Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive156

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search



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

Chrisrus would like to get some attention to NXIVM. I plan to follow his links and look at the article myself but unfortunately it will take a couple of days minimum for me to get to it. Hopefully others can review it.

There is concern, not implausible given the history of the article, that it is being edited by people who are paid advocates. At the same time, as NXIVM and Keith Raniere have been subject to substantial negative press coverage, it's important that good editors take a very close look at the article to make sure it is neither a whitewash nor a hatchet job.

Chrisrus has in the past expressed very negative sentiments about the subject, and has been very very good about avoiding direct editing given his sentiments. He expresses valid concerns, I think, that the coverage is whitewashed. In any event, it deserves scrutiny. Having some familiarity with the case having read a lot of the press coverage in the past, I can assure potentially interested editors that it's at least a very interesting topic! --Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:05, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you JW.

To the reader, here are the links JW was talking about:

Please read this article and associated stuff from Forbes:

The cover:
Art work that went with the article:
Article and sidebars about other executive coaching programs:
First follow-up:
Second follow-up:

After having read the magazine, have a look at the description of the magazine article written by a NXIVM fan, here:


The point is to compare the two and match them if you don't think they match. Or to get someone else to do it. Or to say "yes, that's a fair description of the Forbes coverage, that's fine, I approve." They expected to have to work with others on compromise version, but no one said anything so it went into the article as they'd written it.

That's not all but enough for now. Chrisrus (talk) 17:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Ghazal Omid

Here, we have an article subject (article) who's too notable for WP:BIODELETE as established by two AfDs. For a while, Qwyrxian was trying to help her, and more recently I've taken over giving some assistance. She doesn't have a problem with Wikipedia per se, but rather has some issues with the way some of her article is written. Some of it (people mistakenly writing Arabian Gulf for Persian Gulf, which apparently causes great consternation among Iranians like herself) is easy enough to fix, but there are other problems that I can't address. See the last section on her talkpage for my attempts at discussion with her (and if you read anything above it, your eyes will bleed out of your sockets). I especially need help from someone who has access to either a Kindle or some other e-reader, for reasons that will be obvious when you look at that discussion (I don't, I still like reading long prose on paper when possible) and/or someone who has a basic understanding of Shi'a Islam, but any help would be greatly appreciated. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Come on, any takers here? Could also use someone with some image experience; she needs a bit of help with a book cover image. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not letting it go... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
It's a shame, because this is essentially what she was complaining about: Twice now, AfD's have agreed that she's notable enough for inclusion, but apparently she's not important enough for any of us editors to carefully watch the bio and try to improve it. I'm not saying it should all be changed per her request...but it seems we owe here some help. I've stepped back, because I think I may have communicated badly with her in the past (I admit that I have gotten frustrated with her lack of understanding how Wikipedia works). But it's kind of a systemic problem if we're going to keep around articles that the subjects themselves don't want, tell the subject s/he shouldn't edit directly, and then not really find a way to address his/her concerns. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
As a little further encouragement, I'm reading her book now, and you could hardly find something more interesting to work on. I intend to continue working with her, but we still need other people. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Andrea Mitchell

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

The section Andrea_mitchell#Romney_Wawa_remarks_Controversy tortures the sources to make them talk. Numerous sources refer to the controversy in question. However, virtually all of them point the finger at MSNBC and "MSNBC's editing" as opposed to Mitchell, the topic of the article.

  • Currently, the section gives four sources for "Mitchell came under criticism". Three of them do not say anything of the sort, identifying MSNBC as the target of criticism. The last one, Fox News, is the only one to specifically say that Mitchell was criticized.
  • Next, the section continues with "(Mitchell was criticized) as having misrepresented" with a cite to a New York article that has precious little to say about Mitchell ("On her show today Andrea Mitchell dubbed the incident Romney's "super market scanner moment." She's more accurate than she realized.") No "criticism" or "misrepresenting". Note that the section implies that she did not know the tape misrepresented the occurrence (more on that later).
  • For "she mocked presidential candidate Mitt Romney for what she suggested might be his own "\'supermarket scanner moment'", we're given a source that says, "Mitchell supposed that the comments could be Romney’s 'supermarket scanner moment.'" (no "mocked").
  • The remainder of the section is off-topic, it does not say anything about Mitchell ("he edited clip, [16] made it appear that Mr. Romney was amazed by fairly standard technology at a local Wawa convenience store, when in fact the full clip [17] shows he was comparing the inefficiency of the government sector to the efficiency of the private. Romney's edited remarks begin with the Wawa anecdote and end at "It's amazing," omitting the entire point of the anecdote.[18] This was first noted by blogger Sooper Mexican.[19]")
  • One of the original sources used in this section (original version, yikes!) was a Politico article that specifically exonerated Mitchell ("After the clip cut, Mitchell and MSNBC contributor Chris Cillizza broke out into laughter — which is understandable, given that they both had been led to believe that Romney was wowed by a simple machine."). After I pointed that out, the source was removed as "redundant".

Are any of these controversial claims adequately sourced? (Background: The section is one of several that have popped up over the years targeting MSNBC/NBC newscasters/commentators based on postings on newsbusters, typically supported by a youtube copyvio of the broadcast in question. When the sections are removed, those supporting the section repeatedly claim that the youtube video proves the issue exists and/or that newsbusters is a reliable source. See also Talk:Contessa_Brewer#Newsbusters_is_a_credible_source.3F, Talk:Kelly_O'Donnell#Conflict_of_interest (Talk:Kelly_O'Donnell#SummerPhD.27s_Silly.2C_Biased_Vandalism, Talk:Kelly_O'Donnell#SummerPhd.27s_Concerns_Resolved_by_Direct_Link_to_MSNBC_video, Talk:Kelly_O'Donnell#Controversy.3F), others I've forgotten.) - SummerPhD (talk) 06:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Sorry your request for assistance hasn't been answered yet Summer - its quite a complicated request - regarding reliable sourcing and weight of reporting and neutrality - the subject is as I have seen on wiki extremely partisan - perhaps a NPOV experienced USA citizen will yet comment to assist you - Youreallycan 15:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Although it is currently long winded, there are enough sources saying that the station was criticized after the clip aired on Mitchell's show. I think the subsection should be reduced to a certain extent but it is some just as troubling POV to ignore that the controversy stemmed from an airing on her show and that she was discussed in the sources plenty. (talk) 06:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC) (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for the comment, Anonymous. The network was criticized after the clip, which originally aired on an earlier show aired on Andrea Mitchell Reports. This article is not about the network, the earlier show or Andrea Mitchell Reports. This article is about Andrea Mitchell, a living person. She has been mentioned in several of the sources and I am in the process of trimming the section down to what the sources actually say. They clearly do not say much of what has been larded into this section. Over the past few days, the two editors (and occasional IPs) that have been supporting the most egregious claims seem to have backed off. After I've finished making the section actually reflect the sources and discuss Mitchell, we'll see what's left and who has what to say. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Quinn Norton

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

Danny O'Brien (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, I'm Danny O'Brien; my daughter is mentioned on recent edits to this page, with links to an article in the Sunday Mirror. The Sunday Mirror is regarded as a tabloid in the UK, and the referred article contains a bunch of fairly obvious errors (neither Quinn nor I are Irish, for instance, which makes the headline and my mention incorrect). The quotes from myself and Quinn are invented. My understanding of Wikipedia:NPF, especially when dealing with relatively unknown personalities is that the article should "focus on high quality secondary sources" -- I'd ask that since this source is unreliable, is a single source, and provides information about a non-notable living person who is also a child, I'd like to suggest removing this reference. Is this an appropriate place to check the consensus of other editors before doing so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannyobrien (talkcontribs) 22:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I've cleaned up Norton's article (and a little cleaning up of yours, too). Thanks for bringing the problem to our attention AND for doing it so nicely.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for checking it out -- the new editing system and form at the top of this page make it a lot easier to find the right place to discuss this! --Dannyobrien (talk) 02:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Danny, there's also Quinn's talk page, where concerns about the article can be raised. As the editor that originally added the reference, I'm sorry to hear that the Sunday Mirror article was factually incorrect. Given the tone and the seemingly public nature of the comments, it seemed that you et al had wanted to highlight your experiences, which is why I added it. Regards, Pro crast in a tor (talk) 04:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

John Roberts (SCOTUS chief justice)

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

If an admin with "article protect" powers is reading this, I'd advise John Roberts be protected. Already some media are reporting that a vandal added the word "coward" to Robert's infobox within minutes of the Obamacare decision. Someone else took it down almost immediately but there will probably be more defacements to come. Might want to consider locking down the other SCOTUS members' articles for now too until emotions simmer down. (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

It's semi-protected; but the most recent vandalism (a nasty one) was by a registered editor who mostly works on video game articles. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Sigma Huda

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

The article is biased against the subject of the article, i.e. Ms Sigma Huda. It does not mention anything about her human rights activism, despite her being an internationally renowned human rights expert, especially on women and children. It does not even mention her various human rights organisations, achievements or anything from her readily available biography (being a former UN Special Rapporteur), neither does it mention her achievements as a lawyer who has conducted and won many landmark judgements in Bangladesh and been an elected member of the Bangladesh Bar Council various times. Most importantly, and this is the libellous part, it only mentions the corruption charges brought against her but fails to mention that she was convicted by a special tribunal set up by the Army (!) and that the High Courts of Bangladesh overturned the conviction. I was taught about her work in my Sex and Gender Law and Human Rights Law courses during my LLB in the UK, so I find the quality of this article atrocious and intend to bring it to the notice of Ms Sigma Huda so she can take appropriate actions to defend her reputation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clcbd (talkcontribs) 17:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The article is seriously out of date, incomplete, and poorly referenced (especially for a BLP). Sadly, English-language search engines don't give sufficient information to go on. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Chloe Smith

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

Repeated inclusion of trivial media interview containing numerous viewpoints / opinions (not facts) that sully article as politically motivated. Political axe grinding is for opinion boards - not factual articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I removed the opinion sentence from The Telegraph as inappropriate. I reworded the rest as undue, although it was reasonably source-compliant.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Better though still not sure what a former politicians (Prescott) opinions about the current chancellor have to do with a factual biography of Chloe Smith. It is but an irrelevant opinion surely? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I understand your point, and I was a bit on the fence about it, but the idea was that Osborn sent Smith for the interview rather than appear himself so she would take the heat for his action. Actually, not that uncommon in politics. I decided not to remove it because it provided a bit of counterpoint to the criticism of Smith.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen this before. An editor adds some material to the section complained about here. I revert as I thought there was already enough material for this one incident. Then, the same editor removes all of the material about the incident. I haven't reverted, partly because I've been reverting too much on the article, and partly because it's kind of amusing in a weird way. Was it pique? Dyslexia? Dual personality? Maybe the editor's username provides a clue.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2012‎ (UTC)

I've had a look at edit history and have taken what I think are corrective steps. Removal of reliably sourced content based on the theme of atheism seems without basis. JFHJr () 06:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Pat O'Shane

Pat O'Shane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This may still be too much of a hatchet job. I'm too inexperienced with BLPs to be sure, so other eyes may be useful. I just deleted a recent edit which extended the criticism section to 60% of the article [1] If you're interested, take a peek at this short BLP of an Australian Aboriginal woman magistrate. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Anthony, I've put the article on my watchlist and will try to help out. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, SV. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Interesting AfD

Resolved: Deleted. JFHJr () 06:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
...or delete it. That works, too. Dru of Id (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Jamake Highwater

Resolved: Low-activity BLP has been stubbed. Re-post as necessary. JFHJr () 05:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

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

This article is a disgrace. The subject died in 2001 but presumably has family still living. The article focuses mostly on contradicting the subject's claim that he was of native American descent. Otherwise, it cares very little about the actual life of the subject, who appears to have otherwise been a well known and prolific American writer and scholar. The claim that Highwater was a fraud appears based largely on a single, dubious blog. Googling turns up few other sources propounding this theory aside from the said blog and Wikipedia. There is very little in the way of reliable sourcing, the grammar is bad, and so on. The article has existed since 2006 and hasn't been touched for about a year. I wouldn't believe a word of this article and feel it probably should be stubbed. Very sad. Alex Harvey (talk) 16:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Sad, but pretty common place for "low traffic" bios. Just keep plugging away :) --Mollskman (talk) 16:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I've taken it back to a stub, [2] using the New York Times obit as a source. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Matthew Fox

Resolved: Content sourced. JFHJr () 21:15, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Matthew Fox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is not urgent but from time to time various places in Pennsylvania are added as his birthplace. I have a vague memory of seeing him mention that in an interview during the first season of Lost but I also know that his family did not live there very long. Searches that I have done on the net have been inconclusive and I mostly find sites that are mirrors of WikiP. Thus, Wyoming has been left in the article. I thought that I would post this as I know many of you are great at getting to the bottom of this kind of thing so any help you can give will be much appreciated. Thanks for your time in looking into this. MarnetteD | Talk 16:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

From an interview in the The Daily Telegraph:
"He was born in Philadelphia, he says. 'My father was raised in a very blue-blood English family there.' Francis Fox went to private school, got a degree in geology from the University of Pennsylvania, and started working as a consultant for an oil company. But his uncle ran a ranch in Wyoming, and the summers Francis had spent there had a lasting effect. 'He fell in love with Wyoming, and with that kind of life. That was the man he always wanted to be.'...Matthew was a year old when the family moved to Wyoming. They settled in Crowheart (population 163 in the last census), on the Wind River Indian Reservation."[1] --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ Garratt, Sheryl (February 26, 2011). "Breathing space; After six seasons of Lost, Matthew Fox has followed a new direction on to the London stage". The Daily Telegraph. pp. 34, 35.
Super work and fast too boot. I'll take a stab at adding it too the article but would appreciate any improvements to my effort. MarnetteD | Talk 16:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Pat Cummings

Resolved: Sourced. JFHJr () 06:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Can someone help me keep an eye on the Pat Cummings page? An IP editor is claiming that he died today, but I don't see that reported anywhere. (It's probably too early.) The editor is a bit angry that I reverted him. Zagalejo^^^ 02:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, there's a ref now: [3]. Zagalejo^^^ 04:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Khalifa bin Salman Al Khalifa

Resolved: No reliable source for the claim. See also the related sock puppet investigation. JFHJr () 20:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Khalifa bin Salman Al Khalifa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Deaths in 2012? -- (talk) 19:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Reliable source? Government or news media would be appropriate. JFHJr () 05:33, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Bruce Walker (rugby league)

Resolved: Oversighted. JFHJr () 02:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Bruce Walker (rugby league) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can an admin revert/hide the edits by [redact - purely disruptive username] on Talk:Bruce Walker (rugby league) please. Edits on Bruce Walker (rugby league) have been reverted but are still visible in the history. Mattlore (talk) 03:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Article edits rev-deleted, talk page garbage suppressed, and the account has been blocked. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 03:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Ta :) Mattlore (talk) 06:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Martin Hosking

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

Can an editor look at resolving the split in the article as it currently looks like a wp:coatrack for a subject covered in the related article (on RedBubble). The editors have done a great job but the article has been sitting now for a couple of months without resolution. Also it would be great if the talk space could be cleared up as it contains poorly/unsourced accusations not compliant with wp:blp. Many thanks and good wishes XcommR (talk) 06:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I archived what I could - to three months historic - I would like to archive some of the attacking discussion but it will likely be replaced - there is a lot of desire to attack this subject imo - and sadly its been going on for a long time now - WP:SPA like this one Special:Contributions/Muwt5 - active for a month now only on this one BLP should imo be WP:BLPBAN ed from the article - Youreallycan 06:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Note that User:XcommR is in fact Martin Hosking -- and so the language of the opening post of this section is to be considered in the context of WP:COI. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  • You should not assert that without evidence - do you have evidence ? _ Youreallycan 07:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
You haven't bothered to read the article talk page, I take it... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
If you have evidence link to it here/provide the diff or retract your allegation - Youreallycan 07:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
My wp:COI is because I am the subject of this wp:BLP and so can also be considered authoritative on the dates. XcommR (talk) 11:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Ant - so there has been no otrs verification? The most we should assert in such situations is, the account has claimed to be (whoever/the subject of the article) although this is unverified. - we should remember to make it clear to readers of discussions, as anyone can create an account here and claim to be whoever they want.Youreallycan 13:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
There has been a long history on this article of involvement by Hoskings and by his representatives, some of it up front, some of it a little less so, some of it more cordial, and some of it a little less so, but the article has had a tortured history, in part because of that involvement.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Nomoskedasticity. The wp:COI is declared front and center on my profile. I am not sure if there is a WP policy which says I need to identify why the COI exists but feel free to link me to this policy. Also not sure I need to quote the COI on every post I make given it is the first thing you see on my profile and I am not editing but requesting edits. Please link through to any appropriate policies and I will adjust my approach XcommR (talk) 05:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

