Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive140

I am concerned by this biography. The article basically only discusses an incident in which the subject was never charged or even accused of wrongdoing (from what I can tell). Most of the material here is not even biographical in nature. There is literally not even a full sentence about his mayorship, but there are over 300 words about the incident. Anyone willing to try to fix it up? Dominic·t 00:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be redirected to an article exclusively on the incident and give no info on Calvo's other activities or BLP details. What's up with that? --BwB (talk) 02:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the history of the redirect, there was originally an article about Calvo that was redirected to the incident article based on WP:BLP1E. Seems reasonable to me based on the pre-existing article about Calvo, which had nothing but stuff about the incident already covered in another article. Someone could always challenge the redirect, but I doubt they'd get anywhere.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Please delete Duncan Lunan entry!!!!!!!!I do not want a Wiki entry! I try to correct mistakes and get blocked. In order to ensure that no more incorrect entries are made I wish "Duncan Lunan" entry to be deleted!

Duncan Lunan Science Writer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duncan Lunan (talk • contribs) 00:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Duncan! I am not sure if the article about you can be deleted or not, but what you should please do is to contact the volunteer team by email at Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject) (look for the email address on that page) to confirm that you are indeed Duncan Lunan and that you prefer the article to be deleted. This would also give you the opportunity to formally record any objections you have to the content of the article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Please note that there is nothing in the deletion policy stating that articles are to be deleted if the subject of the article does not want for there to be an article. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to note that Linda Lunan is complaining to me on twitter. Ian, while what you say is of course true, I think it's almost never a helpful response to quote policy to someone, it makes us sound uncaring and bureaucratic. Rather, it is better to give a thoughtful and considerate explanation of the reason. In this case, the problem we seem to have is that Duncan Lunan is (arguably) notable, but that reliable sources may not include biographical details that would be normal for a biography and that the subject would like included. That's actually a tough problem and we can have compassion for the person in that situation and look for ways to help solve the problem.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The subject has pointed out that this article is "overwritten and verbose". It is certainly not a very good article, largely unsourced. Hopefully someone will be interested in adopting it? In addition to posting here, I am thinking that it might be best to post on relevant Wikiprojects... what would those be, I wonder? --Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The text of our article also appears, almost verbatim, on the subject's own website. Who has copied whom? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

PS: Now stubbed by another editor. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

My guess is that our article is or was a copy of that one - either by the subject or similar. He means no harm, he'd mainly like a better article. Any idea whom I could ask? --Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

This article about the current mayor of Seattle has been discussed here several times in the last year or so. It came to my attention the other day when the most active editor, TomPointTwo, removed the neutrality tag. That motivated me to read the article again, and I restored the tag. I believe that the article has profound problems that violate our policies on the neutral point of view and WP:BLP. To summarize, the article is much more a package of many criticisms of Michael McGinn than it is a neutral biography of him. TomPointTwo seems dedicated to maintaining the article pretty much in its current state, despite serious concerns expressed previously by new editors as well as experienced editors like Qworty, Demiurge1000, Jmabel and myself. I invite other editors interested in enforcing BLP policy to read the article as well as a critique I've posted on the talk page. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I've responded to Cullen's concerns on the article talk page point by point. My intention is not to keep the article in any sort of stasis, although its been neglected on contemporary events. Instead, I want to get to a point where a comfortable consensus can be reached that the article is in a state where the tag is no longer warranted. TomPointTwo (talk) 07:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm all for getting the article to the point where the tag is not warranted. I'm quite opposed to removing the tag before the article achieves balance. - Jmabel | Talk 16:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the BLP needs an overhaul in the way of WP:BLPSOURCES (blogs, even one-time local news reports about other people anyway...). I also think the amount of detail is problematic as far as WP:NOTNEWSPAPER; to be specific: enduring notability of events; who's who in third party names; and to a degree the diary-like coverage of the subject. I'm inclined to have a go at the sources that are less than reliable, but I'll save it for the morrow. If anyone's up to it, the BLP could still use work. JFHJr (㊟) 07:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I am a colleague of Michael Patsalos-Fox's at McKinsey. It has come to my attention his Wikipedia biographical entry contains a wide estimate range for his "Salary" and "Net worth" -- information that is not publicly available nor credibly verifiable. The posting of unverifiable estimates without attribution is not reflective of Wikipedia's own policies on the matter. We ask for the estimated references to be removed. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbrown762 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I've removed them. --Dweller (talk) 15:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

