variety of IPs, mostly adding absurd, unsourced and likely untrue content. Cluebot's gotten some of it, but not all of it is the type of stuff that Cluebot catches - idiotic little things like "...he is an accomplished knitter, producing the worlds largest bed sock. Somewhere along the way someone also added this "Mr Stark is also said to be fuming with the editing of his own Wikipedia page, and is said to be planning legal action." That's probably not a genuine legal threat, but it is indicative that at least one of the vandals seems to be acknowledging that there is some sort of campaign of vandalism going on. Okay, that might be a stretch, but there's certainly enough weirdness at the article recently that I thought it should at least have a few more sets of eyes on it, and possibly a semi-protect. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Just mentioning that I did do a massive revert to a clean version of the page, but vandalism has continued.[3] Dawn Bard (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a week. January (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Look's like Twitter's been cracking up over the prank editing. Best to keep a sharp eye out. FallingGravity (talk) 07:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

the personal life profile in the page is invalid and is a disturbance to idols' fans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riichoco (talk • contribs) 06:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• This is about a part of the article Ryosuke Hashimoto the editor doesn't like and has already removed 1, 2, 3 times as an IP and 1, 2 times as Riichoco. (I can safely presume that it is the same person, look in the edit history.) The part is sourced. Actually, the whole article is based on these sources. I've already suggested that the editor writes a better article there, so this part becomes a small fraction of it. The IP also removed a section from the article Chisato Moritaka: [4]. --Moscow Connection (talk) 07:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• By the way, I've already moved the part of the article to a separate section which I entitled "Personal life." It was part of the biography section before. I hoped that the IP would stop after that. --Moscow Connection (talk) 07:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Could someone please check the source supporting the following claim? (I've used up my free access to The Boston Globe for this month.)

In early 2012, further allegations of criminality surfaced, as Jordan Tobins was placed on leave after using company funds for personal expenses.

• Abelson, Jenn (June 19, 2012). "Upper Crust accused of scheming on pay". The Boston Globe. Retrieved November 16, 2012.

I looked at the source earlier and mentally noted that "criminality" seemed a bit over the top. Also, they're eight months old, and they're allegations of criminality - not charges, not convictions - is this OK? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Here's the relevant quote from the article: "Marcus’s about-face comes in the middle of a fierce battle for control of the gourmet pizza empire between Tobins and co-owners Joshua Huggard and Brendan Higgins. The pair recently sued Tobins, accusing him of charging the company more than $750,000 in personal expenses, including the purchase of a plane, and placed the founder on administrative leave in March." (cross posted from ANI) GabrielF (talk) 13:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Gabriel. Well, that doesn't seem to support our article's "criminal" claim. What do you think? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any mention of a criminal charge for embezzlement in the Globe archives. Huggard and Brendan were suing to get Tobins to surrender his stake in the company, so the fact that the company went into bankruptcy suggests that the lawsuit is moot and won't be resolved. I do think we should mention the ownership dispute and the allegations. I wouldn't use the word "criminality", but I think we can say something like: "In 2012, Upper Crust co-owners Joshua Huggard and Brendan sued Tobins, alleging that he had used more than $750,000 in company money for personal expenses, such as the purchase of a small airplane. Tobins was placed on leave from the company." An additional source is Abelson, Jenn "Deep split at Upper Crust ; Co-owners' lawsuitsallege misuse of funds" Boston Globe 13 June 2012 GabrielF (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I recently discovered these two user pages:

• Anty (footballer) (talk · contribs)
• Angelos Tympampoglou (talk · contribs)

Both are nearly mirror copies of each other, but the talk page content is identical. I don't know quite what to do. All edits are to their respective pages. Nothing links to either page, and there is already an article: Angelos Charisteas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). --Auric talk 13:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest; MfD both of them per a mix of WP:STALEDRAFT and WP:FAKEARTICLE. If someone has an explanation for what on earth is supposed to be going on, (or a proposal to move one or other or both to mainspace) it can come out during the MfD process. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Blanked - both are a copy of the Angelos Charisteas article. Can anyone confirm if the two users in the question are the same? GiantSnowman 16:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Could I get a second opinion on this article? It started off as a speedy, then was a BLP PROD, now it's a BLP which complies to the letter if not the spirit of BLPPROD by having a bunch of book sources, but no fact in the article is cited. Although this article's subject is asserted to be deceased, the recent claimed date of death and lack of verifibility thereof mean I think the BLP rules are valid. I can't definitively say it's a hoax, but it just looks a bit suspicious. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Hoax. Batista's last name was "Zaldivar" and this person appears to be - simply put - a hoax. Collect (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Deleted as a blatant hoax. GiantSnowman 16:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Astrologer Ananya

Good name: Soma Bhattacharjee. Father's name: Sudhir Chakraborty. Living in Sodepur, Kolkata, India.

Profession: Astrologer, Palmist.

For last two decades (1990-2012) she has been looking famous for her remarkable astrological prediction. She is also known for her social work. Through astrological prediction she can tell anybody's past, present and future. During 2011-1012 she was most demandable lady working with Ranveer(Gourab), though she is not belongs to political source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranveergourab (talk • contribs) 18:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

This is not the place for article creation. Be Bold and make it yourself.--Auric talk 18:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• Susan L. Burke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Subject of longterm COI edits, a new user is working on this, and I'm dubious as to neutrality of intent. More eyes on this would be appreciated. 99.136.254.88 (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Now reverted to a perfectly good pre-COI version. COI editors warned. Yworo (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Worth watchlisting. 99.136.254.88 (talk) 21:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• Looking at the article's sources, it's unclear to me that WP:NOTABILITY is satisfied. Mostly the article is about legal matters with which Ms. Burke has been involved as counsel, but none of the reliable sources are actually about her. Google search didn't yield much of anything, so far as I could tell. Further thoughts would be appreciated, but I'm inclined to wonder if this isn't a candidate for deletion. I've begun a discussion at the article's talk page as well [5]. 99.136.254.88 (talk) 04:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Warren David (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Autobiographical article, created and heavily edited by the subject. Violates NPOV, NOR, and possibly V. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.73.73.100 (talk) 00:47, 1 February 2013‎

I've nominated for deletion; link above. JFHJr (㊟) 20:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oliver Milburn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article claims he was born in both Dorset & Northumberland. Sorry if I am in the wrong place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.55.28 (talk) 03:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

You've found the right place. I've removed both places of birth, as they were unsupported by the sources currently available in the article. I did a fast and sloppy search, and came up empty-handed. FWIW the longstanding inconsistency comes from this IP edit in Belgium, but I'm in no position to challenge either location less than the other. I'm sure another editor might do better in finding a reliable source for the place of birth. For now, nothing is better than an inconsistent claim. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 02:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Jeremiah MacKay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Michael Crain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2 recent articles: Michael Crain + Jeremiah MacKay--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

No; I would say merge & redirect to 2013 Southern California shootings as they are not independently notable. GiantSnowman 21:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I redirected MacKay, no indication of notability other than being killed in the line of duty, clear case of WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, Crain should also be redirected. They are sadly known for one event. A7 is invalid however, considering both subjects has been in the news lately but through tragic reasons. Secret ^account 21:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, Crain got A7'd anyway. Disturbingly, MacKay was restored with this diff as rationale. I find no independent notability other than the WP:1E (compare WP:BLP1E), and I've replaced the redirect. If it comes back up, it should be walked through AfD with the nominator suggesting a redirect in order to gain a specific consensus. JFHJr (㊟) 23:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, weird stuff. It was tagged as an A7, and, administratively, I could have deleted it. However, just like Secret, I thought the better action was to redirect it (still do), but as I said on my talk page to the creator, the redirect is not an administrative decision and can therefore be reverted. After that, I bowed out and let another admin evaluate the tag.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Jose Antonio Vargas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is frequently edited by IPs to remove "American", so that instead of "Filipino-American" he is rendered simply "Filipino". This in spite of the fact that he was sent to the US as a child to live with his grandparents. Today an established editor has adopted this edit and other similar. I consider this to be a BLP violation -- most of all because Vargas asserts unequivocally, "I am an American". Usually the reason for removing "American" is the fact that Vargas doesn't have US citizenship -- a POV that has no roots in Wikipedia policy. In reality, what we need to do here is follow the spirit of WP:BLPCAT, where ethnic identification follows the subject's self-identification. WP:OPENPARA is hardly argument to the contrary, particularly since it uses the phrase "in most cases". Again, usually the edit in question comes from a particular POV, designed to discredit Vargas's claim to be an American and to reinforce his status as an "alien". As such, the edit is a BLP violation, and I will revert it under the exemption to WP:3RR specified by WP:BLP, at least until matters are clarified here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:OPENPARA is very clear that "nationality" in the lead sentence means citizenship or legal permanent residence. This subject holds neither. American is not an ethnicity, people cannot claim citizenship or nationality, it can only be granted by nations. The lead sentence is completely accurate as "Jose Antonio Vargas (born February 3, 1981) is a Filipino journalist living and working in the United States." In fact, the lack of American citizenship is part of the subject's notability, and misleading wording dilutes and hides this fact. Yworo (talk) 07:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

So you are now on the bandwagon that says he is an illegal immigrant? I recommend that you stop trying to discredit this BLP subject. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't need to say he is, he has said it himself. You are the one who is repeatly inserting patently false information, which is a clear violation of WP:BLP. I'm removing false information. You need a source, which is an independent, third-party reliable source. The subject is not such a source, and no such statement or source for his citizenship is in the article. Your addition is unsupported by any sources, and according to WP:BLP, it must be. We err on the side of caution by omitting contentious material, not by including it. Yworo (talk) 07:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

"Filipino-American" is an ethnicity. If you don't understand that, you have no business on this article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

And WP:OPENPARA says we don't put "ethnicity" in the lead sentence. Yworo (talk) 07:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

"in most cases"; when ethnicity is paramount for the subject's notability, then we should certainly do so. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

But his ethnicity is not paramount for his notability: it's his Philipines citizenship and lack of American citizenship which is the root of his notability. Here's a test, would he be just as notable if he was ethnically Chinese in the same position? Yes, he would be Therefore his ethnicity is immaterial. Yworo (talk) 07:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Yworo, you're dead in the water on this one. WP:OPENPARA does not say we don't put ethnicity in the lead paragraph -- in fact it says we do: "Context (location, nationality, or ethnicity)". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

"should not generally be emphasized in the opening" - you're emphasizing it. Duh! Yworo (talk) 07:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

"The opening paragraph should have ... Context (location, nationality or ethnicity)" -- in this case, ethnicity, for the reasons I have given. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

His ethnicity is Filiapino, his nationality is Philippine. American is not an ethnicity. He doesn't get to choose that. "Amercan" is the word you are adding, and you don't have a source establishing citizenship. I am not the only editor complaining about your insistence on this. Other editors have also complained on your talk page. You are editing against consensus. Yworo (talk) 07:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

"Filipino-American" is an ethnicity. If you don't understand that, you have no business on this article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

An by insisting on that, you prove yourself not to be following WP:OPENPARA. His specific ethnicity is not important to his notability. It's his citizenship of one county while residing in another. If he were an ethnic Chinese (or Italian, or Jewish) Philippine citizen in the US without resident status, he'd be just as notable. He was born in the Philippines, he's a Philippine national. It's his natal nation. Yworo (talk) 07:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• I am involved and cannot take any administrative action. But I strongly urge both of you to stop edit-warring in the article, or you both risk being blocked by an uninvolved admin. I find it curious that both of you are claiming BLP exemptions, but I doubt another admin will be persuaded that any of your edits is exempt.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I have no intention of reverting again. Nomo's already hit four reverts, and I'm not the only editor he has reverted. Yworo (talk) 07:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23, a reminder that you have previously reverted exactly the same edit: [6]. I understand that this is part of what makes you involved, but I'm puzzled that you are not noting agreement with the notion that "American" should not be removed from the lead. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm tired (should be in bed) and the issue is a somewhat complex one. Plus, the article has a lot of contentious history, which compounds the problem. But regardless of my view on the content, an edit-war is not the way to resolve the issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• Here are my comments:

1. WP:OPENPARA, which is a guideline, not a policy, creates more problems than it resolves in complex cases. Part of the problem is Wikipedia's obsession with labels and the need to stick people into categories, literally or otherwise, and do a poor job of illuminating who they are.
2. Ethnicity isn't relevant here. We are talking about nationality and citizenship, not ethnicity.
3. Notability is the touchstone. There's no doubt that Vargas became notable in the U.S. To call him a "Filipino journalist", even with the phrase that comes after it about living and working in the U.S., is misleading. He was never a journalist in the Philippines.
4. To call him a Filipino-American journalist isn't great, either, for the same reason as the point just above this one.