RedBubble is now an article - and the extensive coverage in the BLP is now improper. Meanwhile, the ad that was that article has also been depuffed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Jessica Canseco

Resolved: Vandalism reverted. JFHJr () 21:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned with her daughter being referred to as "halfbreed" — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Subject's email address in BLP

Resolved: Best to link websites for contact info; not e-mails. JFHJr () 21:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I emailed my local MP's constituency office on another matter, but also asked if they'd like to have his email address in his article and they said they would. Do we do that? I can't find an email parameter in his infobox. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it's not a great idea. It's sufficient that we link to their websites, which will enable people to contact them. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Cool. I added his parliament webpage, which has his email address. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

J Keith Moyer

J. Keith Moyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have reason to believe the creator of this article is using it for self-promotion and has taken it directly from his own resume. I do not believe the person is notable enough to have their own entry. There are no citations used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snitkers (talkcontribs) 18:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The creator of this article in its original stub form hasn't edited since 2007. (As to the article reading as if it were "directly from his own resume", if a link backing-up that assertion had been provided that would have been helpful.) I have tagged the article as a Biography of a living person needing additional sources. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I saw zero notability, so I nominated for deletion. Link above. JFHJr () 01:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I demur per multiple quotes in books on journalism, and multiple mentions in NYT. Collect (talk) 13:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Early life and career of Barack Obama

Some more opinions would be welcomed here: Talk:Early_life_and_career_of_Barack_Obama#CIA_Reference_Justification. An admin from the ancient days of Wikipedia seems to have trouble grasping our new policies (IMO). --NeilN talk to me 13:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Bronwyn Wilson

Resolved: Resolved. JFHJr () 04:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Bronwyn Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bronwyn Wilson has written her own biography

It list's qualifications she doesnt not have. Runs businesses that dont exsist Claims she has a doctorate - no proof of this Professors around the world use her model of learnign she designed. No proof. Has travelled the world doing seminars - No proof.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackseal666 (talkcontribs) 11:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

  • The correct way to approach this, Blackseal666, is to assert unverifiability; not to edit accusations of additional criminal acts — not supported by the source that you cited — and personal commentary into both the article and this noticeboard. Uncle G (talk) 14:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
    • note that someone not familiar with Wikipedia's WP:OR and WP:BLP would have a potential reason to make the link. One of the few sources about a " Bronwyn Wilson " in New Zealand states "Rongomai Hokianga will teach young people skills while his partner, Bronwyn Wilson". In any place outside of Wikipedia, it is understandable that someone might then link "Bronwyn Wilson" to the the "Bronwyn Hokianga" mentioned in this court reporting. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
      • You didn't read what either I or Blackseal666 actually wrote. Uncle G (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
        • Yes i did read them. I am not stating that we can make the claims in our article, but I am stating that the person who did add them was working in the standard manner of an investigative journalist and should not be expected to know that using such standard research techniques within the realms of Wikipedia is inappropriate. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
          • Well, the personal commentary included was not standard journalism, but attempting to make connections of people who may not want to have them visible is. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
            • There you go. I told you that you hadn't read what either I or Blackseal666 actually wrote. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 15:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Your post makes me uncomfortable because one has to assume that the person in the source you cite is the same person as described in our article, even though the last names are different. The article has been prodded as it has no sources (the one source it had is dead). I almost think it's a hoax article, at least as far as the Olympics part goes, as I can find nothing to indicate that she ever participated in the 1988 summer Olympics in Seoul. And New Zealand at the 1988 Summer Olympics lists Bronwyn Wilson, but Wilson doesn't show up in any of sources. In addition, that article shows Wilson as a woman, although in its history, Wilson was once listed as a man. Currently, Taekwondo at the 1988 Summer Olympics lists Wilson as a man. I'm tempted to CSD it, but I'll wait to see how the prodding goes.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Maybe, but I can't find a thing supporting her participation in the Olympics, the rest of the article doesn't exactly scream with credibility, and the history of our other articles is at best confusing. Perhaps someone with more experience in sourcing Olympics athletes could offer a more knowledgeable opinion. One of the troubles I had was trying to figure out how accurate/complete some of the websites are that allow you to search by athlete. I don't know what databases they rely on, and sometimes I wasn't sure if they had a list only of those athletes who earned a medal or all atheletes. I'll wait out the prod. The article has existed for a while, and another week isn't going to matter one way or the other.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
the official NZ Olypic site [5] has a banner that says "Find profiles of every Olypian from the New Zealand Team History" turns up zero hits for Bronwyn and zero hits for a Wilson in taekwondo. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I have stubbed the article to content that can be sourced. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I've nominated for deletion. There's no indication she meets GNG whatsoever (third party sources?); there's also no indication she passes WP:ATHLETE because demonstration sports are not Olympic competitions within the meaning of the notability guidelines. JFHJr () 02:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Z.D. Smith

Resolved: On its way. JFHJr () 01:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Z.D. Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm not sure if the subject meets notability guidelines. The subject has some association in the music industry (having participated in a band of a notable subject years before the subject was notable) and the film industry. Could someone please check if my suspicions are valid or not? There is a WP:SPA who has been editing the article and removing my maintenance tags as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not see notability. Six references are listed. The first two links are unavailable. Two are Internet Movie Database. I am not sure if this is considered a reliable secondary source but I would think not. Another reference is VGuide. This does not appear to be a fact checked source. I am not sure what the last reference is but it does not look reliable per Wiki policies. I googled ZD Smith but did not find any articles on him. I would think this article could be nominated for deletion.Coaster92 (talk) 06:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Merely being listed in IMDB does not establish notability, because IMDB's mission involves listing everything it can get its hands on - every cast member, every crew member, every episode of a 1990s sitcom. In that respect it's more like a directory - we wouldn't assume that somebody is notable just because they're in the phonebook. If IMDB had more substantial comment on a topic, that might help demonstrate notability, but I'm not sure that [6] really helps. bobrayner (talk) 09:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
1) IMDb is not a reliable source as we define it here. 2) Not everybody in the IMDb is notable; heck, not only am I in there, but so is my daughter, who was a 5-year-old appearing in the "alternative ending" of a documentary film that never made it outside the film-festival circuit. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
It sounds like we are in agreement to nominate this article for deletion?Coaster92 (talk) 06:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I've stubbed the article, which was a blatant copyvio of this WP:BLPSPS and contained supporting cites to a mirror or secondary copyvio of some sort, and to IMDB (the external link section suffices thankyaverymuch). None among those stands up as an encyclopedically reliable source for information on living persons, copyvio aside. I'll watch for further developments. JFHJr () 06:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I've now nominated for deletion. Anyone else get the impression this is an interested party? I smelled a fart, so I left a COI note for the main editor. This may need more editors' attention, as BLP content may shift during flight, regardless of whether it ever lands. JFHJr () 08:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Jason Russell

Resolved: Looks stable now. JFHJr () 01:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

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

This was previously discussed on this board here, but I feel it should be revisited. Now, I firmly believe that Russell is notable, as he had numerous sources about him long before Kony 2012 was ever released, so i'm not discussing that right now. However, as can be clearly seen in the Jason Russell article, there is a undue weight issue and a WP:GOSSIP issue. While the article can certainly be expanded with other info about Russell's life, I don't believe it can be expanded to the extent that it offsets the undue weight given to this overhyped scandal reporting issue.

This is also bleeding over into the Invisible Children, Inc. article, outside of this board's purview, but still. It is discussing a large amount of criticism without offsetting them with the positive information that does exist (see Kony 2012 for a good representation of how both sides should be shown). So, what's the first step to take here? SilverserenC 22:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the article and WP:NPOV, imo the detailed coverage of the breakdown might be out of proportion. It would be important to know what is happening with his recovery and if his distress is ongoing. I remember this incident in the news and I don't think it was in the news for long. I would agree that the coverage could be included in one or two sentences under the biography section instead of in a separate section. See if you receive any other feedback from other editors.Coaster92 (talk) 06:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Removed surplus cites, and worded it to conform with WP:BLP as much as possible. Rumours do not belong here, and what is left is the factual statement of the incident without sensationalising it. Collect (talk) 11:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
One editor insists on including the "masturbating" charge -- the guy was not charged with any crimes, and this entire section is pushing UNDUE to the breaking point. Collect (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Official statements from the parties are not "rumors", but facts. The police statement actually straight up the popular meme (sparked by the many incorrect media reports and reinforced by South Park) by pointing out that the "perhaps" masturbation call was NOT confirmed by the responding police. All the quotes and references were chosen to represent the official statements and only these with direct quotes. Even the infamous videos of the naked Russel are not mentioned, because they were not mentioned by neither the police (who didn't see him naked, and the quote clearly says he was detained while he had his underwear on) nor IC and Russel family. And regarding "not charged with any crimes", it was me who corrected "arrested" (as reported by media, again) to "detained and hospitalized" (just as the police actually said).
All this was done by us months ago, and we kept shooting down now any sensationalism and vandalism. Now revert your stupid deletions. --Niemti (talk) 17:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
And before my "desired addition" stupid quote by some guy on my talk page, it looked like that (in March): - as you see, the police statement was as misquoted by the media (stuff like "vandalizing cars" and what not). --Niemti (talk) 17:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
And here's the good version: (the quoted statement also explains that the reason of detention was for "his own safety"). Followed by two other official statements further explaining the situation (and it's weird that I have to explain THIS). --Niemti (talk) 17:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
WP:BLP requires that we edit conservatively, and Wikipedia is not a tabloid where we trumpet "someone said he might have been masturbating!!" in a long section of a biography. The person was not arested or charged with anything at all, and was simply brought to a hospital. Not much of a story to hang half a biography onto. And the same junk was inserted into the charity article as well -- where it has no rational relevance. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I have removed the contested passage from the article again as it was reinserted while discussion is still ongoing here. Per WP:BLP, the information is not to be restored until the community discusses the concerns and there is consensus reached regarding what, if any, of the contentious statements should remain in the article. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Collect. This isn't a tabloid; the text in question has legal implications, and there never was a charge or a suit, let alone a judgment. Inclusion also generally presents undue weight, regardless of sourcing. "Official statements" are just "statements." Even statements in court proceedings are generally not particularly fit for inclusion in encyclopedic biographies — cf. an article about a trial. You could "officially" allege in court, or "officially" tell the police, that the subject is a grapefruit. The removal should stand. JFHJr () 20:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The police report did not said "someone said he might have been masturbating!!". Stop saying stupid things please. Oh, and it was not "a tabloid story", about everyone reported on it. Everyone. And most of media reported it incorrectly, so ONCE AGAIN, the report (which was there for several months) is only CORRECTING the rumor, not spreading it (it's already extremely widespread, to the point of a popular meme, including being referenced in popular culture). And as of now (after the recent stupid edit), the people who think it's factual that Russsel masturbated WON'T learn from Wikipedia that he didn't and it just "perhaps masturbated" from the callers (according to the actual police statement, which was misreported by most media, but I've used sources with the actual statement that is quite different than that). And they also won't learn that "vandalizing cars" part of the meme was also just mass media being stupid.

And the other part of the stupid edit was the removal of the IC and Russel's wife statements, further explaining the incident.

Oh and nothing in the article indicated anything about "arrested or charged". Extremely to the contrary, it was very, very clearly explained how he was only detained for "his own safety" (a direct quote from the police statement) and hospitalized, and you're just talking stupid again.

As of what else to write about Russel, there's about nothing else that we (me and the others) didn't write already, and he's well known for just 3 things: co-founding and co-directing the IC after making IC the film (have their own articles), directing KONY2012 (also a separate article), and publicily going crazy (literally). Also making a few rather non-notable films (about which we wrote too). And that's all. --Niemti (talk) 20:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Please back off - repeatedly calling other editors stupid will likely get you blocked - and posting opinionated comments on this noticeboard about living people will also put you in danger of having your editing privileges removed - he didn't "go crazy" as you assert - he had temporary emotional issues, the is a NPOV BLP position - please stick to such a position in future - Youreallycan 20:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
There is no reason for there to be such a long paragraph about a single "scandal" event in a BLP. What about all the other IC films and events that he has gotten coverage for? Such as this, this, this, this, this, this, and this. SilverserenC 20:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
There's also some college news here and here. SilverserenC 20:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Oh, this has some nice info. SilverserenC 20:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not "calling other editors stupid". I'm calling edit stupid. Which it was. Past IC campaigns have their own articles (I cleaned up all/most them, even as almost nobody is reading them anyway). The only film with an article is the original Invisible Children film, which btw I've cleaned up too. For most people people Russell is this guy who did this video about Kony, and then started pacing in the street naked in these other viral videos, "masturbating and vandalizing cars" as originally reported by most mass media (and I don't mean just tabloid newspapers or TV for idiots like RussiaToday, the story was everywhere, and rather rarely reported correctly). But if you really want you can refuse to KEEP trying to correct this meme, after all the guy's already almost forgotten[7] (and he had over 100,000 views just in a single day on March 16 due to you-know-what, in few more months there will be just no views at all) and I just realized I don't really care anymore too. --Niemti (talk) 21:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh and I don't watch this thread too. I just realized that not only I don't care, I also so don't care. --Niemti (talk) 21:15, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

@User:Niemti - "I just realized that not only I don't care, I also so don't care. " - thats great as your desired edit is rejected from the article - and your reverting didn't work for you you appear to have given up on discussion - so lets close this as resolved. - Personally I would immediately investigate you for previous banned accounts, sock-puppets and proxy servers. Youreallycan 21:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen any valid arguments for removal... At the moment it is censuring the facts and it doesn't seem in line with Wiki policy. The information that was there has many reliable sources, intense interest and it corrects many false beliefs going around concerning what happened. The information is correcting the tabloid journalism as well as the mistakes of respected news sources. An example of deceitful censorship is that there are several videos of him nude, but the article only mentions underwear. Leaving out the police statement is not justified from the current arguments either. (talk) 21:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Here's one, edit history - the Thailand IP (from Bangkok apparently - looks like a WP:Proxy to me) with four edits, two to this issue and ... two trivia edits - Youreallycan 21:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I avoid sticking to an account or single IP address, as I hate getting bogged down in crap. I just edit what I happen to be reading and let others revert or keep. Now that I've given my two cents for this topic, I'll be going. (talk) 23:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
LoL - yea - goodbye - Youreallycan 23:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Bob Lynn

Resolved: Stable for now. Re-post as necessary. JFHJr () 01:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

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

I don't have the highest opinion of Representative Lynn and would rather have stayed out of this, but it is election season, and no doubt we should expect this and other similar instances to occur. An SPA has flooded this article with some rather blatant POV regarding Lynn's political career. Not only do I not view this as encyclopedic content, but no one is stepping up to the plate with what could be considered encyclopedic content. Lynn was a relative newcomer to Alaska when first elected, and is still somewhat of a mysterious figure here, so that should probably be expected. Anyone from WP:California have any access to relevant information?