At Talk:Palestinian people, Hearfourmewesique (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has made several accusations that a living person has directly sponsored sheer anti-Semitic propaganda (diff). I redacted the comment here as the user made this outrageous attack on a living person when no source says that this person did any such thing. The user restored it here, along with a convoluted claim that because NGO Monitor reports that an organization the person is a member of sponsored a cartoon contest and that a cartoon in that contest was, in the view of NGO Monitor and this user, virulently anti-semitic, that qualifies as a reliable source to claim that a living person directly sponsored sheer anti-Semitic propaganda. Is this acceptable behavior? nableezy - 16:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I have not made "several accusations", only backed up an observation made by another editor earlier in the discussion: one of the authors in Nableezy's "reputable source" is a member of an organization called BADIL, who awarded this cartoon with $600 and second prize. Hmm... a big Jew with a crooked nose, big sideburns, black hat and an evil laughter holding a pitchfork stuck in a tombstone that says "1948" and crushing a Palestinian mother and child with it... what would that be? Anti-Semitic propaganda, perhaps? Rewarding the person who created that cartoon with money... what would that be? Sponsoring, maybe? Or is it just me and my unacceptable views? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I would like to note that, once again, no source has ever been provided that says that the living person in question directly sponsored sheer anti-Semitic propaganda. nableezy - 17:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, just saying that Chris Brown (veterinarian) article has been reverted twice to a formless stub & the reverter (User talk:Figaro) seems to have a different idea of wikipedia mos formatting of biographical articles & has asserted their right to revert quickly within 3 days. Can someone please keep an eye on this. It's minor but quite unnecessary imho. I have approached the user & left a cc on the article's talk page. I'm a relatively recent editor & don't quite know what's involved. Manytexts (talk) 03:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved. Many thanks. Manytexts (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

A discussion has occurred at the Raj Rajaratnam article regarding categories. In particular, the use of the "criminal" category. No agreement has been been reached and the categories continue to be put in and removed. There need to be additional people weighing in on whether or not this is a BLP violation. Please see Talk:Raj Rajaratnam#Controversial Categories for the discussion. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 04:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

From what I can tell from the talk page, this isn't a BLP issue so much as an issue about what type of criminal (e.g. is he "white collar", is he "American") the subject is best categorised as. Please correct me if I am misunderstanding, but otherwise this is something that would be better discussed at WP:DRN than here. In terms of the issue that has been raised about whether being convicted in an American court of a crime makes someone a criminal, yes it obviously does. --FormerIP (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I wonder if you folks would be kind enough to look at Lakshmi_Mittal. We have a letter at WMF that makes a strong case that this could be synthesis to advance a viewpoint.

For example, one sentence, "Adam Price exposed the link between UK Prime Minister Tony Blair and steel magnate Lakshmi Mittal" does not seem to me to be supported by the source. And the word "exposed" is likely to cast the subject in a negative light. There are other examples.... "Mittal's LNM steel company, registered in the Netherlands Antilles and maintaining less than 1% of its 100,000 plus workforce in the UK, sought Blair's aid in its bid to purchase Romania's state steel industry" does not seem to me to be supported by the source.

I am extremely concerned with what appears to be the synthesis of sources here, but I'm not an expert - you guys are. Would someone glance? Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 15:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there's that much synthesis going on actually, but maybe some slightly inaccurate phrasing. What happened was the Adam Price found out about a letter that Blair had written in support of Mittal's acquisition of the Romanian state steel industry, just a month after Mittal had made a large donation to the Labour party. Price won the "Inquisitor of the Year" award from the Spectator as a result[1]. So rather than exposing a "link" (which is a very woolly word to use imo) between Blair and Mittal, he exposed the letter that Blair had written. One of the sources does talk about how only 1% of the workforce is based in the UK. So basically the information is pretty much correct and in accordance with the sources, but could do with being phrased better. It is also still a significant part of his biography - articles such as this, 5 years after are still talking about it, so I think it does need some mention.