• I suggest an alternative, one I've suggested before in cases like this, but it doesn't always appeal to editors who like labels (and there are many who do). I would propose that these two sentences replace the current opening sentence:

Jose Antonio Vargas (born February 3, 1981) is a journalist in the United States. He was born in the Philippines and moved to the U.S. with his family when he was 12.

• After these two sentences, we would have a new paragraph and continue with what is now the second sentence in the article ("Vargas was part of ...").--Bbb23 (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, one issue is that he didn't "move to the US with his family when he was 12" -- he was sent by his mother with an "uncle" (not really an uncle) to live with his grandparents, who were already living there. Apart from that, the person who is happy with a label in this instance is Vargas: as noted above, he says unequivocally, "I am an American". Yworo kept repeating that "American" isn't an ethnicity, but I'm not seeing any basis for that claim, and I can't see why we wouldn't follow the principle of self-identification for ethnicity here -- though given that he was born in the Philippines it works better as Filipino-American. In other words, the current version -- with a term that is quite clearly about ethnicity -- doesn't have any problems in my view. The only issue is that it needs a hyphen; it would then be even more obvious that it's ethnicity. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Either "American" or "Filipino-American" carry, to most readers, the implication of American citizenship. It is not possible to gain American citizenship by self-identification.

Claiming that "American" can be considered an ethnicity is rules-lawyering. In some abstract sense it's possible for "American" to be an ethnicity that does not imply citizenship--but a normal person who reads the article won't get that impression. And we need to avoid misleading that normal person. Ken Arromdee (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that "American" (on its own) would be misleading in the way you describe. But "Filipino-American" isn't misleading in that way -- not least because "Filipino-American" is quite obviously not a citizenship. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, there's a respect in which it wouldn't be misleading at all to identify him with American citizenship. Many people think of that term in its narrow legal sense -- but sociologists and others are unequivocal in defining citizenship more broadly in terms of (degrees of) membership in a society. In this respect Vargas is a citizen to a significant degree: he has a wide range of rights, he has been educated in American schools (thus acquiring American traits and habits), he has oodles of social capital in the US. His lack of formal legal citizenship is of course consequential, but the idea that he is "not an American citizen" is true only in a narrow legal sense. Now, I'm not suggesting that we should therefore identify him simply as "American" -- but I do think it undercuts the notion that it is misleading to include that term in our identification of him. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomosk, the factual issue about when he moved here is easily disposed of. Citizenship is a legal term; sociologists can argue all they like about it and probably never agree anyway. Ken, I agree that American is not an ethnicity, but neither is Filipino, although I'm sure many editors and sociologists would argue about that one. My proposal avoids all of these labels and all of these arguments, but apparently no one thus far is interested in just reciting undisputed, sourced facts. Have fun with your labels, but it's unlikely a consensus will ever be reached, atlhough at some point, this debate, like all others before it, will peter out, and the article will be in whatever state it happens to be in at that moment in time - until the next time someone comes along and changes it and all hell breaks loose once more.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, sociologists don't argue about it in these terms; it's really quite a consensual understanding. I suppose this is one of those issues where scholarly expertise (e.g. mine) is going to go by the wayside, via your confident assertion that it just is a legal term. In that context, your proposal is likely the least worst that can be accomplished. In the meantime, Vargas is back to being a "Filipino journalist". Is that acceptable? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't argue with you about the sociology issue becaue I have no scholarly expertise. As for being back to a Filipino journalist, I saw the edit by the IP, but I don't think it's going to kill anyone if the article remains in a particular state, even if it's one that you (and I) disagree with while this is being hashed out. That's assuming it can be hashed out. :-)--Bbb23 (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Wording along the lines that BBB23 suggests is much more neutral and completely verifiable. The OP is clearly siding with the subject to the extent of using language which misleads our readership. Yworo (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Why do we have BLP in the first place? Because we horribly offended a public figure by making inaccurate pronouncements of fact. Now we risk doing the same again. It would be equally offensive for Wikipedia, in its voice, to take a stance declaring that Vargas, the founder of an organization called Define American and someone who has said "I am an American", is in fact not an American. It would also be taking a POV on a hotly debated issue. We don't want to go down this road. Gamaliel (talk) 19:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Self-identification is crucial for some things, but not for others. Let's take an extreme example. John Doe is born in England. He spends two weeks in America. He says I love I America and I consider myself an American. Are we going to call him American or English? In the same vein, Jane Doe is convicted of murder. Every appeal fails. She says she is innocent. Are we going to go with her self-serving statement in her article, even if there's some remote possibility it might be true?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

It's more than self-interested self-identification, it's a hotly debated issue involving sociology, race, politics, etc. Wikipedia should not take sides. Best to go with the self-identification and leave the debate for the body of the article. Gamaliel (talk) 22:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Except that by including the contested word "American", that's just what's being done: taking sides. Leaving it out is leaving it for the reader to decide. Including it is siding with the subject. Yworo (talk) 00:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Gamaliel is absolutely correct on the serious BLP issue at hand, and, as Gamaliel's comment suggests, it should be remembered that the person to be protected under BLP is the subject of the article, not people with other opinions about, for example, how they think someone should be identified. And BLP trumps general guidelines for writing articles. As Nomoskedasticity and Bbb23 said, "Filipino journalist" is completely inaccurate and misleading and cannot remain as the identification. Although I don't particularly like labels, and can see Bbb23's point in leaving off descriptors, I nonetheless agree with Nomoskedasticity that "Filipino-American" is the better way to go in this article, as it accurately describes Vargas, is consistent with his self-identification, and does not imply anything about citizenship (i.e., there is no such citizenship as "Filipino-American"). Further , the wikilink that is there goes to Filipino American which clearly describes a demographic - not a citizenship- that Vargas certainly falls into. The fact is, he is Filipino by birth and early childhood alone, and is American by residence, education, employment, longevity (20 of his 31 years), and self-identification. We strive to avoid taking sides, so I guess we can't - yet - describe him solely as American. But describing him solely as Filipino is absolutely taking sides, and is surely demonstrating a larger POV on the subject that is unacceptable. I'd also point out that we have hundreds, likely thousands+ of articles about people who were not born in the US but are described as American, without our having any idea or evidence of what passport they carry, or whether or not they are American citizens. Making an issue here is POV about Vargas' public stance about his own status, and, again, is unacceptable. Tvoz/talk 00:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I doubt that we have hundreds of thousands of articles about people who are described as "American" but who we know are not American citizens. There may be articles about people whose passports we haven't seen, but that's not the same thing--although we haven't seen their passports, it's still likely that they are citizens, a likelihood that doesn't exist in this case. Ken Arromdee (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say "hundreds of thousands", and I didn't say we should identify him as an American citizen. "Filipino-American" is not an indication of citizenship, it is a demographic term. And as is being discussed on the article talk page at the moment, we are not required to list a subject's citizenship. We're working on the compromise solution suggested here by Bbb23 and Seb. Tvoz/talk 04:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The fact that other articles do not follow our clear verifiability rules does not make a very convincing argument. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, so what? Yworo (talk) 00:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

That wasn't my point. I am saying that making this particular identification an issue is obviously POV, based on who Vargas is and what he stands for, and the fact that we don't make this point on many other articles illustrates the POV in play here. I do not think that the editors who insist on removing "American" are doing so as a neutral observance of article construction guidelines, I think they are doing so to advance a POV, and it is a POV with serious BLP implications. And please,in advance, spare me the AGF lecture- go back and read the edit summaries when they bother to put them in, and some of the arguments promoted on the talk page - the POV is obvious. Tvoz/talk 06:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

This edit is precipitous, prejudges the discussion in progress at BLPN, and lacks consensus. I see no reason why it shouldn't be reverted. The instruction "now leave it" is curious -- perhaps Seb could elaborate? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

It's perfect, as proposed by Bbb23, executed by Seb, and supported by me (plus at least 2 IP editors). I'd say 5 editors is a good start to a new consensus. Yworo (talk) 07:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't even see that someone else had the same idea. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

As they say, great minds think alike. Yworo (talk) 07:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't go counting IP editors who wanted to describe him as a Filipino journalist. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I would... they wanted "American" removed as inaccurate. It's been removed. Yworo (talk) 07:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

And now one of them has made it quite clear that they really want to describe him as "Filipino journalist". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, technically, that's completely accurate. Arguably more accurate than Filipino-American. I'd prefer Philippine or Philippines journalist myself, as it seems more of a nationality than an ethnicity to me, but 1) I don't know if either of those spellings is acceptable or "politically correct" and 2) based on the RfC I doubt it would get consensus while I think some variant of Bbb23's proposal will. FWIW. Yworo (talk) 03:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

No, it is not at all accurate - it implies he was a journalist in the Philippines - but we've moved on from this, I think, anyway. Tvoz/talk 04:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

RfC now open on this issue, here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

We could do with some extra eyes and opinions over at Catholic sex abuse cases‎. Since Pope Benedict retired, a couple of editors have wanted to insist that he did so as a result of the sex abuse scandals. There have been no reliable sources offered presenting this argument, although there has been a tendency by these editors to misinterpret articles which discuss his retirement and discuss the sex abuse scandal (typically as part of a retrospective looking back at his time as Pope) as presenting a connection from one to an other. This has extended to what appeared to be the deliberate misrepresentation of sources through very selective quotations.