One section of the article reads: "Facing a tough reelection battle in 2012." I haven't really paid that much attention to goings-on in Anchorage lately, but my first thought was "how so?" when you consider that Lynn's opponent is the same one he faced in 2010 and defeated by approximately 68 to 32 percent.RadioKAOS (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I've removed all unsourced information since I find the tone and content contentious (see WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP). I've also removed a cite to a user-generated wiki website (see WP:BLPSPS, WP:RS). Finally, I've removed what I identified as editorializing or synthesis of ideas, not contained within any proximately cited reliable source — it's inappropriate in a BLP. It could use more work. If political silly season hits the article hard, I suggest requesting protection. JFHJr () 21:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Alexander Cornell du Houx

Resolved: Re-post here as necessary. JFHJr () 01:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Alexander Cornell du Houx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

COIN is passing this onto you guys. User:Paul Cornell du Houx is the father of Alexander Cornell du Houx,[8] the subject of the above article. User:Paul Cornell du Houx has not been editing in violation of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline. I closed the discussion as such.[9] The BLP problem comes in undue weight given to the restraining order issue in the article. Temporary restraining orders are given out by courts rather liberally, and without the court drawing a conclusion on the matter, and sometimes only after hearing from one side. The Maine State Police investigation did not end in any criminal charges being filed and the temporary restraining order expired and no permanent restraining order was issued. In other words, there is no court ruling on the issue. The article is basically written as Alexander Cornell du Houx was born, then there was a restraining order against him, and then others drove him from politics. Since there is no court ruling on the issue, I don't see how the restraining order information belongs in the article, especially given the scant amount of information on the rest of this person's life. Please do what you think best. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I would like to add a cited quote from Alexander Cornell du Houx's page to highlight an important fact that may have got confused in the Talk pages: "Before a hearing could take place, and after the Maine State Police ended their investigation,[9] the two reached a settlement; authorities never interviewed Cornell du Houx.[10] [11]" In other words, there is no question of Cornell du Houx being in any way guilty by virtue of the settlement, because the police had already concluded the investigation, and saw no need to interview him. As director of two nonprofits, I am in awe at the volunteer work being done here, at one of my most frequently used an favorite resources. So thank you again. Request: Please resolve this by deleting Alexander Cornell du Houx's page. As a young elected official he has already accomplished a lot and has been a role model of civic and community involvement, but he is still some way from having an encyclopedic profile, depending on your definition of Wikipedia, of course. Paul Cornell du Houx (talk) 16:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Alright. First: the talk page is walls of TLDR; since this discussion was removed first to COIN and then here to BLPN, I'll assume this is the proper forum and leave a link at the talk page.
Second: WP:BLP, WP:BLPCRIME, WP:WELLKNOWN, WP:RS, and WP:WEIGHT all need better application. Starting with BLP issues, WP:BLPCRIME generally prefers a judgment over a an accusation; filings, accusations, and other sworn statements are simply claims. WP:WELLKNOWN provides in relevant part "Is this important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out, or stick to the facts: 'John Doe and Jane Doe were divorced.'" WP:RS (and especially in regards to WP:BLP and WP:N) prefers coverage by mainstream, well-known, established, and often national sources; local-only coverage is often disfavored when it comes to showing the noteworthiness or notability of content. Here, however, we have a local politician whose notability is not seriously in question; local sources are to be expected. WP:WEIGHT demands a proportional representation of significance among events that are themselves biographically significant.
As far as I can tell, the post here involves a type of civil filing that because of its nature results automatically in a protective order in every case, as is the situation in most North American jurisdictions. The civil complaint, of course, has very real and harmful criminal implications. The biographical significance, in relation to the subject's career, seems beyond dispute, weighing in favor of some mention. Having said that, all coverage of the scandal is local, rightly reflecting the local nature of the subject's notability, but probably to an inappropriate degree for an encyclopedic biography: it's entirely local aside from perfunctory inclusion in statewide listings. At any rate, Wikipedia isn't obliged to mirror the volume of contemporary news coverage, even if it is non-local (WP:WEIGHT).
On balance — what I think WP:WEIGHT requires — is to write prose along the lines of "du Houx decided not to stand for election amid local controversy over a domestic nature involving fellow representative Erin Herbig." Despite the characterization "high-profile controversy," I am unconvinced it is encyclopedically and biographically so in light of the dearth of non-local coverage. It certainly does not merit roughly one-third of the article prose. JFHJr () 04:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
My edit was reverted. I'm not inclined to edit war, but if anyone has a second or third opinion, that would be great. JFHJr () 06:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Carlos Salinas de Gortari

Resolved: Content cut back, relatively stable version up. Re-post as necessary. JFHJr () 01:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Carlos Salinas de Gortari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a biography of a living former President of Mexico. He was controversial during his term of office and has remained so since, and his article is filled with unsourced criticism and negative allegations. I'm going to try to clean it up and remove the obvious BLP violations, but I'd appreciate assistance from someone familliar with Mexican politics who can provide reliable sources where required. Robofish (talk) 12:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, this one's such a mess it's almost worth stubbing it and starting over... Robofish (talk) 12:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Ack, I've just come across the article on his brother, Raúl Salinas de Gortari. That one's even worse. I invite anyone who can read Spanish-language sources to take a look at it and do what they can. Robofish (talk) 12:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I had a bit of a look and I agree with you - stubbing and starting over is a good idea - Youreallycan

Darrell Issa and Sandra Fluke

Resolved: Looks relatively stable, with WP:UNDUEWEIGHT out. Re-post as necessary. JFHJr () 01:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Previous partly related BLPN discussion

An editor who pushes Sandra Fluke whenever he can has added material to the Issa page about Fluke and the Issa hearings back in February 2012. This was discussed once before, obliquely here, and directly on the article Talk page. Nonetheless, the same editor is trying again. Naturally, he's stuck the material in the Controversies section (where else?) with an absurdly long subsection header and, putting everything else aside, poorly crafted material. He even has a picture of Fluke with audio reading her statement. I tried to get the editor to keep it out pending consensus (WP:BRD), but that didn't suit him. I've warned him of 3RR (he's performed three "reverts" per 3RR definition), but, even though I technically could, I don't intend to revert a third time. The editor has requested mediation (apparently with me), but unless I change my mind, I don't intend to participate.

Other editors are requested to offer their views.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I would argue that Rep. Issa decision to not allow her to provide congressional tesimony is notable enough to be included in his bio. It is sourced and language is not POV as presented. It only deals with Rep. Issa decision not to allow the testimony from Sandra Fluke. I think this is a case of WP:I just don't like it and have requested mediation here: . Casprings (talk) 16:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Read WP:COATRACK. Within the context of Issa's BLP, is this of major importance? Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 : I would argue that he made a decision not to allow testimony. That in and of itself was a national news ( ) How is this less notable then any of the other material in the section? Casprings (talk) 17:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Listed are national news sources that covered the decision on Fluke. This was a national news event and should have a section under the controvery section of Rep. Issa's page. [1] [2] [3] [4]. Casprings (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Hundreds if not thousands of people each year are not heard by Congress. This might be of note to the person, but attaching personal weight to a head of a committee is the very ideal image of COATRACK. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I just sent an email to be heard by Congress. If it is denied may I add a section to the Congress article about it?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Completely ludicrous. The news coverage essentially amounts to "it was criticized by Democrats." We can't possibly add content every time the opposition party criticizes someone. Can we please leave the politics to the politicians? – Lionel (talk) 22:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
There is a standard to judge this by. Wikipedia:Notability There are literally pages of sources from independent news sources if one uses Google. I have provided 5. This event, including Rep. Issa's decision, received enough coverage to be a notable event in his bio. Therefore, it should be included. This is a case of Wikipedia:IDONTLIKETHEM Events have to be judged by objective standards and notability provides that standard. As far as the argument about notability for Issa, many of the same news sources name him has the person who choose not to allow her to testify. Casprings (talk) 23:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
The notability guidelines are used for the creation and deletion of articles and do not apply to content within an article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
The article has to a bid by the principle of due weight and other content policies. This was a major sourced event in which Representative Issa held a an all-male panel and denied Fluke the ability to testify on contraception coverage. All viewpoints have to be represented. Casprings (talk) 00:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment This google search should provide the information needed for Issa's role and the importance of inclusion. Casprings (talk) 00:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Collect had it right. Within the context of an encyclopedic biography of Darrell Issa, and in the grand scheme of things, what weight is due insofar as his part in denying Sandra Fluke's testimony? It doesn't seem inherently relevant, and despite Casprings' assertions, not every fart in congress is noteworthy just because it's congress (cf. notability; see also non-notable content). Issa and his actions do not inherit notability from a controversy that is objectively less notable than himself; the controversy doesn't inherit any notability because it was Issa who said no testimony. There's zero indication of any actual importance of the denial within Issa's biography; it deserves zero weight in the BLP, though it's assumedly worth a mention on Sandra Fluke, whose notability rests on the series of incidents in which the above events constitute one small part. JFHJr () 01:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I would certainly agree that not everything done in Congress is noteworthy. However, Issa's decision to not include any women on a discussion on contraception was, at least in his bio. It received far more news coverage then any of the other controversies on on his page. It goes beyond Fluke. Casprings (talk) 02:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Please keep in mind this is not the newspaper: content within living subjects' biographies is not at all required to mirror coverage. On the contrary, the weight assigned by prose, on any topic and within any context, should reflect what is biographically significant as to the subject and his overall notability (remember — overall relevance here, versus elsewhere). In general a controversy or event may merit the weight of a mention if, on balance, it is of enduring biographical significance — in this case, in regards to subject's career. That's a high bar, requiring treatment indicating that the controversy or event was so significant in the subject's career. When a controversy or event is not of readily demonstrable enduring significance, the sheer volume of contemporaneous coverage is a spectacularly poor substitute indicator. Please take my point of view with a grain of salt. But please do appreciate that it appears consensus is not in your favor. JFHJr () 03:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I do not disagree. However, Rep. Issa's all male panel to discuss contraception is one of the key things he is notable for, as least as far as controversies. . A google search of Darrell Issa will find that this, ( ) as the first link that comes up. This is a significant event of his chairmanship. If there isn't a section on this, why is there a section on any of the controversies on his page? None received the amount of press from national sources. Casprings (talk) 03:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Please refrain from presenting arguments that are tantamount to estoppel. Nobody is bound by or has even endorsed previous versions of the article. Just because a section was there at some point — even recently, or for a long time — does not mean it's appropriate. The section is not the subject of this thread; your edits there are. JFHJr () 04:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
...And no, a top google hit does not indicate any enduring biographical significance. JFHJr () 05:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Normally only 50 years and historical research can determine enduring biographical significant. However, at once has to bring some judgement to this or you don't have a wiki page. While subjective measurements might be useful, is there not an objective measurement one can use? In other words, this seems to all be the judgement of a group, despite evidence of news coverage and general public interest. Casprings (talk) 12:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Agree that material on the hearing should be included somewhere, with an accurate account supported be the best sources (e.g. [10]). Issa played a pivotal role in initiating the entire situation with Fluke, with very significant political consequences. (A top google hit would at least be suggestive of biographical significance, but then a google search for Darrell Issa does not currently show anything related to this incident on the whole first page). JFHJr has helpfully linked to the relevant policies but not applied them in detail. I see no language in any policy or guideline against including it - please be more specific if you disagree. Please note that consensus can change - it's a bit preliminary to be declaring what the consensus is or isn't. I also dispute that BLP policy requires an especially high bar for this instance - we're not talking about anything that is going to damage Issa's reputation or something. Hugetim (talk) 20:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Material on the hearing should be included, although the material's nature should be determined by more discussion. We would naturally include this as basic information about Issa's tenure in Congress (specifically, as head of the oversight committee) if it hadn't been criticized; the fact that it was criticized does not suddenly make it unsuitable for inclusion. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 02:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
He has had an active tenure as chairman. Perhaps a run down of his time as chairman? Casprings (talk) 02:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Correction Issa did not "deny" or censor. Fluke was not submitted as a witness, and the agenda was set on the Monday before the hearing, when nobody had heard of Fluke. Issa did not alter Committee rules to allow a last minute un-vetted addition. That is not the same thing. The only semi-notable part of this whole charade was the House Democrat's decision to stage a protest instead of participating in a Hearing, which got press but made little substantive impact. They could have used Fluke or generic female #3 wandering by the Capital building. -- (talk) 17:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Paul Sieveking

Resolved: Reliable sources required. JFHJr () 03:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

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

I know Paul and we were good friends in the 60s and 70s. Your entry in Wikipedia says that he read Anthropology at Jesus College Cambridge but so far as I recall he was reading Archaeology and Anthropology, a classic combination (Arch and Anth). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

That material is sourced to a book, so I can't check its accuracy. Unless you have a copy of the book and believe the book does not say what our article says, or unless you have some other reliable source disputing it, it has to remain. Unfortunately, your recollection is not verifiable.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that both of you are right. All undergraduate admissions to Cambridge are to Archaeology and Anthropology; there is no separate Anthropology tripos. The eventual degree is a BA in Archaeology and Anthropology. However, it is only in the first year students study both subjects. In the second and third years, undergraduate students select one of Archaeology, Biological Anthropology or Social Anthropology, to specialise in. See Department of Archaeology and Anthropology website for details. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Sam, was that the case 50 years ago? --Dweller (talk) 10:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Jenson Button

Resolved: Add BLP content if and only if you have a reliable source. JFHJr () 01:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Jenson Button was named, being a fan of motorsport, by his Mother, Simone' after seeing a Jensen whilst pregnant. She changed the 'e' to an 'o' — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, assuming you have a reliable source that says that, please follow these instructions:

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --Dweller (talk) 10:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Enrique Peña Nieto

Resolved: Resolved for now. WP:RPP or re-post as necessary. JFHJr () 02:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The article Enrique Peña Nieto labels him as the "President-elect" of Mexico, which is not true at the moment. Therequiembellishere (talk · contribs) is making a pro-Peña propaganda throughout Wikipedia, adding "bloody" hidden notes through many articles [11], [12], [13], etc., and inexplicabily removing Alejandro Poiré and Juan N. Silva Meza with this edit, when in fact Peña Nieto, as a President-elect, has no legal figure and is not a leader, but Poiré and Silva still being political figures until 1 December 2012. The Federal Electoral Institute (IFE) has not named him "President-elect", and no local media is doing so. Multiple people is believing that I am an idiot because he is the virtual winner and this is simple statistics, but in fact Andrés Manuel López Obrador announced that once the official results are given, he will challenge them [14]. Also, at, there is a consensus to still labelling him as candidate until the IFE announces him as the winner of the Mexican general election, 2012.[15]. Could somebody check this, and if possible notify (because they won't listen to me) Therequiembellishere (talk · contribs) and Maunus (talk · contribs) that this borderlines the WP:BLP policy, WP:CRYSTAL, and possibly Mexican electoral laws. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 22:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

You're correct in terms of BLP content; we have to wait until the event happens before it can be stated as fact. But as of right now, President of Mexico, Mexico, and Enrique Peña Nieto all appropriately refer to Mr. Peña Nieto as the presumed president-elect. Some articles simply need more watching and attention; these are some. If these cases become edit wars, I think WP:RPP might be a better place to get preventive help, although the edit counts of those involved tell me full protection would be the only real remedy. It's not quite a battleground at this point, thankfully. JFHJr () 00:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Jules Gladys

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jules Gladys (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am wondering if something can be done with this article. It seems to have been worked on at various time by these three editors who may or may not be the same person.

The two "interviews" provided as sources use the name Julia Toebben which seems to have been a name that this person went by at some point in their life. As you can see no explanation of the name changes is included in the article. I came across it when it was being used to support an article for this film Hara-Kiri (2012 film) which went through AFD. The article mostly reads like a resume so I am wondering if a) it meets WP:NOTABILITY guidelines b) if not can it be improved so that it does meet them and c) if it can't should we send it to AFD.