I would be more concerned about having a section entitled "Criticism and allegations" which I never like in biographies. They inevitably lead to undue weight and are a roll call of whatever someone has supposedly done wrong in their lives. It is pretty normal to have these sort of sections though, much as I wish it wasn't. I suggest that the whole "Criticism" section is removed and relevant bits incorporated into the rest of the text somehow, or put under different headings. Polequant (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I've done a bit of a copyedit to the section. The "exposure of links" between Blair and Mittal does not seem to be supported by the sources. Bizarrely, the main reason for the controversy - that Mittal was a Labour Party donor - was also not mentioned, so I have included that. I've also nominated a spinoff article Mittal Affair for merger, though I have not touched the content.--FormerIP (talk) 17:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Just as an aside, were Mittal's people not concerned at all about the header in the article "Slave-labour allegations and abhorrent safety records"? Shoulda gone to Bell Pottinger, I reckon... --FormerIP (talk) 00:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess it's also possible that the letter wasn't from Mittal. --FormerIP (talk) 19:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Dear Wikipedia,

A person at work is harrassing me and it has been brought to my attention that my wikipedia has been changed. It states until recently I worked for HMRC. Are you able to confirm who changed this so that I can provide information to my employers and the Police. Thanks

Would it be possible to put a block on this so that only I padddy atkinson can make changes to this.

It also needs updating to state: after a successful management and coaching career at Newcastle Benfield where Paddy won a lot of silver ware and was the most successful management team along with Tom Wade the club has had in their history. Paddy Atkinson has moved to the famous Bedlington Terriers as 1st team coach where hopefully he can have the same success. Recently there has been a BBC television documentary regarding billionare USA based Bob Rich sponsoring the Terrieriers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paddy atkinson (talk • contribs) 17:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes and no. Editing is open to anyone so you cannot have it so only you can edit, but you can edit it so why don't you put those updates in yourself? And, of course it has been changed. Find out which edits it was yourself at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paddy_Atkinson&action=history . Rcsprinter (deliver) 18:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Rcsprinter, why would you encourage the subject of an article to edit that article, in contravention of WP:COI? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not really in contravention of WP:COI is it ? I think that overstates it somewhat. It's a guideline rather than policy. As long as someone with a potential COI is made aware of it, follows its advice, and their edits comply with the content policies, it should be okay for the subject of an article to edit their article...in principal. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Did you read the text they want to add above? COI applies in this case as it is wholly promotional/puffery/original research.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and once they have read COI they will see that they can't add that. They can still add material that complies with policy however. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ahh, re-reading your note I see you were commenting on COI policy in general, not the merit of the subject including this information in particular. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ponyo, I agree and have removed it. I've also tried to make copy edits to the unsourced text, although some of it was so poorly written I wasn't sure what they were trying to say. I've changed the single tag to a multiple issues tag, posted a welcome at Atkinson's Talk page, and posted a COI warning after it.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The reality is that most editors with a conflict cannot properly edit their own articles. Therefore, they should not be encouraged to do so by highlighting loopholes.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Everyone should be encouraged to edit Wikipedia according to policy all the time. A great many people fail despite the articles not being about them. :) Sean.hoyland - talk 19:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Heh, feel free to encourage conflicted editors as much as you like, and I'll clean up the messes afterwards. :-) Seriously, it's not that conflicted editors can't ever be trusted to edit their own articles in a policy-compliant manner, but I'd rather just point them to the guideline and let them read it rather than interpret it for them in advance. It would be a major credit to the editor if he actually read the guideline, let alone if he understood what he read (it's not like our guidelines/policies are perfectly understandable) and applied it properly.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The way I look at it is that without editors with conflicts of interest we would never have absolute gems like the Faisal Tehrani article...a classic. Yes, I've never seen a COI that ended well. Still, I live in hope. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

blimey, unsourced, stubbed. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

As I just stated in an edit summary, the external link IS a source for purposes of tagging and supports some of the material. If you want to stub it, that's your call, but you shouldn't remove any material that is supported by the link.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