Now the push is to change the lead to be predominately about Benedict, using a series of quotes exclusively from opponents without seemingly any attempt to provide balance. This seems to be a problem in regard to due weight in an article that is about the sex abuse cases in general, rather than Benedict in particular, as well as a BLP concern due to the extreme anti-Benedict POV being presented. But I'm open to being wrong here, so alternative eyes would be much appreciated. - Bilby (talk) 09:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I had no idea how involved the Pope was to these criminal cases of sex crimes against children. He apparently was the one person ultimately in charge of handling these issues from the 1980s until he became Pope Benedict in 2005 when he became the leader of the church. The complete absence of his role from the lead of the article seems to be a telling omission. That the content wasn't written NPOV enough is a reason to fix it, but now it again is completely removed. I don't expect his biography will be fixed anytime soon as long as he's alive, but on the one article summarizing Catholic sex abuse cases of children worldwide we are abetting misinformation by not clearly reporting the central facts of his involvement good, bad, or otherwise. Here's a subtitle that clearly connects his resignation (how this recent spat started) "Pope Benedict's decision to live in the Vatican after he resigns will provide him with security and privacy. It will also offer legal protection from any attempt to prosecute him in connection with sexual abuse cases around the world, Church sources and legal experts say."[7] So we clearly have mainstream news reporting on this and even church officials conceding there is an issue. No one is asking to violate policies but NPOV goes in every direction, well-sourced and notable criticism needs to be included. And this is the article that the criticism it belongs. Insomesia (talk) 20:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

This is where we start having problems. Benedict, as Ratzinger, wasn't the one person responsible for sexual abuse cases until Sacramentum sanctitatis tutela in 2001, which required all cases to be referred to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Prior to that the Congregation was only responsible for rare cases. I think the difficulty is that you have been relying on non-neutral sources, which tends to skew coverage in a particular direction. Those opposed to Benedict and/or the Church tend to make sweeping statements, which we need to be very careful not to fall into.

As I've mentioned there, I'm fully in support of covering his involvement and including criticism. But the presentation needs to be balanced and appropriate. - 01:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Then please take a leading role in presenting this information rather than blocking efforts to share it. And sources other than the church itself and it's controlled media interests would help Insomesia (talk) 01:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I have been doing so, and I've added information about Benedict, both positive and negative. But there is a lot of reading to do, as a lot of the media reports tend to be polarised, and most of the academic work that I've found so far was from around 2010, which is problematic as it misses about half of his time as Pope. - Bilby (talk) 01:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I've been wikistalked and I've allowed crankiness to seep into my interactions with you and I regret that. I apologize. Anything you can do would be great, I think there are a number of points to be worked out and your knowledge would of course be helpful. Insomesia (talk) 13:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

In the "background" section of the article see this version for example: [8]. There are references to several surveys which are summarized about the climate change consensus. One is an illustration and one citation is presented in the text. However the surveys don't match the criteria for inclusion into the list (i.e. the articles are less inclusive) and may give the impression the consensus is stronger than the list criteria. I feel this does not create a neutral tone or balanced articles. I also don't feel it is conservative to summarize an article that apparently disagrees with the subjects of the list without mentioning the article and list inclusion criteria are different (i.e. guilt by association). Thank you for any input. Theblog (talk) 15:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

(A) Due to ungrammatical syntax and construction, most of these sentences are subject to various interpretations;

(B) Only policy argument made above has to do with an alleged NPOV violation, not BLP

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:FRINGE, the "proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be clear". The bar-graph simply illustrates some aspects of the majority viewpoint - based on recent and reliable surveys from well-published sources. There is no BLP issue between the results of these surveys and the people in the list that I can see. --Nigelj (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

A rename may fix. "List of people thought to be opposed to man-made climate change" type thing. I haven't seen the article but I assume there are non-scientists that could fit on the list.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Criteria include being a published scientist in a peer-reviewed journal, so "scientist" in the title is necessary. In general, Theblog seems to be complaining that the definition of disagreement in the article is not identical to that used in the surveys. This is true, but why should the terms of a survey of scientific opinion be identical to the definition used in a Wikipedia article? Unless either the survey was based on the article or the article was based on the survey I would expect definitions to be slightly different; as long as they are both clearly trying to measure approximately the same thing, I think the surveys can provide useful context to the Wikipedia article. This is especially true of multiple surveys, which demonstrate that a variety of surveys using a variety of methods achieved similar results, which strengthens the power of those results. --Merlinme (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

It is also highly unclear to me why any of this debate is relevant to BLP. Which person or persons is specifically damaged by the inclusion of these context providing graphs? --Merlinme (talk) 13:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi all, just doing some cleaning up before signing off, came across this guy, notably the Personal life section. Looks like a lot of UNDUE information, some of the stuff probably falls foul of the general BLP guidelines and this section is as long as, or longer than, the rest of the article. Care to take a look? Cheers! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 20:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

This material has been creeping in repeatedly for years - if taking a look, please watchlist it as well, because it will be back. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Nearly all of the information seems to be sourced. Furlong was in several famous movies in the 1990s, but it's fair to say that since then he has been in the news mainly for his arrests/court cases/drug abuse. (92.7.21.215 (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC))

Segregating negative or postive information in a BLP is not appropriate. Spread it out and not place it all with a section devoted to the situation of controversy.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Your extreme frankness concerning the work ethics of the Wikipedia editors and administrators while a refreshing change, is ill conceived at best. Stating editors and administrators are less likely to pay attention to long messages is just entirely off-putting so I will BRIEFLY state the Lauren Bacall page has had a sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations Template in the Personal life section for a month with no inline citations added. There is also a does not include any references or sources Template in both the in Popular culture and the In cartoons section for almost a year, also without any additional references or sources provided since the March 2012 request.

I do not wish to, nor do I know how to, add the request for references, inline citations, sources etc. Template(s) to the beginning of her page where it would appear it is needed as no one has paid any attention to the requests for references, sources, or inline citations the way they sit now. This is truly a tragedy, and Lauren certainly deserves better!--75.17.193.238 (talk) 06:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Appalled

Dear Appalled, please be bold and pitch in to help fix the problems, that's the way we do things.--ukexpat (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Repeated insertions that violate Wikipedia's rules for biographies of Living persons have been consistently added to the same page by user Argo333 (User:Argo333)

Insertions include Violations to the three pillars: Neutral point of view (NPOV) Verifiability (V) No original research (NOR) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samar Layoun (talk • contribs) 07:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Hi , I am gina athans .

I have read the info on wikipedia and it is incorrect. I tried to correct and edit it , but I can't seem to delete the wrong and false information. Please can you delete it for me and allow me to put the CORRECT and FACTUAL information.

Thank you

<e-mail address redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gina.athans (talk • contribs) 10:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I have edited the article and incorporated your info.--Auric talk 11:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Frank Farrelly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

I think this article is too old to speedy for no sources. Someone at help desk thinks it isn't accurate. I think the IP is stating that the subject's work is controversial and wants us to sling some mud into the article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I take it you mean Wikipedia:Help desk#this page is inaccurate? Not sure who's mentioned speedying it, article is indeed in need of a massive overhaul. Is he even notable? GiantSnowman 15:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed that it had no sources. I think bios from 2010 on can be speedied as no sources. Should we tag it for AfD and see if that discussion brings some sources and fixes?--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you thinking of WP:BLPPROD? Any BLP, created after 18 March 2010, can be tagged and will be deleted after 10 days if there are no sources - however this does have sources (present as ELs rather than inline) and was created back in 2005 so would not be eligible on two fronts. I think taking to AFD is sensible, shall I let you do the honours? GiantSnowman 15:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

here. Moving discussion to afd.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

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

I'm really uncomfortable about this one. The sources are impeccable, so it doesn't appear worthy of a speedy, but there's no question that the article exists solely to disparage the subject, and the subject is notable only in the context of his plagiarism. Suggestions? Ray^Talk 15:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Nuke it and call it a day. --Malerooster (talk) 17:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree and have speedied it as an attack page. If it's an attack page, it's worthy of a speedy, even if impeccably cited. The article would have to be considerably longer, include biographical material, and cover the subject's work at length in order to support such a detailed section on accusations of plagiarism. Yworo (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be deleted, but this would have to be done via AfD, as it doesn't meet the criteria specified for G10. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Article now at AfD. On investigation, he easily meets WP:PROF. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

So, the problem is really much deeper than is being considered. WP:PROF is based on the implicit assumption that the works attributed to the subject were produced by the subject. Using WP:PROF to determine the subject's notability fails if the works are plagiarized. Plagiarized works could only support the notability of the original author, not the plagiarist. Similarly with citations to the works. Basically, the claim that the subject meets WP:PROF in the first place is itself based on unreliable sources, and must be discounted.

Second, WP:CIRCULAR has been involved. Some of the sources used to support the accusations of plagiarism were in fact in part based on the Wikipedia article, for example, this source. Per WP:CIRCULAR, we cannot only not use that source, we'd not be able to use any sources which refer to or based their conclusions in part upon it.

You see where I'm going with this? The whole thing is a sinkhole with no foundation, either for notability based on works, or notability based on being a "famous plagiarist". We should not have an article on this individual at all. Yworo (talk) 22:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I think "famous plagiarist" is a valid ground. But that's not apparent here for lack of multiple reliable mainstream sources. JFHJr (㊟) 03:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately the conversation is occurring in three different places. Elsewhere I wrote:

I have to object to all the sources used to cite the plagiarism facts. They are primary sources, written and published by the reviewers and editors to whom the the manuscripts were submitted, reporting on an event in which they were involved. The facts of "ban notices" cannot be sourced to the ban notices themselves. They have to be sourced to third-party reports about the ban notices. The way the article is done, it constitutes original research based on primary, self-published sources (i.e. the writers of the notices are not independent of the publishers of the notices). This is strictly forbidden by the BLP policy, which does not even admit the exception of self-publication by known experts allowed elsewhere. How the heck can this pass BLP?

Yworo (talk) 03:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Salvatore Fisichella (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

After cutting passages taken directly from a web biography, I read the talk page and found that permission had been granted to copy the material. Nonetheless, it's unsourced and unencyclopedic in tone, hails from a non neutral source, and was added by a WP:COI account over 4 years ago. For the moment I've restored the content and thrown templates on the article, but the stuff has to go. Other thoughts? 99.136.254.88 (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Permission to copy does not mean we give permission to add unsourced and unencyclopedic content. I would just go ahead and cut out the offending material leaving a note on the talk page explaining why you have done so. I think we need to make it more clear that even if permission to use copyrighted material, particularly from connected websites, is given, the tone of such material will almost certainly be inappropriate.--ukexpat (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you. Rhetorical question, but why do we permit the use of copyrighted material when it's promotional in tone and derives from an inappropriate source? Which in my experience has nearly always been the case. 99.136.254.88 (talk) 19:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

We don't permit it. If someone wants to make the text of their website etc available under a free license that's great, we will look at it and see if it's useful. But the mere fact that such material is available for use, does not mean that it should be used or that we are obligated to use it. Same goes for images - for example I have uploaded some of my own images to Commons. If they are useful great, but just because I am making them available does not mean they have to be used.--ukexpat (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Much appreciated. We've all seen single purpose users who believe that once their website text is made available it can be copied from whole cloth, and anyone who messes with it is a vandal. It's what happened with this bio in 2008, and the editors there eventually let it slide. 99.136.254.88 (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I think this edit of yours is perfectly appropriate.--ukexpat (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks--I'm not new to the rodeo, and generally save my copy edit smarts, such as they are, for print media now. I also think it's a bit of a waste to whittle down the content to something that's still unreferenced. But we all kill time between meals one way or another. :) 99.136.254.88 (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The bio is puffy amd all copyvios must be removed by Wikipedia policy - this is not really optional. Collect (talk) 22:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks like permission was granted and properly through OTRS. See next to last section on article talk page. Yworo (talk) 23:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the issue isn't copyvio, it's the fact that the text that has been released is spammy, so as I said above it should still be despammed and depuffed even though the copyvio issue has been dealt with.--ukexpat (talk) 01:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Kenneth Huang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Truth-from-China (talk · contribs)
• Truth-from-Hongkong (talk · contribs)
• Fact-China (talk · contribs)