Your input and anything that you can do to improve the article will be much appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 20:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I have left a notice for all three editors but as none of them seems to be active I do not know if we will hear from them. MarnetteD | Talk 20:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
First of all, "Interview" is the name of the subject's movie. There's no interview to find. Good point about the name, though. Currently, I don't see any actual notability; "Hara-Kiri" is a pretty good touchstone, since it and "Interview" seem to be the biggest claims. There are a few other claims, such as an award, and generally being known in Europe or something close, but they are not supported by the apparent citations. Most importantly, the website currently used as a citation is not a third-party source: Herr Matthias von Birkensee is associated with the website and also produced the subject's "best known" film. It reeks of WP:COI; I wouldn't be shocked to discover both the subject and the producer had a hand in promoting her. And I'm removing the cites to their website. JFHJr () 21:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
No need to reach COI - it has a lot of puff in it, and some extravagant claims. Collect (talk) 12:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
At AfD. JFHJr () 02:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Brendan Gleeson (Early Life section)

Resolved: Vandalism removed. JFHJr () 02:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

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

The section in Irish actor Brendan Gleeson's wikipedia page that pertains to his early life has been completely overhauled to include simply preposterous facts that never pertained to him or any other actor for that matter, he never kept sparrows in his hair or mined on jupiter which according to the present article, he did. I ask that this article be restored to its original truthful state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the report - I have removed the vandalism (sadly it was published to the world using en wikipedia for nineteen hours) you should also feel free to be bold and have removed it yourself - which would have saved it being there for a further four hours - seems like no one is watching the article, or this noticeboard sometimes. - pending protection would have stopped it being published even for a single minute - Youreallycan 06:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Trip Adler

Resolved: De-cluttered. JFHJr () 02:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

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

It seems to me that this is almost autobiographic. What is the point of this article? --Geochron (talk) 09:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Several of the references are obviously made by friends of the subject. Is there a rule against this? --Geochron (talk) 09:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Removed a bit of trivia with no refs meeting WP:RS (yes there is a rule along those lines). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Also some PUFF. Collect (talk) 12:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Frank Ocean

Thank you for drawing my attention to an account that has done nothing but vanadalize, including even more egregious vandalism than this, and violate copyright for the past six and two thirds years. Uncle G (talk) 08:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

In the overall description of Frank Ocean at the top of the page, it references his LGBT preference in a very foul and disrespectful way and should be taken down IMMEDIATELY considering all of the buzz around this topic. The phrasing is explicit, how does something like that even make it to a final publish? It's ridiculous and completely inappropriate and makes me jeopardizes the honor and respect of Wikipedia as a whole. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

  • We don't have any sort of "final publish," pretty much anyone can edit the site (which means that pretty much anyone can fix it), and the result is displayed in real time as close as possible. The vandalism you were referring to was removed before I could even load the article, see here. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Stephanie Adams

Resolved: Protected. Most content seems reasonably sourced. Re-post as necessary. JFHJr () 01:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

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

I replaced elaboration back on this page, which had a somewhat trivial comment about the subject teaching a one-time course at the Learning Annex. The actual notation should probably be removed entirely anyway, since she is not a teacher by profession and is notable mainly for her modeling as well as writing metaphysical books.

I also added information from reliable links that reported her guardianship case and marital history, but those facts were removed as well. Can someone please take a look at my edits and place some, most, or all of it back? I did thorough research about this woman and all of my information was properly sourced. Thanks! Fiiinally (talk) 16:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The significance of her writing of "metaphysical books" (whose content is I think unrelated to metaphysics as normally understood) is not obviously clear. The one-time course at the Learning Annex indeed seems minor, but it's unusual in that it's sourced to an article in which the event is written up with illuminating detail. (The "elaboration" appears to be something that Adams said about the subject of the course after the event, not during it.) ¶ Actually very little in the article seems to rise beyond trivia: for example, a section with the promising title LGBT activism says that Adams was a visible presence in the LGBT community and founded the online lesbian community, which was active from 2003 until 2009, but two of the four sources adduced for this claim are itself, one is a press release, and the fourth is this article, which says nothing about the visibility of her presence other than a mention of ¶ Fiiinally's objection is paralleled by strenuous objections by this IP and perhaps others to any mention of the Learning Annex course, while increasing Adams's salience by adding her name to the list of "Notable Alumni" of Fairleigh Dickinson University (as if Category:Fairleigh Dickinson University alumni weren't sufficient). Certainly the goings-on in this article (recreated after this AfD) are odd, but they merit more than a quick look. -- Hoary (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I re-added the Fairleigh Dickinson info which was created in her original wiki article ( as well as recently by Delicious carbuncle. I'm not sure why it was suddenly deleted, but this article should not require so many sources, as some other articles do not have sources referenced at all. Fiiinally (talk) 18:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand your logic, and I'm unsure of which of three or so things you mean by "it" in "it was suddenly deleted". As for the unfortunate fact that other articles cite no sources, please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. -- Hoary (talk) 00:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
There's no unfortunate fact here. Her being a Fairleigh Dickinson University graduate was stated in her Playboy pictorial and in various articles written about her. I also see that it was properly sourced 3 times in the article recently. It was written much about in the past, but someone seemed to have removed it for some odd reason with no justification. You and fasttimes68 worked hand in hand with edits in the article about her wayback in the past, only recently showing some static over minor issues. What's your real problem here? (talk) 13:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Joe Paterno and e-mail

Resolved: Article stable. Re-post as necessary. JFHJr () 23:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

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

I'm taking the position that Paterno is subject to WP:BDP. So far, no one involved disputes that, and one editor explicitly agrees.

The issue is whether we should include this:

However, emails from 2001, revealed after Paterno's death hint that he had a direct role in the decision to cover up Sandusky's behavior. According to these emails, Penn State officials Spanier, Curley and Schultz had agreed on a plan that would involve telling state officials about Sandusky, but that after Curley discussed the matter with Paterno he backed away from this plan. ([16]; [17])

As far as I know, the actual e-mails have not been disclosed in the sources. There are no e-mails from Paterno, so it is all based on interpretations of e-mail from others. I don't believe the material should be included. Another editor appears to agree. A third editor disagrees and has reinstated the material, even though arguably there are BLP issues and there certainly has been no consensus to include the material. By the way, the material I reverted was far worse than what the third editor put back in (he definitely improved the wording). The third editor believes it should be included because it is reliably sourced and because, otherwise, the article would not be neutral as "we have only this implausible 'he didn't know, he was just a feeble old man' whitewash", a comment I found inappropriate and said so. I have also suggested that the material favorable to Paterno on this issue (it precedes the e-mail material), which comes from an opinion piece, should also be removed as I don't see why a journalist's opinion as to Paterno's behavior is noteworthy (or neutral).

More eyes would be helpful. I have commented on the Talk page, but I have not reverted the third editor.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

"Interpretations" make for bad biographies of anyone. Collect (talk) 18:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Here is the diff of the original revert. So, yes, what's on there now about the e-mails is better than what was on there before. --Jtalledo (talk) 18:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Anderson Cooper

Resolved: Looks stable. Re-post, and request protection or oversight if necessary. JFHJr () 02:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Anderson Cooper is currently in the news. We have a picture of his house in Greenwich Village in his biography. The article also mentions two other properties, with stalker-friendly references. I removed this information once, but got reverted. I think it's not our job to make it easier for stalkers to locate a notable person. Opinions? DracoE 18:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, the other editor who wants to add the material put it back but in a less privacy-invading way (I haven't looked closely at the history). I reverted anyway. It's trivia and doesn't belong in the article. This idea of listing a subject's properties and locations is pretty silly. It's done in other articles, and it's always silly/trivial.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you so much, Bbb23. My thoughts exactly. DracoE 08:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Camila Vallejo

Resolved: Some WP:WEIGHT issues remain, but the talk page is the best place to discuss. JFHJr () 01:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

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

The article had a "Recognition & Criticism" section, once pretty serious and sourced criticism was inserted, that whole section was deleted 1) The existence of a contract for 30 million Chilean pesos, that lended the FECh name to some courses, and whose funds management -made by Camila Vallejo and one treasurer- wasn't clear, according to one of the FECh's board members. 2) The criticism about her declarations on "armed struggle" to "El País", even if they were decontextualized, it still caused controversy. 3) The criticism about her declarations on Fidel Castro.

Even if the quotes were decontextualized (in my opinion, the second one was, by right-wing chilean media), the wikipedia article had the whole quote that caused the stir. Those events: the quotes, the contract, happened and they drew criticism. Why not have them in the article? — comment added by Manuel linzen (talkcontribs) 19:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi - you seem to have added the section to the article - and are a WP:SPA in relation to this subject - Special:Contributions/Manuel_linzen - Camila_Vallejo#Criticism - on first look it seems unduly attacking and has NPOV issue and imo as a minimum needs a trim/rewrite - Youreallycan 06:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Bill Williams (game designer)

Bill Williams (game designer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A relative at the help desk says he is still alive. It seems there is a junior and a senior. There are no sources at all for birth or death dates. I haven't removed any dates yet, I thought I would bring it up here first.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I trimmed the article of some unsourced things that could be contentious and left a note on the talk page.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I've also left a note at the talk page with some links. They didn't work for me, but maybe they'll inspire someone else to look harder. It's bothersome not knowing if the subject is dead or alive. By the way, why did you remove the image from the infobox? It seemed to be accurate and fair use compliant. Do you doubt its authenticity? JFHJr () 00:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
The relative on the talk page pasted a link to a picture of someone in their 50's. I think there may be two with the same name. I haven't looked at the talk page yet since you edited it. I think I remember leaving some links there as well. I may have even sent an email to one of the 'bloggish' sources that I left in the article for reference. I will see if I can find the link to the other image and paste it here. The article seems fine without an image for now, until we get RS on who is who we may best best off leaving any images out. Any thoughts?--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Bill Williams.png is the image she uploaded. Her contribs will link you to her talk page and the help desk post she made. --Canoe1967 (talk) 00:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

  • "There are no pictures of Bill Williams,” says Romero, and try as I might, I can’t prove the man wrong. Best known for his Atari computer games, including Alley Kat, Salmon Run, and Necromancer (pictured), Williams’ work was lauded for its skill and artistry." from (talk) 00:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

John Delaney (football administrator)

Resolved: So far so good. Re-post if activity picks up. JFHJr () 00:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

John Delaney (football administrator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This biography of an Irish football administrator was filled with unsourced negative allegations. I've stubbed it and reduced it back to the sentences which were properly sourced, but he seems to be a controversial figure who's attracted a lot of attention recently, so some more eyes on this one would be helpful. Robofish (talk) 11:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

So far so good... JFHJr () 00:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Mitt Romney

Resolved: The event is at this point WP:WELLKNOWN. WP:BLPCRIME is inapposite. Discussion ensues at Talk:Mitt Romney. JFHJr () 01:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

If a claim is a violation of WP:BLP as curently worded does it cease to be a violation if it had lasted 2 years? Would it cease to be a violation if it is in a "note" and not in the text of the article? And where an "arrest" was not only dismissed, but the record officially sealed, is the fact the person is "notable" thus make the addition of the "arrest" to their BLP encyclopedic? And if the "arrest" was over what most would agree is a trivial matter, is the "arrest" still valid as a claim in an encyclopedia article? I would note some view WP:BLPCRIME as only usable for "non-notable" people - but since every BLP is about a "notable" person, does that mean BLPCRIME is actually meaningless? Thanks. Collect (talk) 12:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Romney's arrests are widely reported. If BLPCRIME prevents us from presenting facts that were widely reported, it is not in sync with practice, and needs to be revised. Hipocrite (talk) 12:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
You also misrepresent BLPCRIME, saying using "non-notable" in quotes. The quote from BLPCRIME is "people who are relatively unknown." Were you being intentionally deceptive, or merely making things up? Hipocrite (talk) 12:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
For some weird reeason I consider people who are unknown tend to be not notable. Your mileage appears to vary - but how many unknown people have BLPs at that point? Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
BLPCRIME is intended to apply not just to the subject of biographical articles (which would, as you say, be a notable - and likely known - person) but to any living person in our articles. For instance: John Smith might be notable and have an article about him. John's wife (Sue) may not be notable, but someone may wish to add a sourced entry that Sue is accused of mail fraud. BLPCRIME basically says that we should seriously consider NOT including that accusation, especially without a conviction. --Tgeairn (talk) 21:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
See also WP:WELLKNOWN, which is actually more applicable. BLPCRIME is, as Collect indicates, something particularly formulated to help relatively unknown figures. JFHJr () 01:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Vladimir Fekula

Resolved: Unsourced content removed. This article is on its way. JFHJr () 00:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

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

[Not a banker, nor a person, of much, if any, note, or notability, in the City and the State of New York, in the United States of America ([18]; [19]). Extensive COI-editing, either by himself, via and through unconfirmed, but similar IP addresses and numbers, or by his personal friend, a certain Mister John Derbyshire, through and via his suspected account and and his also suspected personal IP address and number. The article was created by an unregistered user with an IP address and number, and further edits, almost certainly by his same person, were made with other IP addresses and numbers within the same, or of a similar, range, from the United States.] Is the article for one Mister Vladimir Fekula an autobiography? I think that it is. -- KC9TV 00:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like a question for WP:COIN. They won't disclose information about IPs and ranges, but they'll consider it. On the other hand, this is where content and edits on BLPs are talked about. Having said that, the article you've linked is a steaming turd of a WP:BLP. I'm removing some clear violations: unsupported self-serving claims involving third parties (see WP:BLPSPS and WP:RS). JFHJr () 01:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Ron Ron

Resolved: Reverted to a decent version. Re-post as necessary. JFHJr () 00:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

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

I am not a Wikipedia editor, nor am I familiar with the policies. However, there's an article I'd like to refer to those who are and are properly able to change/remove it. The article about rapper/artist Ron Ron seems terribly written and biased. Just read it yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Yup. Unsourced, unencyclopaedic waffle. And given that it makes multiple unsourced claims regarding criminal activity, I've blanked the lot. How the hell this survived for so long, I've no idea... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Dennis Shipman

Resolved: Auto-author forewarned on user talk page. Re-post if actually created. JFHJr () 00:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Not so much an existing article. Also not sure whether to chalk this up to vandalism or cluelessness. The appearance is that Mr. Shipman wrote his own Wikipedia article, and appended it to Template:Anthropologist-stub (which I've since reverted), which in turn appended it to the bottom of every article which transcludes that template. Like I said, I'm not so sure what to make of this, but felt that someone may wish to help the fellow out, if necessary.RadioKAOS (talk) 04:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Yaheh Hallegua

Resolved: No glaring WP:BLP issues. For notability or deletion questions, see WP:BEFORE. JFHJr () 00:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

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

person is not important enough to have a wikipedia page. material is potentially defamatory. page seems to have been written to potentially embarrass and/or coerce the person — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipediauser4 (talkcontribs) 06:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything "defamatory". The article is odd and needed some clean-up. As for notability, there seems to be several sources that discuss her situation, so I'm not sure why she doesn't merit an article, but I haven't read the books, so can't access the depth of coverage.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

simon williams actor

Resolved: Article looks adequately sourced for the most part now. JFHJr () 00:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

This will need finally verifying but I'm 99% sure that the 'Cumnor House School' Simon attended was the Prep school that comes up when 'Cumnor House Dane Hill' is browsed, i.e. not the one in Croydon.

I lived within 2 miles of that school and my sister was friends with Simon's sister, Polly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camapanic (talkcontribs) 07:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

  • That two sentence section has no sources at all. I will just remove it until we find out which school he went to.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
    • That was an overreaction. Source #2 already cited in the article directly supported part of the content that you just blanked for being "unsourced". Having no sources isn't the same as having no little superscripted numbers, remember. Uncle G (talk) 17:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. Cautious may have been a better term. It is safer to remove material than leave it in after a reasonable request to source it. I can't see why Camapanic's mention was unreasonable.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Camapanic didn't challenge, or even mention, Harrow School. Uncle G (talk) 19:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
More caution all around. FWIW, anything can be challenged. We aren't restricted to what the OP has stated. Moot now, I suppose. JFHJr () 00:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Laurie Penny

Resolved: No glaring WP:BLP problems in Laurie Penny. JFHJr () 00:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

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

I just placed {{Autobiography|date=July 2012}}{{COI|date=July 2012}}{{Like-resume}}{{Advert|article}} on Laurie Penny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 2012-07-04 13:39:45

Owen Jones reads like a resume

Resolved: No article specified; re-post as needed. JFHJr () 23:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Owen Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) reads like a resume/autobiography/advertisement/lacks neutrality, as has previously been stated in talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 2012-07-04 13:58:08

Which Owen Jones? There are several of them. bobrayner (talk) 08:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
None of them are living except Owen Bennett-Jones, which doesn't present any massive problems. I'm marking this resolved. JFHJr () 23:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Andrew McIntosh (professor)

Resolved: Looks reasonably worded and stable for now. Re-post as necessary. JFHJr () 01:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Andrew McIntosh (professor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This BLP seems to me to have been put together by critiques of McIntosh in a delibirate attempt to damage his reputation because of his personal held views about origins science. Rather than researching into his respectable contributions to science e.g. why is he recognised as a prof? the writers have focused their research and the article on this theme.