wrong article, look who I am replying to (although I did stub anything that did not seem to be supported in the article you are talking about - feel free to check and restore with in-line cites) --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Yup, I misunderstood. As for the Atkinson article, I think it was technically wrong of you to stub it, although I hate articles that don't have inline cites. I'm not going to work on it, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Need some advice here. A new editor keeps adding the ethnicity of the person's mother on the related dab-page, Mira (name). Her article has her as "Israeli-Arab", which in her case strikes me as sufficient and relevant. I'm not sure what our guidelines are, if they're formalized or not, for dab-pages. Usually we list nationalities, at least on all the dab pages I've ever seen. Israeli-Arab conflates nationality and ethnicity, but for a very good reason given the position of Israeli Arabs in Israel and the notable achievement of this subject. In the meantime we're both at 3R, of course, and this is getting silly. On the same dab page, for instance, there's another case, an Indian-American film maker. Anyway, your input is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 03:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the closest we have to a guideline on this issue is MOS:DABENTRY, but it doesn't address the minutiae of this issue. It does, however, say: "The description associated with a link should be kept to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link. In many cases, the title of the article alone will be sufficient and no additional description is necessary." I might point out, though, that Mira (name) is not exactly a dab page, more of a hybrid between an article and a dab page. In any event, I would prefer that the entry on the name article match the lead of the Awad article, and I believe Israeli Arab is best because of her own self-identification. She doesn't appear to identify herself at all as Bulgarian. I intend to change the name article accordingly.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in. They are minutiae, aren't they, and many a wiki-career has been cut short over such matters. My thought is the same: that we let the lead of the main article be our guide. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

If Mr. X, a notable (own WP article) UK sportsman, is (per BBC News) arrested for a 'serious' offence, does that arrest qualify for inclusion in his article, or not? What I'm looking for is a definitive answer / statement, such as a "See [[WP:xyz]]" one, that I can quote, & store & use in future.

Are all such arrests treated the same in WP? Are most treated 1 way (examples please), but a few treated another way (examples please)?

Incidentally, does Wikinews follow the same guidelines?

Many thanks, Trafford09 (talk) 09:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It depends on how notable the arrest was and what effects it had on the person. Wikipedia must not become a vehicle for such effects, so unless it is very widely reported, it has no business in the article at first. Arrests have a tendency to have negative real-world consequences (such as no longer being able to travel to the US) even when they were completely unfair to begin with and subsequently innocence was proven. Hans Adler 11:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the reply. The BBC reported that he was "arrested on suspicion of sexual assault after an incident involving a woman at a hotel". So, I take it that the general advice is to wait to see whether the man is later discharged or charged? Then, in the latter case, is WP free to report that fact?

I wonder if anybody has links to WP precedents, or policy that refers to arrests. Trafford09 (talk) 12:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not aware any guidelines for that. The problem with precedents is that unless one was involved in specific discussions, one is more likely to remember the cases that were so notable that we had to report it on those grounds alone. E.g. Dominique Strauss-Kahn's arrest sounds very much like your case, but is special in that it was very widely reported and definitely affected his career. If both things had not been the case, one could have taken a much less widely reported arrest as sufficient reason for an oblique allusion to his sexual life, but probably nothing more. Hans Adler 12:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

First consideration is "Is it verifiable"? Second consideration is whether, in the context of the article, it rises to a standard of importance that it's worth mentioning. For a civil-rights activist, for example, an individual arrest for trespass, blocking access, or similar protest-related charges probably doesn't warrant mention. For most public figures, a felony arrest, even without subsequent charges, is going to be important enough to warrant mention. We aren't in the business of filtering the information in articles to prevent negative information from appearing in them if it is both well-sourced and reasonably important. At the same time, if the article is a short piece about a figure that appeared on a reality show, the article shouldn't make it appear that the only important aspect of the person's life is one arrest.—Kww(talk) 12:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

"For most public figures, a felony arrest, even without subsequent charges, is going to be important enough to warrant mention." Not necessarily. That depends on the country and its way of dealing with such things. The way that Strauss-Kahn was dealt with was widely remarked upon as inappropriate. We recently had a similar case in Germany (a popular weather presenter being accused of rape by his former lover), but that was unusual and widely criticised and is unlikely to be repeated in the near future. Hans Adler 12:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Having read the BBC article in question - it is very light on details. He's been arrested pending investigation, so we should probably wait either way. This sort of offence - if it is reasonably reported almost always results in arrest, but in many cases is dropped following investigation. Reporting it before that stage is unfair to the individual (as it implies he did something wrong without any substance). --Errant ^(chat!) 12:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Previous brief BLPN discussion