The entry has become a poorly formatted piece, a cluster of bullet points in chronological order. It seems that several accounts--perhaps the same person, also using IPs--have taken ownership, and this raises the possibility that WP:COI is a factor. What's needed is a sweeping rewrite to make this an encyclopedic entry, but first I'd guess the interested parties may need to be eased out for a bit. 99.136.254.88 (talk) 01:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm suggesting the article be returned to a far better version from 2010 [9], and any important content since can be added with references. I'm bringing this here for more eyes, because making any improvement is apt to meet resistance from the above mentioned and non-communicative account, er, accounts. 99.136.254.88 (talk) 03:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Good proposal, that version appear to meet our style and sourcing guidelines, while the current version was nowhere close. I've done the rollback and watchlisted the article. Yworo (talk) 03:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, I suspect we have a case of sockpuppetry going on here and will look into submitting the necessary reports. Yworo (talk) 03:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Terrific. Thank you, 99.136.254.88 (talk) 04:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure. Yworo (talk) 04:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

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

This item was originally created by a devoted collector and was a little flowery but nevertheless accurate. Subsequent editing by experienced Wikipedians has been undone and vandalised by Filthemill who seems driven by personal prejudice. Since this cannot be resolved and simply creates an inaccurate and belittling article I would like to see it deleted in it's entirety. I am Tim Gustard — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.15.212 (talk) 10:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Someone who is, apparently, not Tim Gustard is repeatedly re-adding details (sourced to online auction sites) stating that some of Gustard's works sold for a few hundred or few thousand pounds each. I don't see that this has any relevance to the biography of Gustard, unless an independent reliable source actually comments on it. It does indeed appear to be added for the purpose of belittling Gustard. I'd welcome thoughts from other editors as to the suitability of this material for inclusion. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I've left a message on that editor's talk page. I expected to see that it was a new editor; turns out it wasn't, and so I haven't been particularly gentle. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we need a new essay WP:DBPGWRBBLP - "don't be particularly gentle with regulars breaching BLP", to go alongside WP:DTTR. In other weird coincidences, it seems that if you need any fish to administer a trouting, the BLP subject may be able to help. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd be happy to provide you with a nice wet trout! I appreciate you all taking an interest, I've been asking for the article to be deleted but I hope one of you may be prepared to write a much better one. I am Tim Gustard and you can contact me on <redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.15.212 (talk) 15:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• The editor in question is not being terribly cooperative, and I think the subject is not in fact notable per WP:ARTIST, so I've prodded it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I've seconded the prod. Yworo (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree, it is better deleted, thank you for your prompt response. Tim Gustard — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.39.179 (talk) 06:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

An IP address claiming to be Miya Ando has posted the following:
Talk:Miya Ando#Please delete the birthdate information on miya ando's wikipedia page
Wikipedia:Help desk#please delete my birthday
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Miya Ando
The IP has also been editing the Miya Ando in an apparent conflict of interest, and is unresponsive to messages left of his/her talk page. Is there a BLP issue here that needs to be addressed, or should I treat this as a standard COI issue? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It's a poorly sourced article, and if she verifies via OTRS and wants it deleted, then I'd support that. I don't understand the birthdate issue -- there's no birthdate on the article, and it's not as if it has been recently removed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I have left a message on the user's talk page, but he/she ignored the last two by another editor, so we may have to figure out what to do without any contact with OTRS. Which, of course, means we can make no assumptions about who the IP editor is. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Newyorkartcollector2010 (talk · contribs) already removed the full date diff, and 66.108.78.34 (talk · contribs) removed the year. diff. Maybe she wants a revdel?--Auric talk 03:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

That's the problem with people who post these drive-by complaints and then don't bother to answer any questions or follow any advice. We really cannot help them. I am going to unwatch this page and will treat this like I would any other unresponsive editor with an apparent conflict of interest. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

If the birthdate in history is unsourced then it may warrant a revdel for her reasons of privacy. If it is incorrect then it may be a karma, numerology, bad luck issue type thing. I hope she realizes that we can't delete the entire article. I think as a COI editor she is allowed to remove unsourced contentious material though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

For all we know, this IP user may have nothing to do with -- or even be an enemy of -- the real Miya Ando. That being said, in my opinion an unsourced birthdate should be removed just because it is unsourced, and it should be revdeled just because it is unsourced personal information.

I used to not care who knows my birthday (this was before the rise in identity theft) until I had a rather interesting experience. Someone at a previous employer decided to have a little once a month cake-in-the-breakroom "party" for those who had birthdays that month. It turned out that some months had 20 or 30 employee birthdays while other had zero or one. Being typical engineers, we calculated the odds of that happening by chance - pretty low - and looked for reasons for the bias. The first bias wasn't strange at all; very few hires in the few weeks before Christmas or the few weeks before the end of the fiscal year in July. But that didn't explain all of the bias. It turns out that the head of human resources was weeding out all candidates with certain astrological signs! We ended up getting rid of our "house astrologer" and kept it all quiet for fear of lawsuits. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

That's priceless... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Peter-John Vettese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User Violet Lushington posted a help desk request regarding the Peter-John Vettese article. Violet has a COI connection to Peter-John Vettese (see the edit summary here), from which I gather that Peter-John Vettese himself has a problem with the Wikipedia article. I noticed that some of the Wikipedia article sentences are copied from j-tull.com j-tull.com with minor changes. Violet tried to remove Vettese's birth date information from the Wikipedia article as being private and was reverted. Vettese's birth date information in the Wikipedia article was sourced to j-tull.com and you can see it in the left column on that page under "Vitals". I'm not sure that j-tull.com engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy such that the sourced page may not be a Wikipedia Reliable Source. If you look through Violet's other attempts to edit the article, you can see other issues for which Peter-John Vettese probably is concerned. If someone has the time, please look through Violet's edits to the Peter-John Vettese article to see what she is having a problem with and, if the cited sources do not support the facts, delete them from the article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Marcel Diallo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Asking for more people to add Marcel Diallo to their watchlists; an IP hopping Diallo-hater has been reinserting non-RS content which is extremely negative, contrary to BLP and after an OTRS ticket regarding the matter. I've semi'd but ask that others watch as the editor(s) in question may register to bypass that. KillerChihuahua 17:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that's a doozy. Watchlisted. Definitely worth keeping semi'd permanently. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Froggie. KillerChihuahua 18:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

As founder of Legendary Performances (501c3), and producer of "Mowgli" and original ballet composed and conducted by Alexander Prior, it would be a conflict of interest to add to his biography page. I request that the following additions be made to his 2008 timeline, or any other appropriate location. Many thanks, Beverly DeCer

Mowgli, ballet performance, at Kremlin Theatre, February 2008 > Alexander Prior, Composer and conductor, Choreographed and performed by Moscow Classical Ballet > filmed by nonprofit Legendary Performances, www.legendaryperformances.org > DVD hosted by Angela Lansbury > Mowgli DVD received Parents Choice Award, September 2012 http://www.parents-choice.org/product.cfm?product_id=30785 > — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.253.114 (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The first picture shows what looks like a caucasian, but the Jermaine Jones who just scored for Schalke is quite definitely black. Is the first photo actually Jermaine Jones? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.80.10.98 (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

If you're talking about Jermaine Jones, he certainly looks black to me. RNealK (talk) 23:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Yup, it's the same guy. His Commons category has more images and they are all the same guy.--ukexpat (talk) 03:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• Jonathan Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Spirallady (talk · contribs)
• Elly McDonald (talk · contribs)
• 92.27.134.199 (talk · contribs)

Purely promotional vehicle now. I've tried twice to revert to the previous stub, and have in turn been twice reverted and warned. More eyes appreciated. 99.156.66.72 (talk) 00:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• I wouldn't have reverted it if I was paying attention to the page's history and realized what you were trying to do. That's why I did my revert; I thought you were removing valid content and not promotional content. The other user was a bot, so it couldn't have known why you were doing it. It thought you were vandalizing by removing the content. Lugia2453 (talk) 00:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• I know. I almost never do a split second revert unless the content is blatantly inappropriate; bots mess up, so I don't reflexively follow their lead. Still, Spirallady appears to be a promotional account thus far, and I wouldn't mind a few more eyes on this, especially since further reverts by me could be misconstrued again. 99.156.66.72 (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• William C. Rader (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

After seeing this thread Wikipedia:Help desk#Jdsy Wikipedia:Help desk#William C. Rader I took a look at the edit history to see what was going on. It looks as though this article has been edited almost solely by SPA's some of which might have axes to grind. I don't know whether to trust any of the info in it so I thoought I would ask if any members of the BLP project would have the time to take a look and see whether it is a legit article or not. If not is there anything that can be done to clean it up. Thanks ahead of time for your expertise and for anything that you can do. MarnetteD | Talk 03:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad Marnette brought this issue here. Can someone also decide what to do with all these comments the IP (108.22.250.198) posted at the help desk. The entire comment is full of personal attacks and other BLP violations. Thanks. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 03:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Update: An admin, Fuhghettaboutit, took care of all the inappropriate comments at the help desk.[10] --76.189.111.199 (talk) 04:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

David Bergman (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is it normal practice in a BLP to also have biographical information of wives and father in laws? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not unusual to include information about relations, particularly if the related person is notable. For example, the article Tony Blair mentions what his wife does, as it should. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes it is, especially in this particular case where the family members are high-profile and public figures. Crtew (talk) 14:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

That I get, but should it say who she has defended in court? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

In my view no, as it is not relevant to this article.--ukexpat (talk) 21:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

It's probably there to prove notability, because she has no article.--Auric talk 21:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it's fair to include some information about relations, but I think it's going too far to have additional details about those relations. So if, hypothetically, the Tony Blair article, in addition to brief details about Cherie as his wife, went into detail about the cases that she has been involved in, that would be inappropriate in the Tony Blair article, but are perfectly appropriate for Cherie Blair. If the relations are notable, they should have their own articles and the details should be in those articles. So, in David Bergman (journalist) I think it is unnecessary and inappropriate to have biographical information of wives and fathers in law.--ukexpat (talk) 17:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree especially about the father-in-law and have removed it. I wouldn't object to ditching the wife as well. Why yes, my marriage is fine, thank you -- why do you ask? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The father-in-law happens to be the founder of a political party and a highly visible lawyer before the Supreme Court. It is perfectly sourced as the subject of the article appeared before a tribunal (for his reporting btw) and his wife and father in law were pointed out in the record as being present in the proceedings. I would propose that a separate article could very well made for his daughter, the journalist's wife, as she is a lawyer of major clients and a feminist legal author. The User:Nomoskedasticity needs to establish their triviality.Crtew (talk) 09:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the fact that Nomoskedasticity removes a point while it is being discussed shows bad form. More on this in another forum as it also involves what looks like "edit warring" behavior (which I see the named user has recently already been reported for in another context).Crtew (talk) 09:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

There is no consensus in this matter and the material will stand as is. It will be restored.Crtew (talk) 10:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Mircea Cărtărescu has a controversy section with an offline Romanian source. Anyone here have the tools to check it? ϢereSpielChequers 21:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

No source when I got to it. Removed section as per BLP contentious, unsourced.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Despite complaints and deletions by two editors on BLP grounds, three editors keep adding back the below to Mondoweiss (a blog edited mostly by Philip Weiss, so it is a BLP concern:

In 2012, Israeli historian and writer Yaacov Lozowick has sharply criticized Mondoweiss and its commenting community, denouncing it as a "vipers' nest of antisemites" whose "goal is to get rid of Israel". He notes that "someday, a century or two from now, when someone sits down to write the history of Jew-hatred in the early 21st century, Mondoweiss will be a fine case study, worthy of a full section." REF:http://yaacovlozowick.blogspot.co.il/2012/04/mondoweiss-vipers-nest-of-antisemites.html

Yaacov Lozowick actually is a long-time Israeli state employee, former director of the archives at Yad Vashem and currently Chief Archivist at the Israel State Archives, so his bias is pretty obvious.