Consider the article as it is currently written:

  • We begin the article by emphasising that he disagrees with biological evolution. We seek to create a bad impression in the readers mind through using the word "general consensus". (these words might be appropriate for an article on evolution but not a BLP).
  • We then seek to damage his reputation further by declaring that he belongs to truth society and that his university has distanced itself from it.

(note this is just the first section the reader sees) and the majority of the article continues to destory him in this manner.

The only positive thing we have to say about him is that his group developed a new technology known as µMist. We like to emphasise that he is a director of this "truth society" but we don't like to say that he heads the research group who discovered the beetle (which we are told in the referenced article describing this).

I note that an attempt was made to neutralise the article on the 6th January, however this is immediatly removed despite it having a reference to a peer reviewed journal article. A discussion takes place on the articles talk page but it is argued out using bullying tactics.

WikiJonathanpeter (talk) 20:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the article is written with quite a neutral tone, particularly given the nature of his research. You seem to think that discussing this aspect of his work is "negative" -- but if he is in fact a "young-earth creationist", then surely he won't mind being portrayed as such. In describing this portrayal as negative, you seem to be working from your own feelings on the matter rather than his. I really don't see a problem here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I think the article clearly was written as a WP:COATRACK by someone interested in exposing him as a member of a particular group rather than in writing a biography describing why he is notable. It was evident even from the syntaxt such as "McIntosh promotes creationism and intelligent design as put forward by the organisation Truth in Science of which he is a director." - what is notable here is surely that he is director of an organization, only secondarily that that organization promotes a specific theory. Similarly the oblique "which is rejected by science" tag sentences really doesn't improve the article's neutrality but only makes it come across as clumsily bigoted. I hope my revisions are acceptable.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
My approbation of its condition came after your edits, so yes. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. The page has since been changed worded much better since I brought the issue up here thanks to Maunus. You can see the page at the time of writing these comments here. WikiJonathanpeter (talk) 21:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Lionel Richie

Resolved: Unencyclopedic trivia collections should stay out of encyclopedic BLPs. Talk pages are a first step in dispute resolution. JFHJr () 22:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Lionel Richie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could someone please protect the article for a while, as a serial pest is back again. Thanks. GFHandel   09:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Is there a reliable source for Richie's middle name? bobrayner (talk) 09:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Which serial pest is that: the person with an account who largely blanked an "in popular culture" section full of "ridiculous trivia", at which you didn't bat an eyelid, or the person without an account who has told you onetwothreefour times that xe is removing a "unimportant"/"trivial" "in popular culture" section, against whom you've been edit warring, and whom you've been calling a vandal? You all have a marked double standard in how you treat people with and without accounts. Uncle G (talk) 14:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
The trivia section should stay out. It is not of encyclopedic value. I'm pleased to see it's remained out. I'll also note the OP, opponent the removal, has not so much as commented on the article talk page or on the IP's talk page. These are steps I'd take before re-posting. JFHJr () 22:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

arvind swamy

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

There is incorrect information being repeatedly posted on this page and I request that any changes be verified as and when possible. I am the subject of this page and this deals with details of my birthplace, parents, Filmography etc. which I do not want misrepresented. --Arvindswami (talk) 16:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Please present reliable sources for corrections, and do not remove other sources unless you have more sources countering them. Even if you are Arvind Swamy, you are not a source for the article. Anyone could claim to be Arvind Swamy on this site, and verifiability is the standard here, not "truth." Ian.thomson (talk) 21:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
One thing you can do is put the corrections on your twitter account, then we can cite that tweet. This is good for non-controversial personal facts - stuff like age, place of birth etc. (though we are sometimes surprised at what people lie about). For something like "Arvind is the greatest actor ever" we would want want a source independent of you :). Once you have tweeted you can drop a note here. I hope this helps. filceolaire (talk) 10:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Jim Parsons

Resolved: BLPN consensus is generally against inclusion of extended discussion of sexuality where irrelevant to points of notability or significance. JFHJr () 00:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

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

See this. Interview of Jim Parsons with NYT is named a come out in 12 mainstream references but User:Bbb23 doesn't agree you can see history of the article, too [20] and i think i need a third party opinion. Thanks:)Ladsgroupبحث 00:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Uh, Bbb23 isn't the only editor who disagrees with Ladsgroup, but by all means, come on down. There's nothing like another endless discussion about sexual identity to set Wikipedians a-chatterin'.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Those references are secondary sources and they are reliable whether he stated that he is gay or not. :)Ladsgroupبحث 01:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  • How about not actually discussing his sexuality in the article at all? It has nothing to do with his notability - and gay actors (if that is what he is) are hardly a rarity. Wikipedia isn't a database on sexual orientation (or ethnicity, or preferred flavour of ice cream, or whatever...) Why does anyone think that our readers care? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
    • You mean, other than the dozen reliable news sources that have seen fit to cover the story, per the cites Ladsgoup has provided to show the significance of the fact? This basic personal info belongs in the article. Having said that, I don't currently see any strong need to say more than the one sentence that's there now. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
      • What 'story'? What is 'significant' about an actor being gay? Why is it 'basic personal info'? Why should our readers care? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
        • Editors aren't actually arguing about whether the subject is homosexual. From the edit history and the talk page, that doesn't appear to be even disputed. What they're arguing about is whether a NYT article is reporting things that people have known for years and simply not bothered too much about, or whether it is reporting a coming out. Uncle G (talk) 14:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with BBB and Andy - please stop beating the dead horse. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I also agree. I think a consensus on the issue is clear. I'll leave a note on the talk page. Remove the {{resolved}} template or re-post if things boil over again. JFHJr () 00:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Ludwig von Mises Institute

Resolved: Try other fora: no BLP issue stated. JFHJr () 23:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Ludwig von Mises Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There appears to be an editing war regarding the subject which began on or around May 18th involving deletion of criticism of the institute as "anrachist" and "neoconfederate." The institute is closely associated with the campaign of GOP hopeful Ron Paul, so I assume the edit war will continue until after the Republican National Convention at the end of August. Observation Station (talk) 08:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

You've tied the institute to Ron Paul just now, but I fail to see how the article about the institute is a BLP concern. Clearly, it's made of living persons, but is any living person (cf. the institute) getting unduly negative treatment? JFHJr () 22:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Also, if there's an edit war, consider posting at WP:EWN and WP:RPP or even WP:ANI. Any of those is probably a more apt forum. JFHJr () 22:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Not sure how Mises Institute is a BLP issue here. Ron Paul frequently discusses how Austrian economics is good and talks about Mises specifically. Whatever the case, the article certainly needs to be in line with NPOV. -- Avanu (talk) 23:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk page archives

Resolved: Removed. JFHJr () 22:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

If a glaring BLP violation is found on an archived talk page, should it be removed in spite of the "do not edit this page" tag at the top? Joefromrandb (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe. Depends on how substantively bad the glaring violation is. Probably it's alright since it sat here for at least five days without being redacted. If it's god-awful, WP:OS might be needed. Link? JFHJr () 22:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh. I must've misread the first time, thought you meant in these archives. Sorry; what's the article? JFHJr () 22:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Talk:Ann Coulter/Archive 16:I'm no fan of hers by any means, but the first post there is simply an attack. (crotch itch, nazi surplus, ect.) Joefromrandb (talk) 22:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Jeeze. I removed it. Not harmful enough for oversight, though. JFHJr () 22:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Danny Strong

Resolved: Vandalism reverted. JFHJr () 22:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

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

In the personal section there is a racial slur about him please remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Remember, anyone can edit. Anyone can vandalize, but even you can remove it. JFHJr () 22:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Paul W. Draper

Paul W. Draper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) looks like it's mainly edited by the subject or friend/whatever as an IP. Loads of uncited stuff, lists of people he married (he seems to be a minister as well as many other things), etc. Dougweller (talk) 10:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I've stubbed and left an explanation at the talk page. I've also tagged for notability concerns. JFHJr () 21:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Maybe an AfD is in order. Dougweller (talk) 09:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Media coverage of the Arab Israeli conflict.

I am concerned by this section of the article.

False tweet by UN employee

In March 2012, UN official Khulood Badawi, an Information and Media Coordinator for the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, tweeted a picture of a Palestinian child covered in blood and falsely claimed that she had been killed in an IDF strike. She captioned the picture with "Another child killed by #Israel... Another father carrying his child to a grave in #Gaza.”

The criticism of Khuloud relates to the claim that she 'falsely' claimed that the child was killed by the IDF. As per the article some sources state that the child died in an acident, others that the accident occured during, and was therefore as a result of, an airstrike. Without getting involved in too many details, I would like the section titlle to be Alleged false tweet, and the word falsely removed from the first sentence. I would then publicise this on the article talk page, and remove the material that I believe contravens BLP policy. We should not allow this claim of falsehood to remain. Thank you for looking at this. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The sources listed for this section support this description: 1,2, 3,4 and the UN Under-Secretary General Amos acknowledged that "It is regrettable that an OCHA staff member has posted information on her personal Twitter profile, which is both false and which reflects on issues that are related to her work". According to the sources, Khuloud claimed the child died recently in an airstrike when the child had died five years ago in an accident. Thus she misrepresented the cause of death and its timing. Ankh.Morpork 16:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
These say that the child died as a result of an IDF airstrike. The fact that it may be classed as indirect is not in dispute.

'Maan News said that the cause of death registered in a hospital medical report, from that day in 2006 stated that Raja died 'due to falling from a high area during the Israeli strike on Gaza' and said that the Gaza prosecutor registered her as a martyr, a term commonly used to describe Palestinians killed by Israeli forces. Raja's father Salam Abu Shaban stated that, 'Israeli rockets fell near the house, causing the playground slide to fall on top of her,' stating that the strike occurred less than 200 meters away. Her mother agreed. In a register of Palestinian civilians killed by Israeli forces, the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem reports that Raja 'fell off a swing and bumped her head when a missile fired by the IDF hit an orchard 100 meters from the house.' Recent investigations have re-confirmed this account, B'Tselem official Sarit Michaeli stated.[117]' Therefore it is incorrect to state that the claim of the circumstances of the child's death was false when there are different versions of the event. The actual tweet does not support the claim that Khuloud stated that the death had occured the previous night. The tweet does not mention a date or time. Baroness Amos did not state what, in her opinion, the false claim related to. It is entirely possible that nothing in the tweet is false, and in this case the statement that is definitely false should be removed. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 20:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

If the falsehood of her statement is subject to dispute, we can't just report that she made a false statement. But we can quote a source who describes her as making a false statement. If you have another source which claims that the statement is true, you can add a reference to that as well. Ken Arromdee (talk) 04:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Ken, i agree with you, we can not use the word false or falsely without saying who makes that claim.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 21:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Main page hook review

Today's main page includes a hook regarding a BLP subject that boils down an entire article to a single sentence that states "Did you know...that Japanese anesthesiologist Yoshitaka Fujii published 172 medical research papers that reported falsified data, including 126 papers described as being "totally fabricated"?" The hook was removed by an admin for further review citing BLP and UNDUE concerns, but was restored (by another admin) only 30 minutes after discussion was opened on the talk page, citing concensus for its return. What worries me is that a contentious hook regarding a living subject could be approved for the main page with such a minimal amount of review. I'm also concerned that BLP issues can be raised and discounted so quickly. Would it be possible for additional review of the hook here? Note that as one admin has removed it, and one has restored it, it could be considered wheel warring to remove it again. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 03:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

  • The hook seems to describe this living person's central notability. Some individuals are infamous in and because of their profession. It's a bit of a hatchet for a BLP, with some unneeded detail, but it doesn't jump out at me as over-the-top. Assuming the article won't be slated for deletion as an attack page or somesort, the hook itself — your actual question — seems okay to me. JFHJr () 04:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
    • This source goes pretty far in establishing that the central claim is true. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the input JFHJr and Nomoskedasticity. The veracity of the article was not what concerned me; my concern was that such a wholly negative hook reagrding a BLP subject would be highlighted on the main page with what appears to be a very cursory review. I'm not overly-familiar with the DYK process, so perhaps this is par for the course, or there are additional layers of assessment that consider suitability that is not obvious here. Given the responses here it appears that I was being both overly-sensitive and overly-cautious. Note I haven't had a coffee yet, so please feel free to mentally re-arrange my thoughts here into something more coherent if necessary! --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 15:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
        • DYK reviews sometimes don't look beyond the DYK criteria relating to hook verifiability, article size, and article recency. You were right to be concerned over whether anyone had considered the implications and consequences here. A further concern is that this is a Did You Know for someone who is currently in the news, and is more of a Did You Hear The Latest News. I had a cursory look around, and I came across one news aggregator that was hyperlinking to this Wikipedia biography as its news source. Uncle G (talk) 15:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure how UNDUE would apply at all. The hook described the subject's primary notability, and there's no particular requirement that DYK items have more than the usual level of notability. (As opposed to ITN or OTD items, which are intended to be items of unusual importance or historical significance.)
In fact, I would argue that this hook has more notability than your average DYK hook. APL (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Color me appalled by the notion that WP:BLP means that Wikipedia must say only nicey-nice things about living people until such time as those people have been convicted by the legal system. Let's not turn Wikipedia into Wikipablum.
I created the Yoshitaka Fujii article after I saw a news item about his incredible record of falsification of research, then discovered that Wikipedia did not yet have an article (although another user had added his name to Scientific misconduct). Not only is the information in this article fully sourced, but the case looks like an important story in the annals of research misconduct (albeit less colorful than the "painting the mice" case), as people will be spending a lot of time evaluating why the peer review system failed so significantly (much like the plagiarism detection cases prominently highlighted in last week's Wikipedia Signpost). As I see it, the DYK briefly called user attention to a new article about a somewhat obscure topic of greater social significance than most DYKs have.
This is absolutely not a case of WP:UNDUE, since almost nothing is documented about this person other than his fabrication of scientific results. Furthermore, highlighting his record does not necessarily show him in a negative light -- to the contrary, one could say that successfully passing off that many fake papers indicates that he is a person of tremendous talent.
It's absurd to suggest that negative information can only be mentioned if it has been verified in a court of law. Fujii will never be convicted by any legal system, but he has already been convicted by a jury of his peers (the fellow scientists who combed through his work record).
Neither the Wikipedia article nor the main-page appearance will do this man any harm. He has already destroyed his research career, and apparently he disappeared a few months ago (after the fraud first received significant attention). He is still a doctor of medicine, and I predict that he will spend the remainder of his career quietly working as a medical doctor in a small city, much like the "man who "painted the mice". --Orlady (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Waheeda Rehman

The birthday of actress Waheeda Rehman is shown incorrectly as May 14, 1936.