This article has been fully protected because of a battle over content. Unfortunately, the version now in place is, in my view and the view of other editors, the "wrong" version as it delves into all sorts of WP:UNDUE allegations about Ray Irani, who, of course, has his own article. The current version is a result of a single purpose account, User:Cowboy128, whose contributions to the discussion on the Talk page are sometimes non-constructive and other times clearly preposterous (particularly his accusations against other editors, the usual fallback for a SPA). I don't think the current debate needs to be taken to WP:DRN or some other more complex process for resolution as I think a consensus has already been reached. However, more editors' views and suggestions would be helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

After a close reading of Cowboy128's edits, I no longer consider them to be a direct BLP violation. However, he's still an SPA; every single edit he's made to Wikipedia since registering in July has been to denounce Irani or the company he once ran. Referenced and decently written, but still absolutely unacceptable soapboxing. The current version contains what I consider to be unacceptably undue-weight bluster on the issue of Irani's pay, alleged tax evasion, etc. (As an aside, I find it amusing that I may seem to be defending something I deeply loathe -- e.g. the problem of excessive CEO compensation, especially in the US -- but if we're going to mind NPOV, that will happen from time to time.) Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 00:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

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

This article was full of many objectionable words,which were completely false and were written to make joke of the person. I have edited it but some one can malign it again as there are many stereotypes against people of his origin state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepakhui (talk • contribs) 01:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Some of your edits were good, but many were not. You removed the entire Personal life section, even though much of it is sourced. I haven't had a chance to review the sources yet, but you can't blank sections like that without a good reason. You also destroyed the table formatting of his filmography. You need to be more careful about your editing, pay attention to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, and please use edit summaries when you make an edit so others understand what you are trying to do. I've reverted everything you did and then selectively restored some of your edits that were well done. I'll try to look at the article more tomorrow. Don't have time tonight. Maybe other experienced editors can look at it in the interim.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The photo heading the article appears to be of Anna Roosevelt, Meggars' long time academic opponent. See Wikepedia article on A. Roosevelt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.239.218 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 11 December 2011‎ (UTC)

We don't have an article Peggy Meggars (archaeologist).

We do have Betty Meggers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ("an American archaeologist best known for her work conducted in association with her husband, Cliff Evans, in South America"), and also Anna Curtenius Roosevelt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ("an American archaeologist, Professor of Anthropology at the University of Illinois") - but neither of those articles have photos, nor have recently had photos.

Perhaps you're mistaking the fundraising banner photo for a photo of the subject of the article?

Alternatively, can you give us a link to the article about Peggy?

Incidentally, if either of these people would be prepared to provide a freely licensed photo of themselves to go on their Wikipedia article, please let us know. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

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

I am a beginner Wikifier, and am seeking guidance about how to improve this biography.

It is extremely positive about the subject and her career and businesses. There are no link and the two references are to businesses connected to the subject. Is it appropriate to delete material that is unverified and unverifiable? Travers (talk) 06:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this here. Normally, I'd recommend removing uncited, self-serving claims. But if we remove all the unsourced or unreliably sourced content, we're left with nothing, aren't we! I've nominated for speedy deletion and left a note at the creator's talk page. That might be the best thing for the article. JFHJr (㊟) 06:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

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

This article is written by Agnes Rapai herself. She is a self proclaimed writer, tho insignificant and unknown even in Hungary. She wants to seem to be someone significant, and she thinks that making articles about herself on wikipedia would make her one. On the discussion page she clearly admits it that she doesnt speak english so she dictated the article to her husband who translated it.

She doesnts speak or write in english and relatively unknown eben in Hungary. Why would anyone want to read about her in english?

Is it ok when a person makes a biographical article about himself or herself?

The same stands to the hungarian version of her article (and her friend Forgács Zsusa - http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forgács_Zsuzsa) but since there are friends of hers among hungarian wikipedia editors, even questions on the discussion page are labeled vandalism and removed.

pls delete her page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.21.185.148 (talk) 16:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I have tagged it for deletion. --BwB (talk) 16:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I removed that tag because it wasn't the correct one. I can't tell if she's notable because of my unfamiliarity with Hungarian and Hungarian sources. There are reviews of her works, of which only some are linked (some links didn't work, and I removed those), but I confess, even after translating them with Google, I just can't determine how notable she is.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Bbb23 for the advice on my talk page re deletion proposal policy. It is very helpful in learning more about Wiki policies. --BwB (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Note to IP: It's okay for you to question the notability of a subject, but don't personally attack the subject or, as you did on the article Talk page, call her a "nobody".--Bbb23 (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