He doesn’t mention in the article quoted what a search of Mondoweiss shows: that he has been criticized on the site by a contributor here or that he has posted on Mondoweiss and gotten into debates with/been criticized by contributors. So I think there’s definitely personal animus motivating his posting. Which makes his self-published attack even less WP:RS, especially for WP:BLP. CarolMooreDC 00:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment carolmoore - i find it amusing that you are looking for NPOV and to get it, you write in POV. perhaps if you yourself would try to be more NPOV, you wouldn't have to go to BLPN all the time? Soosim (talk) 07:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment oh, and about the topic at hand. since you seem to think that lozowick is responding to attacks, why not include both? keep it fair and balanced? lozowick is obviously a person of standing (and certainly worthy of an attack by weiss!). and, one more thing: a wiki page about a blog is BLP? interesting. Soosim (talk) 07:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Is there evidence from secondary sources that anyone other than Wikipedia editors (and presumably Lozowick) cares about this ? Sean.hoyland - talk 08:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

First note that an editor came to the article from here and deleted the paragraph. One of these editors not only put it back but took off the "unreliable source?" tag and put in yet a second self-published blog as a reference to the sentence above. [ http://warped-mirror.com/2012/04/11/defending-gunter-grass-at-972/ here].

To answer User:SeanHoyland, not reliable source has commented on Lozowick's blog entry.

To answer Sooism, a Blog with a person's name in it, heavily edited by him, obviously is BLP related. Actually it probably would have been easier to bring it to WP:RSN, but the attempt to smear individual(s) was so obvious. Also, Mondoweiss is a notable blog; Lozowick's personal one is not. (His official one has been mentioned in Israeli publications.)

Also, note the Mondoweiss article itself does not violate BLP by criticizing any person from the blog unless it's been covered by a WP:RS or in one case when it's a reply to some criticism of Mondoweiss. CarolMooreDC 22:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

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

The Nicholas Gonzalez article needs watching as he shares a name with the Nicholas Gonzalez who is also adult film actor Donny Wright and who was recently involved in an "incident" at a firehouse. Huffington Post article Not sure if he's the same person, so I haven't added anything.--Auric talk 23:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Watchlisted. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

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

I would like to know why the admin Risker protected this page when this man is charged with and is on trial for murdering an 18-year-old boy in London. The fact is WP:VERIFY and WP:RS so what is the issue? The latest details are here published 7 February 2013. I would like to know why so many first time editors seem to have an agenda preventing Wikipedia naming this man and the other man, Paul Boadi , in this case.

It seems the block on this article, is rather incongruous particularly as they're all over the Oscar Pistorius and it's not even reached - as I write this - at the end of the bail stage. So again I ask you, would someone like to look at the logs and establish what the agenda is as to why the murder charge/trial are not in this article? 86.160.110.236 (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

It's only semi-protected. So far as I can see, no one actually added any sources in the past so removing unsourced claims is reasonable as was the protection which was placed there in early December. Now there is one source. Dougweller (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

In response to an edit request at Talk:Chris Nathaniel which provided a reference from The Independent [11], I have added the information to the article + an additional reference from BBC News [12]. Voceditenore (talk) 12:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

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

A page on Rawi Abdelal is being edited with malicious intent by someone who has also conducted internet harassment in other fora. The edits have been made by a user, Sasha128, who has only ever removed and added material to that one Wikipedia page. The most recent addition is a footnote to a gossip forum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.7.72.218 (talk) 19:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this wasn't a great edit in one respect -- but it also seems entirely appropriate to remove that huge list of cases. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I hope it's appropriate for a non-admin to comment here. I removed the apparent use of an unsourced rumour as a citation, but I agree with Sasha128's removal of the massive wall-of-text list of cases. Dawn Bard (talk) 19:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Dawn - it's entirely acceptable, in fact encouraged, for non-admins to comment as much as possible at all these kind of boards! GiantSnowman 12:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Excellent points. The original edit to include a single case resulted from malicious intent. It would make sense either to have all of the cases or none. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.7.72.218 (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't necessarily object to a list of cases, but it needs to be reliably sourced, properly formatted and maybe with some context or explanation as to why they are notable. Dawn Bard (talk) 19:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Another good point. Thank you. The entire article seems disproportionately large compared to the notability of the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.7.72.218 (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• Sasha128 has replaced the citation to an unsourced rumor in an effort to discredit the subject of the article. Is there a way to prevent Sasha128 from continuing to harass in this manner?

• I've reverted and warned, also removed some unref fromt he article and tagged for improvement. GiantSnowman 12:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• Well done. Sasha128 has, however, just undone those changes that GiantSnowman made. The unsourced rumor has now been replaced. Is there any limit to the number of times Sasha128 can undo changes made to have the article conform? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.31.38.14 (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• I've reverted Sasha128's latest edits as being either unverifiable or just plain unintelligible. I don't quite understand what it is that they are trying to do. However, they are indeed fast approaching a limit to the number of times they can do it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• The same person, one presumes, posted some libel on an an anonymous forum. The moderators of that forum removed it. Sasha128 seems to believe that internet searches can recover some of it. Hence the continuous posting here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.31.38.14 (talk) 15:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• The article as it stands now does not seem to meet notability. Is there a criteria I am missing? An AfD may establish it or have it deleted.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

  WP:PROF criteria 5, "named chair", probably applies. --j⚛e decker^talk 23:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

  The "named chair" criterion probably holds in educational institutions where there are only a handful of named chairs. Harvard Business School is unusual in that every tenured professor holds a named chair. So for faculty at that institution, the chair does not confer any particular notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.31.38.14 (talk) 00:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Unquestionably notable herself, the article Bonnie Hammer has seen some peculiar changes over the past week or so. A major edit from 173.213.212.247 removed some critical material (itself not particularly well-sourced or well-written) and added a very large amount that (at first inspection) looks rather...well...un-encyclopedic. It certainly would need wikification and serious copyediting to get up to our stylistic standards, to say nothing of the content. For one thing it has absolutely nothing bad to say about her, which is strange, since a substantial proportion of the Internet seems to think she's the Devil. That isn't to say that we should say she's the Devil or even take much note of that opinion, but the utter absence of anything critical makes me highly suspicious. Considering that a subsequent user going by the completely unsuspicious moniker Cableentertainmentgroup changed the photo to a rather more flattering one and removed the BLP tag a mere week later, I suspect there may be some connection between the IP editor, "Cableentertainmentgroup", and Hammer herself. Lockesdonkey (talk) 00:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Hammer is chairman of NBCUniversal Cable Entertainment Group (my emphasis), so yes, there is a clear COI. The user name has been reported to WP:UAA as a CORPNAME and the image tagged for deletion as a copyvio.--ukexpat (talk) 14:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Lockesdonkey is right about this edit, massive insertion of promo puff wall-of-text by IP editor, anyone with a sharp set of BLP shears and a few minutes to spare is invited to hack and slash restore the article to something vaguely encyclopaedic. Cheers! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 14:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done in this edit.--ukexpat (talk) 14:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

There's a slo-mo edit war going on at Alec Baldwin over whether or not to include a section about a dispute he had with a journalist. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

This BLP, Deepak Jaikishan, seems to be rife with violations. I don't have time right now to clean house, can some other editors please look at it asap! Thank you! Insomesia (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to draw the attention of wiser heads to the edits of 222.155.201.232. Some of the changes this editor is making have sources, but they inject a point of view. There are a fairly large number of edits, and it's clearly a matter of judgement in each case; I also see that the IP was recently blocked for 31 hours for disruptive editing, but the blocking admin is offline and in any case this may be a different kind of editing or a different editor. So - I'd like to ask for more and more experienced eyes; especially since I actually have to go offline soon. I've selectively reverted at 2 articles, raised an issue on an article talk page, and responded to the editor on my talk, but I may be barking up the tree unnecessarily. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Someone has been repeatedly writing slanderous material on my Wikipedia page realting to a column I wrote last week. I'm a syndicated columnist. I have removed it 5 or 6 times. But it keeps coming back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.64.33.130 (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't comment on whether the material is slanderous - please be careful with such language, as it may land you in trouble with Wikipedia's policy on legal threats - but the added/deleted/added material is clearly inappropriate per Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. I'm about to request semi-protection of the page, which should sort out the problem in the short term. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article for a week (for now). The material that was being added gave completely undue attention to a single event and included sources to blogs and what amounted essentially to POV commentary specifically aimed to make the subject look bad. Negative content and criticism can be included in biographies if well sourced, notable, and as long as it is not given undue attention; this was pretty much an example of how not to do it. Interested parties can use the article talk page to discuss and reach consensus as to if and how the criticism should be covered. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I am bringing this conversation back up for debate. While I agree that the negative comments should not be there, I believe that there is good reason to include the information about the above mentioned controversy.Chrisvanlang (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I am proposing to not ask the pope for his opinion on the subject matter and have proposed to draft up a more neutral assessment of the situation as there are plenty of RS.Chrisvanlang (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

There were many problems with the original section: POV tone, UNDUE, blog sourcing. Properly weighted and handled it might be included. Gamaliel (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

This I all agree with. Should I just go ahead and rewrite the original section? I have all of the appropriate sources and it's not hard to phrase this neutrally. Part of the concern is that several blogs have noticed that this article has been "cleaned up".Chrisvanlang (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see where any notable controversy is. He wrote an article and few people disagreed in the blog/feedback section. Was there significant coverage of any controversy? I didn't see any mainstream authority that disagreed with him nor any reports of a controversy. Undue, trivial, RS, POV, etc, still apply until we can report that it is a big controversy that has recieved significant coverage by mainstream media.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Chrisvanlang; what blogs think about Wikipedia articles being fixed to comply with WP:BLP is not a "concern" in any way, shape or form. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Chrisvanlang, we may not source any material, especially opinions, from blog comments. Unless several reliable sources label this a "controversy", it's not, and shouldn't be included in the article. In point of fact, most blog posts are not considered reliable sources. Blog comments are never viewed as reliable sources on Wikipedia. If you continue to pursue this sort of attempt at defamation, you may find yourself blocked from editing WIkipedia altogether. Please have the good sense to desist. Yworo (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe that Chrisvanlang is advocating using blogs or blog comments as sources in that comment, he or she is just noting that blogs have commented negatively, accurately or not, on Wikipedia's actions in this matter. Gamaliel (talk) 00:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

No, he wanted to source the very fact of the existence of a "controversy" to critical blog comments about Brinkley's article, and is most likely the author of the subsequent comments criticizing Wikipedia for removing the unreliably sourced content. Yworo (talk) 00:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I should make it very clear that I did not write the original section that we have all agreed to removed, the discussion is whether or not the controversy is a controversy worth mentioning on the article satisfying WP:UNDUEChrisvanlang (talk) 02:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

There clearly is a controversy independent of blog comments, see [13] and [14]. Whether or not it is one that deserves inclusion is another matter. Let's remember WP:AGF please. Gamaliel (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The second source you link is itself a blog post and in no way a reliable source. This is a BLP, even the blogs of recognized experts can't be used as sources in articles about living people. Yworo (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources meeting WP:BLP: BBC (3 times) [15][16][17]; Thanh Nien [18]; and the Mercury News above. Debatable: Stanford Daily (student paper) [19]; Huffington Post [20] (more of an editorial). --GRuban (talk) 01:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Romenesko is a professional journalist working for the Poynter Institute and as such meets the RS criteria. Gamaliel (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

(outdent) I found Brinkley's piece, dated February 1st, at http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-02-01/news/sns-201301291330--tms--amvoicesctnav-c20130129-20130129_1_dog-meat-da-nang-meat-eaters . It still contains the controversial statements. At the bottom it says:

Editor’s note: Tribune Media Services, which distributed this article, issued a follow-up statement on Friday, February 1:

Tribune Media Services (TMS) recently moved an opinion column by Joel Brinkley about his observations from a trip to Vietnam that did not meet our journalistic standards. The column has provoked a highly critical response from readers since its release.