The correct date is 3rd February 1938. shows the birthday correctly on their biography page

Please make this correction asap as whenever her fans or the media call her to wish her on her birthday, she ends up getting annoyed and is always wondering why her birthday is indicated incorrectly on a site as reliable as Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Prempujari2005-6 (talkcontribs)

We can't use IMDb as a source for a birthdate. I have therefore removed the birthdate from the article. If you have a reliable source for Rehman's birthdate, please provide it. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
All of the sources I've found thus far do not support a birth year of 1938. Some give her age at the time of publication and support 1936 as one possibility. One source gives May 14, 1936, specifically. Here they are: [21]; [22]; [23]; and [24]. BTW, not that it's important, but IMDb says February 3, not February 4.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

My source is reliable but offline. All I have is their email adress. If I may why the excessive reliance on online reources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prempujari2005-6 (talkcontribs) 17:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

We use online sources a lot because they are easy to find but what we really like are Reliable Sources - published sources that can be trusted because they have been checked even if they are offline. That's why isn't good enough - no one checks the stuff on there. An email from someone doesn't work either - we don't know who the someone is! For a birth date we will usually accept a web site or blog associated with the subject (though there have been cases of people who lie about their age). Does Waheeda have an official web page? Maybe at her agents web site? If not then all she needs to do is say she is cross about wikipedia's mistake in the next interview she does, and give the right date. Someone will hear the interview and fix it. filceolaire (talk) 22:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Arron Perry

Arron Perry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The controversy section seems to list a bunch of stuff that is not notable at all. He was notable for his work in Afghanistan. There was some controversy there after his notable feat that was cleared up with all charges dropped. I have more detail on how it happened and why he was cleared. I can't post the details here but I am willing to email:user them. The article seems far larger than it actually should be to me. I am not COI on this. I was looking up sniper info for a friend and came accross it. I decided to inquire about details and found out what actually happened. Thoughts?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Pardon me, but do you have a good understanding of how Wikipedia articles are to be edited? I ask because your post raises doubts on that score. No-one is going to edit on the basis of a private email exchange. Please do have a look at policies like WP:V and WP:RS. As for the rest -- the entire article is based on a single source; it should be checked to determine whether that source supports all of the claims in the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say I got the information through email. Much of the article is not backed up by the single source. I will trim it myself for now. If someone wants to add the information back, then they are free to revert and then seek consensus before I remove it again.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Junior Hoilett

Resolved: Protected. JFHJr () 02:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Srates better not be playing for newcastle united.. previous claim. Now plays for newcastle united all false — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Took me a while just to figure out who you were talking about. I've added the template. Someone else may want to decipher what your complaint is.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Unreferenced transfer speculation about a sportsman. It bafles me how IPs can find this board but can't work out how to remove false information themselves... GiantSnowman 19:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Aaron Gwyn

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

This article doesn't seem to fit WP:ACADEMIC, as well as not fulfilling other criteria.

One, the guy is associate professor, not full, and not distinguished. Doesn't have any awards or chair to set him apart and establish notability. Willing to hear other perspectives on this but seems like he doesn't fit WP:BOL.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 17:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the short article a bit and added a source. It's suspicious that the article was created by the subject and heavily edited by the subject subsequently. I don't think the subject can establish notability as a professor, but it's not as clear whether he can as a writer. You're welcome, of course, to do some research and to nominate him for deletion if you believe he fails notability guidelines.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, seems to violate WP:COI, but bigger question is notability, of which I don't see it meeting. I placed a tag and will wait to see what other's see.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 14:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I searched around and found a few articles mentioning Gwyn. I am interested to know what other editors think about these in relation to his notability. One source is the publication of his short story "The Gray" in Esquire. There is a short introduction to the story with the comment that it is the "best bar fight story." Another is a New York Times article from 6-20-12 that mentions Gwyn as one of the authors who will be part of the Esquire ebook devoted to men's fiction. Also one of Gwyn's stories is published in the Gettysburg Review, a literary journal published by Gettysburg College. A review of Gwyn's book "The World Beneath" is published in the Bomblog. Creative Loafing Charlotte published a review of The World Beneath as well. IMO there is blossoming notability. His article is nominated for deletion. I would like to hear input from others on these sources before I comment there.Coaster92 (talk) 06:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Bbb23, the article is suspicious in that the article was created by the subject and is still heavily edited by him (including removing the AfD prod). The issue of WP:COI aside, since he doesn't fulfill WP:ACADEMIC (and I'm willing to entertain other views on this, but have yet to see evidence otherwise) he also does not fulfill WP:AUTHOR, the other issue here for notability. Yes, he was published in Esquire, and his work was reviewed. But, he has not received any awards (e.g. National Book Award), hasn't had a short story nominated for one (e.g. Pushcart), and has not had any work collected, say in Best American Short Stories. These are just a few examples of what would help him clear the hurtle of notability. If in fact his notability is "blossoming" well then, when he blossoms, he will have an article. Until then, I don't see it. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 23:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


Can I add "I want to inform the Spanish people that this "journalist" calls Ferdinand VII "absolute scum even by Spanish R(r?)oyal standards"..." to Talk:Yulia_Latynina? СЛУЖБА (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

  • BLP issues aside, Wikipedia is not a forum. If that comment by her was notable and talked about in the press, it might have a place in the article (we'd have to see the sources to decide). But if your intention is merely to "inform the Spanish people", then you should find another website to do that on. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Bio of Desaix Anderson

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

Dear Wiki, The Wikipedia of my, Desaix Anderson, bio is inaccurate. In the Wiki discussion, it states that I am a Southeast Asian expert. In fact, in the US Foreign Service I worked on Southeast Asia for 13 years, but on Northeast Asia for 24 years (and one year on NATO), so I would appreciate your editing my bio to state that I was an East Asian expert. If desired, I can send to you a detailed biography.

Many thanks,

Desaix Anderson

 Done--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

David Andrews (Trio Capital chairman)

Resolved: Article developing normally, Rivowriter has not raised any more concerns about "libel." Zad68 19:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, this is my first time making a report like this so I'm not sure if this is right. Yesterday I reviewed an AFC submission ‎for "David Morisset (Australian writer)" from new editor Rivowriter. The article positioned the subject as the pen name used by David Andrews, who was known in the news as the chairman of Trio Capital, a fund company involved in a well-known public fraud. The article focused on the person as a writer and provided a list of self-published works. The reliable sources (respected Australian newspapers), however, mostly focused on the individual's involvement in Trio Capital, and the most contentious BLP claim made in the article--that Andrews made no wrongdoing regarding the fraud--was supported only by a blog post. Digging a little deeper, I found that "Rivowriter" is also the name of the blog written under the name David Morisset. It became clear that Rivowriter was probably Morisset/Andrews writing an article about himself. In reviewing the sources I found that Morisset/Andrews had notability with his involvement in Trio Capital and not really as a writer. Finding no AFC reason to reject the submission, I cleaned up the article, tagged it, removed the lists of non-notable works, and left a Talk page note about how it needs to be refocused. This morning I find that Rivowriter has blanked the article and PROD'd it for deletion, with: "It is proposed that this article be deleted because of the following concern: last draft contained unsourced and potentially libellous material after change of heading to David Andrews (living person)" I really didn't change anything much about the claims made in the article, I simply refocused it from "David Morisset" to "David Andrews". What is to be done here? Thanks for your advice. Zad68 11:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I've declined the prod as he's clearly notable; I've also started to clean it up a bit. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Brad Birkenfeld

Resolved: Article rewritten.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

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

This is for someone with time on their hands: I wonder about the recent edits, but could not easily which of the editors had changed quotes, for instance, and what the original publication had (a TIME article was mentioned). I'd do it but I'm looking at a few other things right now. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 21:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Awesome work! Thank you Bbb23! JFHJr () 01:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, another editor has restored the article back to its problematic state. Despite my opening a topic on the article Talk page and posting a comment on the editor's Talk page, he has failed to respond. The article is currently back the way it was before I rewrote it.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Valerie Harper's biography

Valerie Harper's stepmother's name is Angela Posillico, not Angela Basilico.

I am Valerie's half-sister, Virginia, and Angela Posillico was my mother.

Otherwise, it seems to be a very accurate article.


Virginia Harper — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Virginia. Name fixed. It's nice to know the rest is accurate. filceolaire (talk) 22:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 Done. I will not make a joke about WikiSanta, Virginia. Tagging as done unless there are objections.--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Angie Vu Ha

Angie Vu Ha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Article appears to be for self promotion. Subject (person) is of little significance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markushumner (talkcontribs) 09:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Reviewing the list of references, there don't appear to be any secondary reliable sources. I searched around as well and did not find any reliable sources. Looks appropriate for deletion nomination.Coaster92 (talk) 06:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding poorly kept "anonymity" of an author

This is maybe a difficult one. I am assembling a couple of articles on recently released books here. The first listed book was recently published anonymously, with the author only being described and identified with an alias and a few identifying details, like being a former Chinese diplomat and government employee who now teaches at a school in Pennsylvania. Link deleted on what seems to be his staff page at a university the author seems to rather more clearly identify himself. Would it be a violation of BLP, and possibly OR, for me to say they are the same people? John Carter (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. It would be OR. As the only source is OR therefore you don't have an RS so it shouldn't be used on a BLP. Why would you even want to out a Chinese dissident who wrote a book under a pseudonym? I have deleted the link you included above. filceolaire (talk) 22:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
First, isn't it wonderful to know that AGF is alive and well here? I note I did nothing in the text I added to indicate in what I added anything regarding the nature of the person, certainly less than the person who responded did. Basically, in the process of doing a web search for the subject, I found the page. Considering how quickly that page returned, it seemed to me to be a reasonable question that the "anonymity" might have been halfhearted in some way. Certainly, the description of the author on the publishers' site here could quickly rule the number of candidates down quickly. So I guess the next question would be whether the webpage of the school newspaper here which more explicitly carries the name of the author, would be acceptable? And, yes, I should add I guess at this point that the book hasn't received that much attention yet, so these pages came up rather quickly on the Google search, and I asked this question initially within an hour or so of finding the first link linked to above. I had also at that time seen the second link provided here, but, for whatever reason, it didn't appear on the search I ran to provide links for this notice. John Carter (talk) 23:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
There is a legitimate question here. Basically, the author seems to have, both on his/her staff webpage at the university, and in the university's newspaper, clearly established their identity. So, we have an author who, prior to publication of the book, seems to have wanted to keep their identity secret, who has, basically, seen their identity announced after publication, presumably with their permission, if we assume that the newspaper of the university at which the person teaches would not indicate that they had written a book without the consent of the writer. Personally, under other circumstances, I would be myself hesitant to even list the things said about the author at the publisher's website, given the apparent anonymity at that time, and the ease with which one could pinpoint them based on those fairly limiting criteria. But now that the author has, seemingly, gone public, even if I can't find any sort of press release or similar which clearly indicates as much, then do we (1) continue to withhold name and maybe identifiers, or (2) do we go ahead with identifiers, if not name, or (3) do we go ahead with identifiers and name? Honestly, I have no idea, and that's why I'm posting here. John Carter (talk) 01:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Official biographies on university websites seem passable as reliable sources; they are generally written by the professors themselves. I had a concern that the author may have wanted to maintain their anonymity, but John's assessment appears correct: after the book's publication, they were publicly identified as the author. I can only assume this was done with the author's consent. However, when this book is cited as a reference, we should use the author's pseudonym, as that is the name the book was published under. Homunculus (duihua) 01:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd come here prepared to type something, but Homunculus seems to have stolen my thunder, so I'll simply say I concur with Homunculus on this. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Terrence Deacon

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

IP edits at it again. Same issue. Trying to push their POVs and expanding the controversy section too much. We had consensus on the wording. All were happy and then they take turns un-balancing the POV.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

John Baumgardner

Is suitable for biographical details? Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Nope. It's more or less a self-published source. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. If I can ask another under the same heading, is AiG OK for biographical details about the father of Jeffrey Dahmer, who I believe is living? If not AiG, should another source be sought about his religious views, or should that not be addressed in the article at all. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I demur that it is SPS, but it certainly appears to be strongly religiously affiliated - I would not likely use it for any remotely contentious statements of fact, but for interview statements as to beliefs of the person interviewed, and properly ascribed, it is likely fine. Collect (talk) 11:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Victor Lewis-Smith

Victor Lewis-Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There are many different problems with this article, some going back years. Having expected a clean up following recent events I waited but no one serious has got involved. If I start editing I can tell from the past that I will just be reverted by anonymous editors. As the situation has been getting worse I am asking that experienced editors/admins take an interest. Some issues:---

  1. I have found evidence of what looked like sockpuppeting and reported it (the resulting investigation is here:- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dora63/Archive) The conclusion of the investigation was WP:MEAT. As MEAT is prohibited would someone please escalate the names of the editors involved for further action (the pattern seems to be that User:Clemmywemmy removes negative material while User:Dora63 adds positive material)
  2. Looking at the Talk:Victor Lewis-Smith (and particularly the talk page archive) it seems that this problem and others have been going on for a long time, eg:- (summarising from here on the talk page) there is persistent removal of any material which does not reflect well on the subject of the article, although it may come from reputable secondary sources is not defamatory or libellous. Over a period of years most negative material has been systematically removed, often by anonymous editors or (recently) by one of the MEAT editors.
  3. Another piece of information which is repeatedly removed shows that the article may need to be renamed. The article is called Victor Lewis-Smith but this diff suggests Victor Lewis Smith (no hyphen) was born plain Victor Smith (his mother Norma’s maiden name of Lewis being added later) .
  4. Many controversial edits to the article or the talk page are by anonymous editors or editors with only a few edits in their history (eg User:Thimblywimbly) or editors who only edit this article/related articles (eg User:Clemmywemmy) – not many edits are by experienced editors.
  5. There have been recent attempts to name editors (eg here and also here).

So I suggest protect/semiprotect the article? At least that way the anonymous edits would stop.

And then maybe more experienced editors could take an interest in the page.

And perhaps a discussion could start about renaming the article using the subject's real name (or at least removing the hyphen). VLSCheck (talk) 10:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

It is indeed a rubbish en wikipedia article - brought about by conflicted users on both sides - It and en wikipedia and the subject would benefit by deletion imo - hes barely wiki notable and the articles rubbish and unlikely to get any better unless stubbed to the real noteworthy detail - I am not seeing that semi protection would help anything . Regarding your desire to rename the article - Thats not a WP:RS for his name or his date of birth so there will be no renaming going on using it. - If you want to discuss anything I suggest you read WP:RS and find one to support your claim, thanks - I made some edits - diffs - attempting to bring the BLP a little more in-line with en wiki policy and guidelines - Youreallycan 06:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Craig Bartholomew

I'm not even sure this guy meets GNG. Thoughts? Craig Bartholomew has cut and paste his entire CV onto the article, and another editor has taken the initiative to make changes, but I fear this may turn into an edit war soon. Talk about WP:RESUME!

I'd support removing his acolytes' attempt at turning his article into a hagiography, and if it persists I'll see what I can do about semiprotecting it; if someone wants to start an AfD, that'd be just fine with me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
DePUFFed a bit. Removed some of the comprehensive list of everything his pen ever touched, but I do not know if any of the remaining list is notable at all. Collect (talk) 11:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Well put, Blade of the Northern Lights. Should be noted the bulk of the editing of this guy's page is by people who've also edited the institution he teaches at (which, interestingly, reads like an advertisement). I don't see any of the remaining list of "publications" as notable. Many are from obscure presses, some are suggestive of self-publishing. Either way, I'm going ahead and start an AfD. Surely, it'll bring out some resistance from the acolytes, which is why I'd suggest semi-protecting.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 00:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Michael Roach

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

I'm currently addressing a COIN request on the above article.[25] A month prior, there was a 14 June 2012 Sockpuppet request which noted, "There appears to be some disagreements between Abhayakara and Nomoskedasticity and this SPI looks to be a spill-over from disagreements at the Michael Roach article.".[26] The COIN request seems to be influenced by that as well. From whatlinkshere,[27] the Michael Roach article links to: Arbitration, AN/3RR#1, AN/3RR#2, AN/I #1, AN/I #2, BLPN #1, BLPN #2, BLPN #3, BLPN #4, BLPN #5, BLPN Watchlist, COIN, Copyright problems, Contributor copyright investigations, Mediation, Sockpuppet investigations, Spam #1, and Spam #2. I'm posting here because the controversy section in the Michael Roach article appears to give undue weight to the marriage/divorce issue. It's also is causing an impasse on Talk:Michael Roach. If one of you good folks were to move that information its chronological place in Roach's history located just above it in the article, I think some of the details could be trimmed, the information would be put in context with all of Roach's life, and there would be less of a battle ground. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

DePUFFed a tad - SPS sources are not good for self-serving claims about the person himself. I have doubts about the "controversy" bit as it appears to be partly OR here. Also corrected minor misuse of a source. Collect (talk) 11:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Collect, perhaps you'll see it without my pointing it out to you, but: the COI-afflicted editor has partly reverted your edits. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
That whole article and talk page are a mess because they have been abused. An independant editor should go through it and trim all the BS. I offered to mediate a few times and was basically told to get stuffed and leave.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Your participation was appreciated at least by me. I really wish that an independent editor would go through the page and clean it up; I think that User:Collect's attempt is a good start, although I don't agree with all of his edits. Abhayakara (talk) 15:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Craig Wiseman

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

I would like to update the biography of Craig Wiseman. I work for the company he owns, Big Loud Shirt. I'm not sure who put up the current bio. It's not wrong or bad, but Mr. Wiseman would like it to read like the one on our website, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigloudshirt (talkcontribs) 14:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

    1. Encyclopaedia articles aren't written that way. We don't stuff them full of peacock terms and editorialization such as "one of today’s most celebrated", "seven short years", "significant rôle", and "notable accomplishment". This is an encyclopaedia, not a promotional blurb.
    2. Unless you are prepared to turn "Copyright © 2003-2012 Big Loud Shirt, All Rights Reserved" into the CC-BY-SA license, which is unlikely and almost certainly not your decision to make, we cannot accept your copying and pasting that content into Wikipedia as you have been. Read the notice about copyright violation that is on every edit page that you've ever seen here. This is a free content project.
    3. Corporate accounts are not permitted. Get yours changed to a personal account that is solely under your personal control, now.
  • Uncle G (talk) 16:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Beth Moore

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

  • Ocdnctx (talk · contribs) claims that the Beth Moore article is vanity, and single-sided ad copy for her enormously profitable businesses and further claims that the absence of a controversy section is surprising.