It's now been prodded for deletion properly, but because of my concerns, I have posted a message at the Hungarian project.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The prod has been removed by another editor. No one from the Hungarian project responded.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I think this BLP might be a good candidate for AfD. Before nominating, I'll look for a few HU-3+ editors ask about the reviews, which seem to come closest to notability per WP:AUTHOR-(4)(c). JFHJr (㊟) 19:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Rapai is definitely known in Hungary, she has been elected to the Hungarian Writers' Association, she was awarded several awards and her work has been the subject of many reviews (a few of them are linked from her wikiarticle, and she is the sole subject of them, she's not just mentioned in passing).

The nominator appears to be the same person who used to turn up on Hungarian Wikipedia occasionally and insult Rapai on the article's talk page (which has been semi-protected for this very reason). Looks like s/he had to accept that we won't delete Rapai's article there, so s/he came here to continue this crusade against the author. – Alensha ^talk 20:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help! I think this puts the BLP issues at hand into a good perspective. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 20:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Rapai Ágnes is just as noted a poet in Hungary as, say, Helen Dunmore is in Britain (they were born in the same year). Anon's running battle against her should be discounted. --Pagony (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

What would really be helpful is if you and/or Alensha could improve the article. It's hard for a non-Hungarian (or at least someone not knowledgeable about the language or its publications) to do it because so much of who she is seems to be restricted to Hungary.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

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

An IP posted to my talk page with concerns about this article. Additional eyes and attention would be appreciated. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 07:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

There's no problem with the article. This is just Chace Watson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) trying to evade his ban (the SaudiNet IP address is a dead giveaway). WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Chace Watson/Archive details his dozens of socks.—Kww(talk) 15:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 06:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The page for Darren McGeough needs to be moved as his surname is actually spelled McGeouch. Thanks Salty1984 (talk) 20:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks; I've moved the page and updated spelling in that article as well as his brother's article. I'm going on the BBC Sport publications, which are more reliable than the stats website and invariably use the spelling McGeouch. JFHJr (㊟) 22:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The article on Lesley Gore contains unsourced material in a section titled Sexual Orientation. This is not encyclopedia material without references, and in my opinion it is too personal and informal to be in the entry for a living person anyway.

I've removed the unsourced material and reworked the remainder. I've also renamed the section header to the more neutral "Personal life".--Bbb23 (talk) 21:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

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

This article appears to be an autobiography, lacks reliable secondary sources, and is self-promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.41.244 (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I've tagged the article for speedy deletion. There doesn't appear to be any claim of notability, and the subject seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. If it's contested, I'll gladly work on content and then walk it through AfD. JFHJr (㊟) 22:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I've edited the article for WP:BLP issues and nominated it for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burton Bagby ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs). JFHJr (㊟) 01:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

We have an article at Linda Green (Robosigner). Robosigning, in this case, is a Bad Thing which is apparently what she's notable for. Is this title appropriate? Other BLPs don't get disambiguating suffixes like "(liar)" or "(murderer)" or whatever. I would consider simply moving to Linda Green, but that's occupied by a television series article. Is it worth setting up a 2-line dab? Where is best to move her? bobrayner (talk) 04:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

As it's not a single person, but rather a name for a group of people who signed with that name, I don't see how it could possibly be an issue. Yworo (talk) 08:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Well... my understanding was that it is a real person, but that a bunch of other people may have signed stuff on her behalf. It's still a real person's name. Should we have a different title? bobrayner (talk) 10:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The article is not a biography. It gives no personal details, no date of birth, no place of birth, no place of residence, no parents, no education, etc. It's about the signature. It's about an event. And it had no people-related categories until you added "Living person". Yworo (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I kinda agree with you - it certainly doesn't look like a biography - but if an article starts like this:

“

Linda Green is the name of a well-known "Robosigner" – a land-records document forger – who worked for DocX...