TMS has a rigorous editing process for its content, and in the case of Brinkley’s column that moved Jan. 29, all the required steps did not occur. We regret that this happened, and we will be vigilant in ensuring that our editing process works in the future.

(the same apology is reproduced on jimromenesko.com). Opinion pieces are supposed to cause controversy. I think it's unusual for a newspaper chain to apologize and try to hide for an editorial. This is not trivial. Rybec (talk) 01:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The editorial and apology are at http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/columnists/sns-201301291330--tms--amvoicesctnav-c20130129-20130129,0,2766282.column as well. Rybec (talk) 02:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Reverse ferret. I can now understand points for inclusion. The main problem is still the sheer size the section would take up in such a small article and thus create a coatrack. If we include a first sentence describing the article and its retraction by the paper, a second one with a notable person disagreeing with it, a third one with Mr.Brinkley's rebuttal, and then a fourth with another notable backing Mr.Brinkley then it would unbalance the article bytewise. This would still be considered undue, not news, coatrack, POV, etc. by many editors. If the article were expanded with more positive material then that may change a few minds.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it really does have to do with the current short length of the article. Were the article significantly longer, covering other articles written by the subject and responses to those articles, then perhaps with reliable sources, this inclusion would be appropriate. Someone wanting to add this would need to also add significant positive content to the article in order to maintain a neutral point of view and avoid undue weight. Yworo (talk) 02:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't looked at the article before making my earlier remarks. I see the point about its brevity. Rybec (talk) 03:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I've lengthened the article from 3581 bytes to 6551 bytes with material that would not be out of place in his CV. I feel that a statement like "a January 2013 piece was widely discussed," with the op-ed itself and the Mercury-News page as references, would present the matter in a neutral way. The Mercury-News page contains both criticism and Brinkley's responses, including the remark that he "has never received so much reaction to one of his pieces," which means nearly the same thing as saying it "was widely discussed." Would adding that sentence still create concerns about undue weight? --Rybec (talk) 06:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

A sentence or two wouldn't be out of line, perhaps. Gamaliel (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

ER no comment on this particular case, but thats not how NPOV or UNDUE work. Just because info is negative does not mean we need to balance it with positive. Likewise length of the article is not part of it. If someone with a short article causes a discussion in lots of reliable sources, positive or negative, we dont have to wait until something opposing it comes to light. It may never do so, the negative/positive event may be the most significant thing that they do in an otherwise barely-notable life. Is it relevant to their notability? Yes, is it covered significantly in reliable sources? Yes, then it may be included. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

"Covered significantly" may still be an issue even if its inclusion looks like a coatrack of such a small article. I think it was only covered in 1 1/2 online news sources in the bay area. Last I looked it had gone from 101 reader comments at the bottom of the article to 140 or so. Splash in the pan news?--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying that coverage in Thanh Nien, the BBC, the Huffington Post, Romenesko's blog and the Chicago Tribune is not significant and that only media based in the San Francisco area "count"? I've found some more coverage: Thanh Nien did another piece, dated February 15th, http://www.thanhniennews.com/2010/Pages/20130215-Joel-Brinkley-eats-his-words-and-they-dont-taste-good.aspx . It mentions an additional apology (besides the one by Tribune Media) from Margaret Holt of the Chicago Tribune and says that a petition circulated among Stanford students gathered 1500 signatures. There's a letter from the Asian American Journalists Association: http://www.aaja.org/joel-brinkley-column/ and also published at http://newamericamedia.org/2013/02/aaja-condemns-joel-brinkleys-column-about-vietnam.php . Tuổi Trẻ interviewed Brinkley: http://www.tuoitrenews.vn/cmlink/tuoitrenews/society/joel-brinkley-sorry-for-labeling-vietnam-aggressive-1.98176 —rybec 02:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to a BBC article on it? The Thanh Nien writer admits he emailed the article to a bunch of friends for opinions which is OR and POV on his part. The Huff post I would rather not even discuss as an RS for an encylopedia.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for answering. The links to the BBC coverage are in a comment by GRuban above, [21], [22] and [23]. I don't read those languages, but it appears that these are at least two different stories and that they are about the topic.

About the second Thanh Nien article, I don't see any problem in a journalist researching a story. I don't see where he says he e-mailed "a bunch of friends," either. The phrase he used is "several of Brinkley’s peers and [...] the Vietnam Scholar Group list serve." As for having a point of view, it's obvious he does. "However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective" (WP:RS). The Tribune Company apology he mentioned exists; so does the letter from the Asian American Journalists Association (I posted links to both, above). I just found the statement from Margaret Holt he wrote about. It's at [24]. So the three things in this article that I checked all turned out to be true. I don't know about the reputation of Thanh Nien itself. It may be a major newspaper in Vietnam, and it saw fit to carry two articles about this subject. Are you dismissing it as not a reliable source?

On the 13th you raised "undue, trivial, RS, POV, etc" as objections to mentioning this topic. I don't know what the et cetera includes but I feel that mentioning the topic in the way I proposed on the 14th, perhaps with the statement from Margaret Holt (she's an editor at his paper) and the Brinkley interview in Tuổi Trẻ (it presents his side of the story in his own words) as additional or alternate references, would satisfy the specific objections about BLP policies you raised then. You later said that mentioning the topic would be a "coat rack." The way I proposed to mention it is neutral. It could become a coat rack, but is that a proper reason to omit it entirely?

—rybec 02:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

::I no longer care. I have wasted far to much time on this crap. If you can get consensus from other editors to turn this article into huffpost bs, then so be it. But if you place material in the article again without consensus then I will remove it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that it is reasonable to follow Canoe's original suggestion of 4 sentences. I'm sure that we've settled the RS portion and with the balance proposed by Canoe, we can resolve UNDUE. Given how long the article is now, the coatrack issue is not as meaningful. Chrisvanlang (talk) 04:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

If you can get consensus from other editors to turn this article into huffpost bs, then so be it.

Your characterization of what I've asked for is inaccurate and uncivil.

But if you place material in the article again without consensus then I will remove it.

I've done no such thing. I never added anything about this to the article at all. I've only attempted to discuss it here.—rybec 04:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I've perused the history and haven't yet seen a stable version that doesn't make one's BLP hairs stand up. Your attention is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 20:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure we'll see the unpleasant portions swiftly removed. He can then be just a grandfatherly pleasant Hasid, no shanda. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Oy vey. The unpleasantness need not be removed, but it also needs to be scrupulously sourced--surely better than it is now--and doesn't need to fall into WP:UNDUE, simply because it's provocative or even offensive. It's an encyclopedic entry, not a tabloid article. 99.156.66.72 (talk) 02:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the unsourced POV on the controversial video as it was someone's personal commentary. --Dweller (talk) 11:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
And there goes a big chunk. On his way to being a shanda-free grandfatherly pleasant Hasid. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

"He said bad things, and a person on the Huffington Post pointed it out, so we should put it in the article" is a blatant BLP violation. Ken Arromdee (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Now shanda-free: [25]. Mazal tov, Rabbi Friedman. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

We may need some eyes on that article. An IP has attempted to re-write history, by basically declaring the Nepalese Republic illegal & the Nepalese monarchy merely suspended. GoodDay (talk) 03:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Watchlisted. That section titled "Recent controversy" either needs to be retitled or integrated elsewhere in the body of the article. Yworo (talk) 03:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. Also, it's a school IP. GoodDay (talk) 03:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. Perhaps just brushing against WP:UNDUE. A consolidation of all the "controversy" into a single properly-sourced paragraph would perhaps be in order, but the sources are impeccable. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

This entry clearly fails to meet general notability guidelines, being as it is about a minor blogger, when many far more well-known and popular bloggers are frequently removed. Evidence for this lack of notability can be seen in the references, almost all of which are links to her blog or social media pages.

I also suspect the page was conceived and written by Khan herself, or those who work with her at "Abundant PR"- where she is the social media manager- and exists simply to improve the Google ranking of her blog. As such, this article also violates Wikipedia rules on self-promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dukemedia uk (talk • contribs) 12:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

An AfD may decide to fix or delete. Avoid the 'other stuff does not exist' argument though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

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

I think it would be good to get some keen eyes on this one.

Here's my attempt at an NPOV summary of what has happened here recently.

On 13th Februrary, an anonymous ip included highly inflammatory and biased material with claims of criminal behavior stated as if affirmatively proven. The wider story makes it clear that that's very from from a valid way for a Wikipedia entry to be written.

In response to this, someone apparently associated with the subject (a professional PR) tried to clean the article up. I make no judgments about the quality of her work, but merely note that given the rather vicious approach of the anonymous ip's, if there was any editing that we'd consider over-the-top here, we can understand why.