--Ocdnctx (talk) 20:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The article itself reads poorly, and I already found some copyvio and non-encyclopedic passages. If there are notable controversies, please provide sources for them. Hipocrite (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Keeping in mind any WP:BLP concerns, any additional text can be added that is appropriately backed by multiple, independent, reliable sources. I see that this editor has posted at Talk:Beth Moore. That talk page, (rather than this Noticeboard), would seem to me to be a more fitting venue for their concerns.Shearonink (talk) 21:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Michael C. Brewer

Michael C. Brewer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The current version is not a BLP violation But it's a reversion of this recent version which may not be one either as it's reliably sourced. It needs expert eyes on it as to whether the material should be kept, reverted, etc.. Voceditenore (talk) 17:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Personally - I wouldn't add anything without a conviction - if others disagree then a small comment only, and not in the lede - such as .... In 2012 Brewer and his ex wife were charged with rape after a former pupil alleged sexual abuse from over thirty years ago. [1] [2]Youreallycan 18:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Brewer is sufficiently well-known to avoid the application of WP:BLPCRIME, so I would not include anything in the article on the charges. I also note that the editor who added the material was subsequently indeffed as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
That was my reaction as well. I would suggest several editors adding it to their watch lists. Note also this earlier IP edit [28]. Voceditenore (talk) 05:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Brewer is sufficiently well known to have this issue reported in multiple major UK reliable sources including the bbc - As I said , to clarify - its widely published in reliable sources - although I personally I wouldn't add it until there was a conviction - considering the sources I wouldn't remove it either and there is nothing in policy that would support its removal if added in a npov and well cited manner. - Youreallycan 05:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The 4th million article


Which article became the 4th million created on Wikipedia? And was it a biography?--BabbaQ (talk) 19:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Help desk#4 millionth page and 500 millionth edit, and no, a coastal city, Izbat Al Burj. Dru of Id (talk) 01:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Incidents involving the drug bath salts and naming individuals who have been charged


Is it appropriate to name a non-notable individual who has been charged with drug use and other crimes, but not convicted? Specifically Carla Murphy? -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I would say it is not appropriate to name her based on WP:BLPCRIME:

Persons accused of crime

See also: Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Criminal acts and Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Crime victims and perpetrators

A living person accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until convicted by a court. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured.

And based on WP:Notability

People notable for only one event

Main pages: WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E

People known only in connection with one event should generally not have an article written about them. If the event is notable, then an article usually should be written about the event instead.

Coaster92 (talk) 06:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Wayne k Cherry

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

"Cherry retired in 2004 after the incredible fiasco of his latest creation - Pontiac Aztek."

It is not true that I retired after the Pontiac Aztek or as a result of the Aztek. In actual fact, the Aztek was done a number of years prior to its 2001 release. Just as a number of cars and trucks that I was involved with were introduced well after I retired. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wayne K Cherry (talkcontribs) 23:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

In any case, it looks like the comment has been removed. Coaster92 (talk) 04:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

General Allen Wiki Page

There was a completely false statement posted to General Allen's Biography. We removed it immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you please give more details? It would help to know what statement you think is wrong and also there is no page called General Allen so can you please mention what the actual article title is.-- (talk) 05:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
The OP removed an unsourced statement from John R. Allen, and made minor corrections there. Dru of Id (talk) 08:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Nick Pastore

Sections of this article are alternately biased in favour of and against the subject (but not dispassionately), and are almost entirely unsourced. The worst of it (paragraph starting with "It must be said...") appears to have been added by User:Dwhogberg, whose account has disappeared for one reason or another. Diff:

I'm not exactly sure how to proceed (rewrite, revert, delete, etc.), but it seems clear that something must be done. Any advice would be helpful and most appreciated. HuntClubJoe (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I've stubbed it. I suspect that most of it can be sourced properly, but it needs to be re-written in any event, so better to start from scratch. I'm not inclined to watchlist it -- HCJ, if you're going to keep tabs on it, my suggestion is that you insist that any additions come with sources (reverting additions where this doesn't happen). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Stephen M. Cohen

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

At one time I did a lot of research on this individual as he was the man accused of stealing the domain name in 1996. There were many articles published about him, some were found to be true and some were found to be press releases that were reprinted as news articles. I check his criminal record for check-kiting and grand theft and found that not to be true. The orange county Superior Court has an public online Case Access located at

There were several Stephen Cohen’s but with different middle names.

There have been no real updates to the article for some time. Today, I noticed that the article was changed and I checked out a few of the links and found one that went to the and there was no mention of Cohen. I reversed it back to the old link and ended up in an argument with Ryulong

I out in a proposed deletion and then received a warning from Ryulong not to make changes. It is my belief that this individual is somehow connected to either Cohen or Kremen. I am not sure which one. I asked him and of course he denied it. I really do not want to get into a pissing war, so I would request an admin to look at this article and see if it should be deleted or not.

Also you might want to see if Ryulong is also Tomker. Kasanders (talk) 06:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

There are a few problems with some of the edits there - such as, primary cites being used to reveal not otherwise notable minor convictions - you should notify User:Ryulong and User:Tokmer - I will do that - Youreallycan 07:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I have no intentions of contacting that individual again. If I wanted a pissing war I would go back with my ex. It's best left between him and you admins.
I am not sure why the article exists in the first place. Cohen is not notable and I don't think anyone now cares about him or Kremen. I met both of them and can't say I would ever want to see either of them again. Kremen is bad news and Cohen is worse.
If we were to write articles about everyone that has ever been convicted of a crime just in the United States alone, we would need to add alot more computers and disc space. I just saw a interesting documentary on CNN where they claim the US has more criminals in custody than Russia and China combined. Maybe that should be put to a vote to see if we should write articles of individuals that have convicted of crimes. Then someone needs to think on what level the crime has to be to be worthly of for an article. Are there age restrictions and etc? Food for thought!
However, On the issue I presented, what ever you decide is ok with me. Kasanders (talk) 09:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Kasanders is currently suspected to be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet account of an individual with a vested interest in the aforementioned article and has in the past whitewashed the article to remove any mentions of actual criminal convictions the individual has received, as well as adding material that is either fraudulently cited or not cited at all. This whole report should be disregarded as he is attempting to excuse the use of one reference which he claimed was not valid (which has since been removed) and the vague reference as certain material added to the article as being irrelevant as some sort of excuse to get this page deleted.
This is now the third time he has accused me of having a conflict of interest in the article when it was never on my radar until a recent posting to WP:ANI by a confirmed sockpuppet account to try to remove the content of the article (see Wikipedia:ANI#Bad Person and removal from the pending block list). I have been an editor on this project since early 2006 and 11 July 2012 was the first time I had ever edited the article to attempt to fix it after it had been horribly skewed by Kasanders and other related sockpuppet accounts. The only primary citation is a case filed against the subject by the State of California which includes his prior convictions and sentences, because Kasanders sought fit to remove mentions of the subject's convictions of bankruptcy fraud and check fraud from the article, despite there being other reliable sources that mention the same content. I'm surprised that Kasanders has not been blocked yet, as he is most definitely quacking and being hoisted by consistently trying to get me in trouble for trying to fix his intrusions on a perfectly valid article. Kasanders' claim that he has met the individuals concerning this page shows that the account is indeed in a conflict of interest if not a sockpuppet in the case I linked before.—Ryulong (竜龙) 09:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Q for User:Ryulong - Hi - in this diff you add a link to this external web link - and add to the article a couple of alleged convictions/probation content addition reports, with the edit summary of "Found another reference; this mentions several convictions and the Kremen case" - Please respond to this query - do you consider this external to be a correct WP:RS to add and support and promote and publish this detail about a living person via en wikipedia? As your addition is clearly contentious and disputed in a BLP I have removed it and I have requested the user to make his case for its inclusion within en wikipedia policy -Youreallycan 09:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
    • It is indeed a reliable source, as it is an official court document from the State of California's Bureau of Security and Investigative Services. It internally refers to several prior convictions of the subject of the article, which includes references to the case for which we have many more reliable sources. I would believe that a document concerning an actual court case would be a reliable source on matters concerning its plaintiffs and defendants. And the content is not contentious, it is factual and supported by this reliable source. Your constant edits to this page while I have been attempting to respond to you have left me hit with four separate edit conflicts. Restore the content (as I have but I realized that probably would be wrong so I have self reverted). We should not be listening to this stupid sockpuppet account which I've just confirmed through observational evidence as being one of many with the aforementioned conflict of interest.—Ryulong (竜龙) 09:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • - update - the User:Ryulong has reverted my removal of the disputed content with the edit summary of, "You kept freaking edit conflicting me before I could respond. This is an official court document from California which is an RS" - I operate a one revert edit pattern and discuss so I will get back to this tomorrow - but its clearly a violation of primary citations that include personal detail with no secondary reports in regard to minor convictions. Youreallycan 09:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I self reverted. And the "primary citation" prohibition is only meant to avoid sources that are made by some Joe Schmo on the Internet. We should not be throwing out a legal document as a reliable source.—Ryulong (竜龙) 09:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Thanks for self reverting - We don't report/publish such legal issues using such primary sources - Youreallycan 09:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
        • It's a court case and a legal document in the state of California. It's even hosted on a freaking .gov domain. I think we can cite that no problem. What we should not be doing is listening to this obvious sockpuppet when he has already shown to have no idea how to work cooperatively and is instead trying to wikilawyer his way into getting the entire article deleted.—Ryulong (竜龙) 09:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
          • Yes - but we don't primary report such issues - as for the sock/coi /co-operation issues - we all have our problems don't we. - Youreallycan 09:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
            • I think when we already have proven with other reliable sources that the subject of the article is a convicted criminal, then a court document that makes references to other prior convictions of the subject would indeed be something we can report on.—Ryulong (竜龙) 10:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
              • Clearly I still object to your desired addition to the BLP, so I will take a step back and allow others to reply to your query - I suggest you may well benefit from requesting additional experienced opinions from the WP:RSN - regards - Youreallycan 10:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I've found the Post article that is currently a dead bare URL for you. There's also an Economist and an InternetNews article. Uncle G (talk) 10:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Anderson, John Ward (2004-02-22). "Techno-Rebels in West Bank?". The Washington Post. p. A29.  – via HighBeam Research (subscription required)
    • "Sex, lies and Earth Station 5". The Economist. 2003-12-18.
    • Singer, Michael (2004-04-20). "Sex Site Settles with VeriSign".
    • Sixtus, Mario; Eberhardt, Oliver (April 2004). "Verwischte Spuren". c't (in German).
    • The post article seems to have disappeared off of the Internet. If I had known that, I would not have removed all of the accompanying text in order to get the Reflinks tool to properly fill in the other citations.—Ryulong (竜龙) 10:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Mirrored copies of it abound, however. Just put the title into your favourite WWW search engine. You can also still read it through HighBeam if you are one of those Wikipedia editors lucky enough to have an account. Uncle G (talk) 11:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • And if you want something other than a Consumer Affairs department record that lists these prior cases from the 1970s, Youreallycan, try McCarthy 2007, p. 48–49, which gives a detailed account. Uncle G (talk) 11:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
    • McCarthy, Kieren (2007-05-03). "Stephen Michael Cohen" (PDF). Sex.Com. Quercus. ISBN 9781905204663. — via Waterstones
    • But what are your opinions on the California State Bureau of Security and Investigative Services pdf?—Ryulong (竜龙) 11:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Best practice is to avoid court documents as WP:BLPPRIMARY sources.
        • Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person
      • seems pretty clear as Wikipedia policy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
      • says on page 1, line 20 "Complainant alleges", so I would say it is not a reliable source. You can use the info to find reliable sources to support things in that .pdf. For example, you can use his PI# in that .pdf doc to get info on his private investigator license at . I added one to the article. On a larger note, I'm not sure a biography fits. Perhaps the info could be covered under an article such as Theft of as a WP:SPINOUT from with Stephen M. Cohen redirecting to Theft of -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
        • One of the complaints on the talk page, by Guy Macon, is that the article is out of date. See the abovecited sources. You'd have to work EarthStation 5#Stephen M. Cohen into that refactored article, somehow. How would you do that if you are only focussing on Uncle G (talk) 11:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
          • Page 38 of the McCarthy book cited above includes Cohen's 02/23/1948 birth date and other early life information. That, coupled with the other info makes a biography article appropriate. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
        • I did not think to look for WP:BLPPRIMARY (as I merely checked WP:RS). However, I was using the document to cite the prior convictions mentioned within (particularly the check fraud one, which Kasanders kept throwing out despite other reliable sources stating it happened). How can we cite these things without some sort of court record of that information?—Ryulong (竜龙) 11:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
          • Court documents/party briefs filed by one party or another have a reputation for being slanted towards the filer's view, even if they contain reilable facts like the ones you cited. However, judge signed court documents establish facts as do informational records of the case such as I used here, but was removed without a valid justification. Once the judge issues a ruling on his PI license, it probably will include the same criminal history and you can cite that document. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The DCA-BSIS report is moot, anyway. I pointed to McCarthy 2007 once already. The whole of chapter 10 is a biography of Cohen, from 1948 to 1988. It has far more than that report could give you: Van Nuys High School, Stephen G. Cohen, the Free Love Association, Ynata Corporation, the other Ynata Corporation, Repossessors Incorporated, and so forth. And it details cheque fraud, bankruptcy fraud, and several convictions. It even mentions a telephone-me-and-I'll-vouch-for-one-of-my-sockpuppets practice dating from two decades before the existence of Wikipedia. I strongly suggest reading it. Uncle G (talk) 13:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with Ryulong regarding his (now self-reverted) edits. JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • FWIW, I never said that the subject was not notable or the article not relevant, as should be clear to anyone who reads the history. I made one small edit and my edit summary refers only to that content, and Kasanders is either misreading unintentionally or misquoting intentionally. Drmies (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Considering the SPI he's a part of, I totally believe the latter. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Also, Uncle G, would you mind adding some McCarthy references to the article? I'd do it right now, but Google Books won't let me preview it. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
        • For reasons that may or may not become apparent, I don't want to take editorial actions on the article at this point. However, the wikitext of all of the citations is in this section, and notice McCarthy 2007, Ch.10 above. As I pointed out elsewhere, this author is Kieren McCarthy. Uncle G (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Using the descriptor - is an American criminal in the intro

I removed this diff - with a comment summary, "remove primary descriptor as criminal from the lede - tell the story in the article" - and basically think its undue to primarily describe a living person, someone who is not currently wanted for any crimes and who has spent less than five years of his life in jail as "is an American criminal" - he is a person that has committed some crimes but he should not imo be portrayed as purely a criminal in wikipedia's voice. - The descriptor was replaced after my removal by the User:Ryulong, diff with the edit summary of, "we have information that he is indeed a criminal" - what do others feel about this descriptor in the lede intro in this case - Youreallycan 02:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that not only is it questionable to use the descriptor, but that it is redundant, given that the sentence in question also includes the words 'notoriety' and 'fraudulently'. This is what's known as 'laying it on with a shovel', and as such an abomination in stylistic terms. Ok, he did a bad thing, and got caught. In fact he seems to have done several bad things, and got caught several times, as the article makes abundantly clear. I think our readers are capable of working this out for themselves without the need to spell it out repeatedly... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
FFS, it looks weird to just have "an American" as a descriptor. We have similar entries on other articles on living persons convicted of crimes, so why should this man be treated any different? And if anything the reliable source Uncle G provided above shows that the subject has been a repeat offender for onwards of 40 years now. And in the end, I'm just restoring items that were removed by the myriad sockpuppet accounts.—Ryulong (竜龙) 09:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Criminal is fine in the lead since the lead summarizes the body of the article. American fraudster might be better given that the topic is categorized in Category:American fraudsters. The lead then would need to be revised to something like "an American fraudster who gained notoriety after criminally acquiring control of". Seems awkward, so maybe American criminal works best. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to take editorial actions on the article at this point, including debating specific wording, as explained above, so I'll only address this in generalities. The objections here are twofold. One is a learned reticence with respect to articles to calling people criminals. The other is that it's driving the point home with a mallet.