I've been contacted by a legal representative of the subject, who appears to be completely pleasant and reasonable, to request that we look into this. I think we should work to update the entry with the latest development, but we should stick to high-quality sources which are independent of the Russian government, as this appears to be a very high level political conflict and there are often concerns about smear campaigns conducted in poor-quality sources in such situations.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Will give it a scrub if needed, and watchlisted. Might be worth keeping semi'd permanently. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• Budhia Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article seems to fling uncited, potentially libellous statements about at random. Although one of the main victims of these statements is dead, others, including the child runner's family, and those convicted of the murder of the coach, are not. Although some of the allegations relating to the murder are cited, the reliability of those citations seems highly suspect. The author's writing style seems to be one of recounting gossip. The article really needs the attention of an expert. Skinsmoke (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done I trimmed most of the offending unsourced material and added a single reference (to the film). The section about the murder of the coach is perhaps a bit long, but I do agree that the information should be included in the article to a certain extent. In any case, that's another issue. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Guy by the name of Abrahar (talk · contribs) twiceposted dubious unsourced material about site founder Tom Allensworth, which Gogo Dodo (talk · contribs) reverted. An IP then posted what I considered a personal attack (if it wasn't, it was certainly extremely rude) to Abrahar's talk, which was aimed at Gogo Dodo. I reverted it, and was given this lengthy post on my talk about some guy I've never heard of. –TCN7JM 01:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe the posts to Avsim.com violate WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:OR, and I think Abrahar and the IP are the same person. –TCN7JM 01:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

That is indeed a BLP issue, especially since it's unsourced, not to mention WP:UNDUE. And the reaction from the IP to GogoDodo's action is the typical "omg I am being censored" tripe. Most likely the same person anyway. Too bad he's not going to "support" Jimbo anymore. Watchlisted. If that continues we can protect the article and/or file an SPI to have both accounts blocked and prevent further disruption. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Please see this edit [26] where a person in the news is described in defamatory medical and implied criminal terms without any reference to support the claims. μηδείς (talk) 03:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• Murder of Shaariibuugiin Altantuyaa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Yworo (talk) 03:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

This article really needs to be gone through thoroughly. A lot of statements are made about living people which may be biased and/or attributed to inadequate sources. There appears to be a lot of original research and its been tagged for this for some time. Yworo (talk) 03:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The grandson of the Pittsburgh Chief of Police is poorly behaved and gets arrested. The arrest has nothing to do with the Chief's tenure. Is it suitable for inclusion in the biography of the Chief? I say no, but would appreciate other opinions: Talk:Nathan Harper#Nathan Harper III-_GrapedApe (talk) 00:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I see this discussion is maturing, and welcome the further opinion and clarity. Any suggestions on a reasonable compromise would be appreciated at the talk link GrapedApe provided. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 16:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The answer is still "no". GrapedApe is correctly interpreting the relevant policies. Yworo (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I removed the unsourced names of non-notable relatives from the infobox. —rybec 20:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Bongaliaa and some IPs have been adding contents (mostly to Sridevi [award section] and also 58th Filmfare Awards) without providing any reliable sources. The sources they have provided are mostly youtube links. I also requested pc-protection (which was declined by HJ Mitchell) for some days earlier when IP and this user were adding articles without providing any reliable source. HJ Mitchell suggested to report the user(s) when things continue again. When I reported the user to WP:AIV ealier today, I was sent here. So here I am now the issue. Torreslfchero (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I just reverted the last edit. What the heck. Anyway, I'd suggest you stub that, remove anything that isn't properly sourced and then start over. If the disruptive editing continues, protection is certainly indicated and I can request it myself. I have it on my watchlist, so if you're going to edit, edit away. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Now, another newly registered user has been adding the same content which was reverted over the past few days. Could an admin semi-protect the article? Torreslfchero (talk) 10:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

5 years back a 15 year girl from England was raped and murdered in Goa in India

This is her Wikipedia profile

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarlett_Keeling

A few days ago, a HelpDesk Call was raised about Wikipedia User Vanischenu from India leaving comments about the personal life of the mother of the murdered girl - like her partners and which partner was the father of which child. Etc Etc. He even wrote in the Wikipedia profile that the murdered teenager had written in her diary that she had had sex

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#Wikipedia_Editors_removed_UK_Murder_Victim_page_3_times._Created_again

Wikipedia Editor Bencherlite felt those lines about the murder victim's Mother's personal life were so inappropriate in the Help Desk Call itself that he rightly redacted them from the Help Desk Call itself. Bencherlite wrote :"Redacted some of the above - if you don't think the content is appropriate, don't quote it and make it more prominent"

Another Wikipedia Editor Canoe1967 quickly removed all the lines about the personal life of the murdered teenager and her surving Mother. And he did a good job in balancing the wikipedia profile. The profile looked OK after editing by Canoe1967. Canoe1967 gave a friendly advice to the user who left such personal comments in the profile: "Other editors may consider that as WP:UNDUE etc. You should try not to make the article look like a tabloid piece or it may be deleted as POV pushing. You could try asking at WP:BLPN for advice and assitance.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)"

But Wikipedia user Vanischenu has persisted and rolled back Wikipedia Editor Canoe1967's balanced editing. He has restored all his personal comments about the mother of the murdered girl. Vanischenu has also not raised this with WP BLPN as he was advised.

So I am raising this with WP BLPN. Can someone advise what should be the parameters / boundaries while updating a Wikipedia profile about the parents / siblings of any murder victim?. Is it appropriate to talk about the partners of the mother of a murder victim? Or what a British teenager wrote in her personal diary? Or mention that few Goan authorities quizzed the mother about neglect when the Mother has always held that the same powerful people in Goa were behind the murder and cover up of her daughters murder? Every article by credible media like BBC, Guardian, Independant describes this as a murder coverup.

In the past Wikipedia has removed her profile 3 times probably because it had similar issues. Wuser999 (talk) 08:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I've done some scrubbing. Someone who can review the previously deleted versions, please consider whether this can be speedied as a similar re-creation. It's not a notable murder -- it really needs to be deleted (and then salted as well). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

It is not eligible for WP:CSD#G4 as it has never been deleted by AFD previously, and it is different enough from a previous version for me to feel uncomfortable speedying for BLP reasons. I think this needs to go to AFD. GiantSnowman 09:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• Okay, AfD it is. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

It's too unfortunate that the article read like that. It was never intended.···Vanischenu^「m/_Talk」 15:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• Annie Duke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm working with a firm that is building a new website for the professional poker player Annie Duke, and they've pointed out some issues with the article that strike me as having BLP implications. Ms. Duke was co-founder of a poker league that went bankrupt, and someone has written a highly POV section about it, filled with innuendo and based on weak sources. I've posted my assessment on the article's Talk page (see here) suggesting either that the section be struck (maybe) or that I can propose a NPOV version based RS verification. All input welcome, and I'd like to focus discussion on that article's Talk page. Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

This one is likely to depend on discussion at WP:RSN, particularly regarding this source. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

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

The date of birth is incorrect. As per the page his date of birth is 7th January 1967 and he would have been 17 in 1984 when he is supposed to have been doing his MA (Post Graduation) and got a scholarship to NSD. This is highly highly unlikely and therefore the date of birth needs revision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparjiayla (talk • contribs) 17:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The birth date of 7 January 1967 is referenced; if you have an alternative birth date with a reliable source then please feel free to provide it, and discuss the matter on the article talk page. Regards, GiantSnowman 17:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Just a head's up, Kimya Dawson just asked everyone to edit her Wikipedia page through Twitter. Somebody may want to keep an eye on that. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 00:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Watchlisted and will request protection if it gets too bad. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

It appears that the User:CSetch has been inserting unpublished full dates and places of birth of British personages in England from the records of the General Register Office of the Home Office into the pertaining (and offending) articles thereof, in apparent and possible contradiction inconsistent with the Wikipedia:BLPPRIMARY policy. -- 178.78.91.46 (talk) 13:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Ow. Left a message on the user's talk page asking them to stop and come over here to chat. Hopefully he will stop we won't have to request a block. So far I see about ~80 amended BLPs with citations sourced to the GRO, but I'd have to check how many of these are living people, I suspect WP:BLPPRIMARY isn't as critical for bios of people who are deceased. And yeah, we routinely get requests to remove middle names and birth dates. Thank you for reporting this. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

This former boxer was accused of rape, but the Crown Prosecution Service decided not to take the case to trial and he was formally found not guilty. (See the ref in the article). Seems unfair to continue to hold the detail about this in his biog, but wondered what is normally done in these cases? --Dweller (talk) 17:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I made some changes to the Personal Life section. [30] I noticed, and tried to correct, several places in that section where the article was slanted against Hide:

• article said "Hide was involved in a violent incident in a Norwich night club" but source said he had been "attacked by a group of men."

• article said "he ran off, discarding a knife with a ten-inch blade. This resulted in his subsequent arrest and conviction for 'possession of a bladed article'" but the source said nothing about him running off and said it was a kitchen knife.

• about the rape trial, the article said Hide "entered no plea" but the source said "the prosecution offered no evidence."

• about the man who was killed at Hide's house, the article said "a murder enquiry has been started" but didn't mention that the police believe Hide wasn't present, nor did it mention that someone else has been arrested for the killing.

WP:WELLKNOWN would apply to the rape trial, I think: it could be mentioned if there are multiple, reliable sources for it. Right now the article only has one source for it. I found and added more sources. —rybec 19:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd already addressed some other issues that were perjorative to him. Looks like someone who dislikes him has been selectively editing with negative material. I'll keep it watchlisted. --Dweller (talk) 11:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• Ronnie Radke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'd appreciate more eyes on this article, where I have removed a quantity of unsourced and poorly-sourced content. Some of what I removed is worthy of inclusion, if it can be reliably sourced, but I have concerns about some of the remaining content and suspect more clean-up would be beneficial. Rivertorch (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oh god, here we go again. I've reverted: it's the same shit every single time again, and it needs to be re-written and re-verified by editors who know something about BLP guidelines and stuff (it's the fans and the haters getting it on in that article). In the meantime, I semi-protected it, this time for three months, since this has been going on for way too long. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 05:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• Ankit Fadia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some editors are trying to attack the subject with unreliable sources with a side of puppetry thrown in. Watchers welcome.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Watching. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Same. A nice thorny example of the differences between rs for claims and rs for facts. a13ean (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• Cathy Davidson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Houston Baker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Miriam Cooke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Anne Allison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ariel Dorfman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Michael Hardt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Alice Kaplan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Claudia Koonz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Pedro Lasch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Walter Mignolo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mark Anthony Neal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Alex Rosenberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Need intervention to avoid an edit war. The "Duke Lacrosse Controversy" section has been added (and removed) several times in the last couple of years. When added, it has been tagged as a possible BLP issue or vandalism, or WP: Weight and WP: Undue. The same exchange has been happening on the wikipedia entries for all "Signatories" listed in the Group of 88 entry: Houston Baker, Miriam Cooke, Anne Allison, Ariel Dorfman, Michael Hardt, Alice Kaplan, Claudia Koonz, Pedro Lasch, Walter Mignolo, Mark Anthony Neal and Alex Rosenberg.

The "controversy" is based on an advertisement published in 2006. The ad's supporters claim it was a statement about the sexism and racism on campus in the media storm after the incident.[32]. The writers of the section claim that it was a "a controversial letter attacking the players and thanking protesters for 'making a collective noise' on 'what happened to this young woman'" and that "The 'Group of 88' letter has since come to be regarded as a notorious example of unfair prejudgment." There are only a handful of newspaper articles from 2006 and one book by KC Johnson that are used as citations. I believe these sections are written in a biased manner, are based on a view held by a minority viewpoint (i.e. conspiracy theory), and are given undue weight compared to other professional accomplishments of these academics.

Not sure how to stop the editing exchange. Please help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.43.222 (talk) 21:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you could resolve the conflict through editing, rather than simply blanking a section you don't like and making conspiracy accusations? Seriously, you're really straining the whole AGF idea...

The reason there aren't more sources is because you haven't asked for specific parts to be sourced. You haven't even made anything resembling a BLP complaint other than personal opinion. Is the current phrasing good? Nope. Sucks. And overly dramatic. So, fix it, or wait for someone else to, or make a direct argument for what you specifically want sourced or rewritten. It may suck, but doesn't even approach the level necessary to delete the whole thing.

No more of this, "aha! It takes TWO clicks to prove membership! Full blank!" or, "nobody's heard of a so-called Group of 88 outside of wikipedia" nonsense (which was painfully easy to disprove).