For what it's worth, I'm of the school that agrees that far too many Wikipedia biographies start with bad definitions rather than good definitions as they are supposed to. Part of this is the Wikipedia editors' obsession with race and ethnicity, as well as cramming everything into the first sentence. Biographies will read "Jane Doe is a Jewish1 Scientologist2,3,4,5,6 of Hungarian7, Romanian8, Phillipine9 ancestry, who was born in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia10, moved to America11 (disputed, discuss) at age 1, and who currently attends Catholic10 church." and only several sentences in will one find that the important thing about Jane is that she's an olympic medal winner, or an A-list celebrity, or a high-echelon politician.

I suggest that you take the same route here as would be taken for Jane Doe. Find a way of defining the subject that doesn't centre on the fairly irrelevant race and ethnicity, and that doesn't follow the humdrum and rôte "John Doe is a nationality occupation." formula. You'll probably find that your problem goes away. Uncle G (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


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

I am having some trouble and dispute with User:Ryulong regarding my attempts to bring this article inline with policy. They are reverting all my efforts - can uninvolved users look at these two differing versions and see which is more policy compliant -Youreallycan 20:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

What the hell is your problem Youreallycan? Your edits to the page have not been beneficial. You completely screwed up the chronological order of the content. You put blatantly wrong information in the lede (his grand theft and check fraud convictions were from the 70s), and now the word "criminal" is absent from my revision. I have reported verifiable facts. You have completely made the article out of line with BLP by inserting false information. Uzma Gamal emailed me today to express his issues with the mishandling of the page, where you have been removing content based on your own incorrect applications of policy. Stop and let other people edit the page.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
The word "criminal" is perhaps a bit vague. If he was convicted of fraud, then I suggest "fraudster". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Ryulong, what do you think about "fraudster"? I see Uzma Gamal has already suggested it above. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
There are still the grand theft and other charges he has been convicted of. Something needs to be done to encompass everything.—Ryulong (竜龙) 21:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Update - diff -User Ryulong appears ot have backed off from the major problem and has self reverted his "jonny is an American criminal who..." appellation from the lede - the other issues are less of a problem - his edits imo are an undue portrayal of the person as some massive criminal when they have spent less that five years of their life in jail - Youreallycan 21:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Even with the word criminal out of the lead, for a 2-sentence lead, it's incredibly poorly worded.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
While he may have only spent 4 years in jail for check fraud, he did flee the country after he was ordered to pay $65 million in damages and was held in jail for another year. I would not say that these are the actions of anyone who is not considered a "criminal".—Ryulong (竜龙) 21:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with YRC that the word criminal should not be used in the lead as his "occupation". I also think that Ryulong should take a break from editing the article. Over 174,000 edits? My god, don't you ever rest? :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 21:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
This is as good a time as any for a suggestion I've been contemplating: we need a template, equivalent to {{trout}}, that conveys the message that sex is more fun than editing Wikipedia. Surely someone here can conjure up the inspiration and creativity. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear - User:Nomoskedasticity has now jumped in and added - Stephen Michael Cohen (b. February 23, 1948)[1] is an American fraudster and thief - - what a place this is - Youreallycan 21:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Wait -- I thought you were unhappy with "criminal" -- there was a measure of agreement here, surely. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
At this point, I'm leaning toward Nomosk's view of how the lead should be crafted. I tend to agree with Ryulong that criminal activity is what defines Cohen, at least based on the body of the article. However, to say he is a criminal who committed various criminal acts is overkill and not very good writing. However, to use the criminal labels that are attached to him and then briefly describe what he did makes some sense. As an aside, the EarthStation 5 sentence shouldn't be in the lead. It's not even in the body. How can it be a summary of the body if the only place it exists is in the lead? I'm also not too crazy about "deceitfully gained control" - it's a bit redundant of fraudster. Perhaps something more generic like illegally gained control?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what some people think defines the subject - this is the policy compliant manner to describe the subject - Stephen Michael Cohen (b. 23 February 1948)[1] is an American who was convicted of grand theft and check-kiting after fraudulently acquiring control of the domain name in 1995 - factually and without labeling using wiki voice - not, Jonny is a thief who .... Youreallycan 21:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to take a wild guess: I would bet that Jude Law starts out with a sentence that includes something like "is a British actor"; I'd be surprised to see anything like "is a Brit who has appeared in this film and that film..." Surely the former complies with policy. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Keep on - it will all be useful later when I report you - Youreallycan 21:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Report him for what? Do you guys have an interaction ban (I can't keep track of all the drama)?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
@YRC, why is your version policy compliant? I don't see this as a policy-driven issue. If anything, it would be controlled by WP:OPENPARA, a guideline. That doesn't require that we state a label, nor does it prohibit it. The two items that are relevant here are #4 ("The notable actions or roles the person played") and #5 ("Why the person is significant"). In some ways, that could be read to favor your version. However, note that every example uses a label (queen, scholar, farm worker, and president). And it is an issue of what we think defines the subject, based on the material in the body.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
That Bbb23 is what we are doing here - (have you forgotten completely? WP:BLP ) BLP requests us to be conservative and to take care in the manner we report on living people - this is clear that , Jonny is a thief who stole .. is far less compliant with policy than , Jonny was convicted of stealing such and such in 1975 ....Youreallycan 22:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
It's a judgment call in this instance and not a BLP policy issue. In any event, I would not like the wording "He is a thief who stole", but it would be okay to say "He is a thief who took". BTW, your version, "He is an American who was convicted of" wouldn't bother me, either.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes - its a judgment call in respect to a wikipedia policy that encourages you to be cautious in your reporting especially in regards to living people - Take care also not to apply different levels of care to people that have committed and been found guilty of offenses, no matter what subjects have done - we protect them all from undue reporting. I am on a one revert self imposed condition - and I will be editing this article back to what is imo a policy compliant position when I am able to - I would , considering such as your acceptance of the disputed addition , be willing to take this to arbitration to see what the committee feel about such labeling in the wikipedia voice - Youreallycan 22:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
There are many statements in a policy. Some are very specific. Others are more generalized. The "conservatively" part of BLP is fairly generalized. It's only used twice in the policy: BLPs "must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy" and "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." Both are fairly generalized and therefore more open to interpretation in any given case. Do you think saying that Cohen is a "thief" is unbalanced or that it affects his privacy? Supposedly, consensus cannot trump policy, but there has to be a consensus as to what the policy means. I don't think this is a policy issue except in the very broadest sense, and I think it's distracting to reduce it to policy. I agree that all BLPs should be protected, no matter what they've done. I worked very hard to keep material out of an article about a serial killer. Finally, ArbCom doesn't concern itself with content, and this is a content issue, not a user conduct issue, unless you believe that every time someone disagrees with you, it becomes a conduct issue. I think you need to take a deep breath and calm down.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Don't get personal with me - mind your fuckin business about me this or that - or that I am calm or not calm - The issue with Arbcom would be policy interpretation - and they are available to comment if policy is being misinterpreted -Youreallycan 22:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Enough! People, this situation is bad enough as it is. I don't want there to be an arbitration case as well.

    All of you, try to use some imagination. "John Doe is an American fraudster." is not a good definition. It doesn't define the subject. It points to a large number of people, not one. How many American fraudsters are there? Indeed, how many articles in Category:American fraudsters are there? Define the subject. Consider how you would (properly) answer the question "Who is Stephen Michael Cohen?". You wouldn't give such a vague description. You'd say. "He's the bloke who …". Give a good definition that actually defines. All of this bother over the intersection of nationality and "occupation" will then go away.

    Uncle G (talk) 23:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Maunus edited the article more in line with what YRC thinks is correct.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes - THINKS - loOP - lol - Youreallycan 23:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Part 3

This situation is ongoing - the subject has spent less than five years of his life in jail - and is being described in the lede by User:Ryulong as an ex convict - Stephen Michael Cohen is an American ex-convict who .... is totally undue - Youreallycan 19:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Will you stop making new threads about this every time there is an issue other users have with your edits to the page? I did not initially put in the phrasing "ex-convict". Maunus put it in. You reverted it, and I thought it was all right and reverted you. When will you get it through your thick skull that there are multiple people who disagree with you and you should back off the fucking page?—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The disputed addition was not in the article - you added it here - diff - your personally attacking me is demeaning your case - - Youreallycan 20:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I am not the person who originally put the phrase "ex-convict" into the lede of the article. You reverted Maunus (who made the first edit 6 hours ago), me (20 minutes ago), and Nomoskedasticity (10 minutes ago). Those are three people who disagree with your interpretation of policy and you've reverted three times despite limiting yourself to 1RR. You are in the wrong here. Stop enforcing your personal interpretations of policy on this page.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Describing someone in such an undue way is a violation of WP;BLP whatever three users say - Youreallycan 20:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
It's not undue when he's not known for any legal activities and has been to jail on three separate occasions. He percentage of his life spent behind bars should not be the metric we use to define what he is not.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
@as such my 1rr condition is void - also is 3rr - stop adding policy violating additions about living people - jonny is an ex convict - lol - Youreallycan 20:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
You are the only one insisting that it is a policy violation. Maunus disagrees with you. Nomo... disagrees with you. I disagree with you. When things are at this level, you step back and assess the situation instead of being stubborn and insisting that everyone else is wrong.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Its a policy violation WP:BLP - I will die by that - my thick skull as you demean me is certain of that - Youreallycan 20:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
How does it violate WP:BLP? We know that the subject has been convicted of several crimes, including one major fraud case in which he was forced to pay millions in damages. Why can we not provide that information in the lede?—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Jonny is an ex convict who - lol - give over - Youreallycan 20:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Would you stop fucking dismissing any argument and act like a god damn adult?—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Your demeaning personal attacks empower me - Youreallycan 20:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • For the record I don't think it is a good idea to identify Cohen as an ex-convict. I do think it would be a good idea of YRC were to get a BLP topic ban since he is clearly unable to either think clearly or assume good faith from other editors regarding BLP articles. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
    • diff - you are the one that started this - I assume good faith at all times - but I tie up my pony or its not there when I return - Youreallycan 21:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Your actions belie that statement. I know I started it, consider it a message: treat a man as a dog he will bite you.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I have not attacked anyone here in this discussion - I have been attacked much more - I have worked with and interpreted WP:BLP for more than two years - if I am wrong in this then I need to know - its clear to me that - Stephen Michael Cohen is an American ex-convict who - is a totally undue manner to portray him - add what he has done but do not label him like that in wikis voice - Youreallycan 21:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
You may think that people "attacking you" is a sign that you are doing the right thing and standing up for the little guy and wikipedia's integrity. It isn't - it is a sign that you're doing something wrong. You are attacked because your entire demeanor is dismissive of other editors arguments and concerns, overtly and covertly suspicious of their motives (WP:AGF). Even if I agreed with your argument I wouldn't support you in a discussion the way you treat others. Your attitude undermines and invalidates any greater good you think you're achieving by "protecting" BLPs. Because you actively force people to take a stance against you. (Similarly consider this: when I called you "asshole" it wasn't a personal attack but a friendly message that you were acting like an asshole and I would like you to stop that. I realize that I might have chosen another way to give you that message, but your confrontational behavior has the effect on other editors that they confront you with emotions as I did, not with reason as would be ideal)·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Users should defend policy and living people and not respond out of upset or personal slights - Youreallycan 21:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but they don't, because users are living persons too. It's funny you seem to think you're acting out of empathy with living persons, and that induces you to act un-empathetically to your peers. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I have been polite completely even whilst under personal attacks here - if you take a position of policy cautiousness - you will find me there as a friend - you got upset with our discussion and you made this edit in retaliation for that - you don't agree with it now - thats good so we can move forward - Youreallycan 22:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
You have not been polite, and that is why others haven't been polite to you. (You have only been "polite" in the trivial sense of not using direct personal attacks - but personal attacks are a symptom of frustration with offensive and confrontational behavior, not of lack of politeness). When you realize that we have moved forward, and I think that it will result in a longer and more positive wikipedia experience for you in the long run.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I have been polite - or post a diff to show I haven't - your position of, I have attacked you and its your own fault fails to hold water - lol - I wouldn't have to suffer this crap attacking if I allowed you to violate policy and didn't stand up to your personal attacks - - Youreallycan 22:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Statement of point: In this post ^ you are being an asshole again. You are simultaneously asserting that I have an interest in violating policy and that it is your responsibility to keep me from doing that. That is an assumption of bad faith and completely confrontational. Secondly you request a diff for a problem with your behavior that is evident in each of the phrases that you have written on this page in several threads, but which obviously does not come across in a diff - this shows that you consider the letter of the policy to be important but not how other people perceive your behavior. This is a lack of empathy and a complete disregard for collegial editing. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
No diff then - lol - I consider policy compliance far in advance/prior to vague empathy and collegial claims - Youreallycan 22:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I realize that. But you can't have one without the other. In fact you can't even be an editor here without vague empathy and collegiality. It is policy. So how is that for a paradox for you? I am actually trying in good faith to help you here, because i don't think you will be editing wikipedia much longer unless you find a way to combine collegiality with policy enforcement.
So you'll be friends with people who agree with you, and revert like hell when they don't... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

───────────────────────── - Friends are not really related to this issue - for what its worth - in my interpretation of WP:BLP - Stephen Michael Cohen is an American ex-convict who - is a totally undue manner to portray him and a clear violation of policy - Youreallycan 22:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

But he is an ex-convict. And a fraudster. And a criminal. We have reliable sources that state this. There is even an entire chapter in a book dedicated to showing how much of a criminal he has been for a good portion of his adult life. We even have most of the article dedicated to describing his illicit activities. Now why can't we paint that picture in broad strokes in the lede paragraph?—Ryulong (竜龙) 23:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
And if you want evidence of every time you have been impolite: "jonny is an ex convict - lol", "Jonny is an ex convict who - lol - give over", "Your demeaning personal attacks empower me", "lol", "No diff then - lol", "Yes - THINKS - loOP - lol", "mind your fuckin business about me this or that", "Keep on - it will all be useful later when I report you", "Oh dear - Uer Nomo has jumped in and added...what a place this is", etc. You have not once cordially replied to anyone in this whole debate. Everything has had a tinge of contempt for those who argue with you.—Ryulong (竜龙) 23:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Reliable Sources

Comment was solicited here from the Reliable sources noticeboard. Editors from this discussion are welcome to bring source specific questions to RS/N following our suggested template for source discussions. We prefer that you use the suggested form of presentation because we discuss source reliability, not other issues; similarly, we prefer one section per source. Thanks, Fifelfoo (talk) 23:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)