And since people ranging from (shudder) Ann Coulter to Cathy Davidson herself have commented on her personal involvement in the fiasco... claiming that any mention is undue seems silly. Not even Davidson herself agrees with you. So... discussion and improvement, rather than inflammatory language and forum-shopping? Yes? 72.88.63.188 (talk) 09:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not trying to forum shop. Just trying to get other Wiki editors involved, as it doesn't seem like you and I can come to a consensus on this issue, and the same discussion/exchange has been happening on several other BLP pages. My reading of the BLP guidelines is that the burden of evidence lies on the person adding information, and that editors should always err on the side of caution, which is why I thought a full blank was needed in this case. Also, if you thought it was poorly written, why did you just paste the text back? Why not actually improve what you're trying to post, especially on a BLP? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.43.222 (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• I've taken a look, and the large, detailed "controversy" sections in several of the above BLPs are indeed WP:UNDUE. Case in point: Anne Allison. I'll give the IP a moment to remove these sections. I will curtail them myself if they remain. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 16:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'll also note that sources in the passage that was copied/pasted into several BLPs don't even mention the subjects of the BLPs; example: here. The sources given in the "controversy" section are 100% inapposite because they fail to so much as mention these living persons. The fact that one of the two sources is a blogspot source is truly unacceptable. JFHJr (㊟) 17:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and removed the clear cases of copy-paste based on negative/controversy blog sources which do not mention any of the living subjects at hand. Remaining are: Houston Baker and Anne Allison. Any hands and eyes as to sourcing and WP:WEIGHT will be appreciated. JFHJr (㊟) 17:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

It's my bedtime but one of you may care for this one--it's a resume with a COI for a possibly notable person. Enjoy. Drmies (talk) 05:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Depuffed a bit - he might be notable but the article is pretty bad. Collect (talk) 16:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I removed the "advert" tag. These phrases still remaining have a promotional tone, but are potentially verifiable:

• "over 500 articles"
• "worked directly with" —rybec 21:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

K. A. Paul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I've copied the post below from my talk page as it really belongs here:

Mr. Dougweller, I am Dr. K A Paul's assistant and owing that 90% of the information that Wikipedia is publishing about Dr. K A Paul is wrong and is written in a libellous way, we want all information about Dr. K A Paul to be remove from Wikipedia, the entire page that talks Dr. K A Paul we want to be delete from this website... I have tried to provide to Wikipedia the right information about Dr. Paul, by editing and posting the right information and trying to correct all the false information on it, but Wikipedia keeps changing it to their own way, giving to the public wrong information by slandering Dr. K A Paul... You are obviously one of Wikipedia editors and not just a person from the general public providing Wikipedia with information, is obvious to me that you have orders from your bosses to keep Dr. K A Paul's page in a certain way and obviously gossip sales more than the real facts, I can provide all documentation needed to prove that I am Dr. K A Paul's assitant, ( I have been his assitant for more than 10 years) and I can provide all documentation needed to prove that almost all information that Wikipedia is publishing about Dr. K A Paul is false and wrong. Is obvious to me that Wikipedia is not a public forum as they are trying to show to the public, yes anybody can adit Wikipedia articles but right away Wikepedia own editors will change all information back to their own way, I am telling this for my own experience as I have edited Wikipedia articles and right away all information that I have posted is deleted by one of Wikipedia own editors, ( and the information I have posted is factual and I posted it in a respectful way as well) but however is deleted by one of Wikipedia own editors, therefore the best is to remove all and each one of the articles that talks about Dr. K A Paul on this website, as Dr. K A Paul doesn't need any of Wikipedia articles talking and or gossiping about him, and I am making this statement as Dr. K A Paul's assistant and representative on this matter.

Sincerely NCJM — Preceding unsigned comment added by NCJM (talk • contribs) 02:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

As you can see by looking at the article's history, his edits have been reverted by me and another editor basically as unsourced. I did amend the bit about US citizenship - and I'm not bothered what happens to that so long as it is attributed or perhaps removed. The bit about a flying death trap is in the source and the article can't claim that no crew member said that without a reliable source. I don't know if he's responsible for avoiding a Qu'ran burning but we would need a source, probably attributed to claim he was. I removed the bit about Paul being committed to a mental institution - I wasn't sure about the sourcing and couldn't find anything about what happened to him if he was admitted - maybe it never happened, maybe it was an error and he was released immediately, I don't know but it doesn't belong in the article without considerably more detail and several reliable sources. Dougweller (talk) 12:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Further emended per WP:BLP. Collect (talk) 15:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The article looked better in 2007 than it does now. Since then the "controversy" section has been added and expanded and other information deleted, including the chronology[33]. Major changes are needed, and maybe semi-protection or pending changes. Peter James (talk) 19:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Juini Booth is requesting that his information be revised and carefully edited. He would like it to reflect his website more accurately. Revisions include (1) spelling of his professional name, (2) Succinct references to various spellings by many people over forty years for reasons that need not be explained. Additional content is necessary, so updating is requested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glodawn55 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I am the initial author of this page and the primary contributor. I converted the reference into footnotes and added quoted text for his name variations (it's not clear to me whether it's other people spelling his name wrong or him being creative). The page does need updating, though I do not have any handy sources for his most recent work. Chubbles (talk) 00:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

"His professional name is currently Juini Booth, though his nickname has been spelled Jiunie, Junie, Joony, Jooney, Joonie, Juni, Juney, and Junius, over the course of his career" That lead sentence is far too long. Move it to a section on spellings or just shorten to: "His professional name is currently Juini Booth, though his nickname has been spelled in numerous ways over the course of his career."--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. Quick question. I've just been warned for removing a link to a self-published work from the article Judith Collins. My question is: are there any circumstances where it is appropriate to leave in an article about a living person, links to self-published works highly critical of their target? Thanks. Daveosaurus (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• I don't care for negative SPS, especially in BLPs, and I believe policy is weighted against that sort of thing. This person is a public figure, however, so you might have some difficulty persuading a consensus of editors that the source is out of line. Let's see what other people think. Qworty (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I was under the impression that BLP applied to all people, even politicians (of whom I actually do not think very much, but if I wanted to go on at length about that I'd blog about it, not put it up on what I've been treating as a neutral and factual information source). Daveosaurus (talk) 09:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• The source in this case, Flying Blind by Roger Brooking, has some impressive references, such as [34] and [35]. The latter calls Brooking "an expert on rehabilitation" of drug/alcohol addicts. On the other hand, it is being used as a source by its author. On the gripping hand (as far as I am concerned), the author has made and is continuing to make substantial contributions to a range of Wikipedia articles, and has agreed as a compromise not to link to the website selling the book. New Zealand wikipedians are deeply divided over the author's use of his book.-gadfium 00:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• I think we need to be careful with regards to ref [2] you state above. It is clear from the discussion of Flying Blind at Talk:Department_of_Corrections_(New_Zealand) that the court didn't actually say this.... Clarke43 (talk) 08:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I was trying to not get bogged down in the personalities of all this but for balance also see [36]. Who I suppose I am now going to have to go and notify seeing as I've now mentioned him. (never mind I see you're already on to it). Daveosaurus (talk) 09:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• No self-published sources are permitted in BLPs except those published by the subject, and then only for non-controversial and non-selfserving facts. Even the "recognized expert" exception is not permitted for SPS in BLPs, due to academic feuds, etc. All sources in a BLP must be independent, third-party reliable sources. Yworo (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought that was the case. If you've got time (no worry if you haven't, I've got no idea how busy anyone on the internet is, I have hardly any time to use wikipedia myself) there are a couple of other articles (the current versions of which are largely the work of the same editor) whose lack of neutrality is also a bit of a concern, Sensible Sentencing Trust and Department of Corrections (New Zealand), that could probably do with a look over by an experienced uninvolved editor. Daveosaurus (talk) 09:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• What Daveosaurus failed to mention is me posting the following on his talk page: "For the record, I sorted out the referencing for that article and put that reference there." Schwede66 02:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

There are a lot of things I didn't bother bringing up, as I said to Gadfium I was trying to not get bogged down in personalities. Even though I do normally preview edits before going ahead and was fairly sure I'd previewed that one, when you brought that up I checked the page as it was then [37] and couldn't see anything obviously broken on it. If what I did, did break anything then perhaps I or someone who knows the technical side of things can send that to the site code developers (or whatever they're called here) so that it shows an error message? Otherwise I still fail to see the reason for all this bent-out-of-shapeness considering that I did say you could go ahead and revert it you were sure that the previous version was acceptable. Daveosaurus (talk) 09:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• The BLP policy is clear that no SPS are permitted on BLPs regardless of who the author is or who uses the reference and any material or references of this type should be removed. Clarke43 (talk) 08:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

These two articles have been edited by Concerneddownsouth (talk · contribs) to add detailed accusations of anti-Semitism, using unacceptable sources. This editor has asked me on my talk page what he/she did wrong, so there's some chance of getting control of things here -- but I can't spend any more time editing today, so if someone could please keep tabs on the articles and if possible help provide the editor with some clues... —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Soosim (talk · contribs) has restored some of the material in question, even though the source in question -- Mondoweiss.net -- is very much a questionable source. There's nothing definitive at RSN about Mondweiss, but I think that until something is decided in those terms the material should remain excluded (contentious poorly sourced etc.). The article is on 1RR and I'd prefer not to do this myself (having already removed it last night). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

hi nomo - i didn't get a notice about this - funny, i was just reviewing a different item on this page! anyway, mondoweiss is not RS for anything 'newsy' or 'factual'. it can be RS for quotes that people themselves write. no different than an op-ed author being quoted for what s/he wrote. why would this be a problem? let me know... Soosim (talk) 14:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's the deal, Soosim: the material in question was removed by two different editors per BLP and out of concern for the nature of the sources. It is then disturbing to see you restore part of it without gaining consensus for doing so; it's as if you had never heard of WP:BLP. I considered going straight to ANI about it with a request for discussion on a topic ban for you in relation to BLP articles connected to I/P; I'm still contemplating that. I encourage you to revert your edit and refrain from repeating it until other editors are satisfied that the source is okay. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't familiar with either source. I looked at the "about" pages of both sites and saw that both disclaim responsibility for the postings made on them (emphasis mine):

Mondoweiss is a news website devoted to covering American foreign policy in the Middle East, chiefly from a progressive Jewish perspective. [...] This site aims to build a diverse community, with posts from many authors. The views of these authors do not necessarily represent the views of Horowitz and Weiss.

[38]

+972 is a blog-based web magazine that is jointly owned by a group of journalists, bloggers and photographers whose goal is to provide fresh, original, on-the-ground reporting and analysis of events in Israel and Palestine. [...]The bloggers alone are responsible for the content posted on their channels; the positions expressed on individual blogs reflect those of their authors, and not +972 as a whole.

[39]

There's no indication that either site checks into the factiness of the stories posted on it, so I think the doubt of these sites as reliable sources has validity. Personally I found Ali Abunimah's blog credible (largely because he's pro-Palestinian but casts doubt on Berlin's explanation), but it may not meet Wikipedia standards. I notice that Soosim added this topic to the Wikipedia article about Abunimah.

This did get some coverage in the mainstream media:

• Fox News op-ed

• National Post news

• National Post op-ed

• another National Post op-ed

• Jerusalem Post

all extremely critical of Berlin. If this topic is to be covered, I think it would be good to mention one more part of the response that was posted on freegaza.org: Soosim has left out the claim that the controversial message was intended to be part of a discussion of "propaganda and racism." The material he added to the Ali Abunimah article just says she claims to have "only meant it for her personal Facebook account"--the claim that she meant to post it only to her friends. The omission makes a great deal of difference. —rybec 03:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I have no objection to inclusion of critical material here as long as there are better sources. (I certainly don't think of myself as an ally of someone with Berlin's views). The Jerusalem Post article is probably the best bet. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

and i have no objection to clarifying, though i got lost in the discussion above. if someone can present the sentence, maybe that will help? Soosim (talk) 07:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)