”

Then surely it's still affected by WP:BLP, regardless of whether we have a date of birth or a portrait or other common hallmarks of a biography. Meh, it's no big deal to me, I'd just prefer to see neutral content (and titles) regardless of whether the subject is human or alive... bobrayner (talk) 09:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It should go under WP:BLP1E and be renamed to be about the robosigning incidents, not about the person whose name was used in them. Ken Arromdee (talk) 15:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the entire article should be merged and redirected to 2010 United States foreclosure crisis#Robo-signing controversy. A stand-alone article, though "about the signature," is still a BLP. "Green signed and allowed her name to be signed by other people when process land-related documents. Her signatures were used to transfer real-estate, foreclose on people, and to mark loans as paid-off." That's pretty unambiguous indication that the article is equally about a living person whose notability lies in the use of her name. It doesn't matter how the article is categorized or whether it is an attempt at a comprehensive biography. JFHJr (㊟) 00:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Y Redirected; if there's any content that can be integrated into the target article, I'll do that over the next few days. bobrayner (talk) 14:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Bernard Cohen (Australian author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An IP claiming to be the subject has twice removed a free image from their article; their edit summary states "...the attached photograph by the publisher of Gangaroo are out-of-date and not related to any actual achievements". Given the difficulty in finding free images of BLP subjects, how much leeway do we give subjects in deciding whether an image should be included? My instinct is that if they are unhappy with the current image, and assuming there are no worrisome BLP issues with the current image, they should submit a replacement via OTRS and then the image can be replaced as opposed to removed entirely. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you're quite right. It's worth pointing out that the photo is undisputedly of the subject, and there's nothing objectively harmful, defamatory, insulting, or even goofy (i.e., no one eye closed, no pint in hand) about this photo in particular. It's got encyclopedic value. It's also obvious that any person's photograph will be "outdated" someday. Any subject's got a COI when it comes to the article about oneself, from biographical claims to how one feels about a photo that is indeed of the subject. Removing the picture for no reason other than it's "outdated" was categorically unconstructive, and it ought to be replaced — and perhaps with a new upload, if the subject wants. JFHJr (㊟) 17:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The image has been restored (not by me) and I've offered some advice on my talk.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

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

LACKING NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webmuse (talk • contribs) 20:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Please don't use all caps, and it would've helped to be a bit more specific. I note that you've prodded the article for deletion, although I'm not sure how long that template will remain. I also note that the article was written by the subject.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the article, removing all of the unsourced information (most of the article). My guess, though, is he's sufficiently notable to have an article. Someone would have to expand the article looking for material and sources.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

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

This sentence appears in the first paragraph of your Robert Silverberg biography:

"He later stated that he regretted committing to paper almost all of his writing from this time frame, and that it made it harder for him to be taken seriously later."

This is completely untrue. In my book of autobiographical essays, OTHER SPACES, OTHER TIMES, I explicitly say that I have ***NO*** regrets for anything I wrote in the early phase of my career. I would like the offending sentence deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.62.194 (talk) 20:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The editor above removed the offending statement. I have attempted to follow up with the editor who inserted it, who appears to have a history of original research. GreenReaper (talk) 21:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

If we accept in good faith what is written here and there, then the situation is as follows. We have two differing viewpoints about Robert Silverberg's later opinions of his own work of the mid to late 1950's. Both viewpoints are written by Robert Silverberg. One was apparently written in an introduction to some version of The Masks of Time in 1977. The other was written in his autobiography Other Spaces, Other Times: A Life Spent in the Future, published in 2009.

How do we deal with this discrepancy? Well, it's not for Wikipedia to make qualitative judgements about which of these viewpoints is the "right" one, nor even to compare and contrast them in the article. If independent reliable sources talk about either of these viewpoints, then we can summarise in the article what those independent reliable sources say. If not, then the material should not be in the article.

Incidentally, the autobiography is listed at Amazon but not listed in the Wikipedia article, which otherwise seems to be trying to enumerate everything he ever wrote. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I suspect the problem here was that the sentence in question used wording that went a bit beyond what the souce said. Regret is a bit subjective, I suppose, but if Mr. Silverberg didn't use the word "regret" in the first place and explicitly ruled it out later, then it probably didn't belong in the article. Since it's no longer in the article, I propose marking this thread as resolved. Discussion can continue at the article's talk page, if needed. Rivertorch (talk) 06:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Subject is the Governor of the Central Bank of Cyprus. I've had the article watchlisted since this discussion about the addition of an inappropriate image (later deleted as a copyvio). The article has been getting disruptive edits which started round about that time, which I'm pretty sure is coming from one person on various IPs, including unexplained blanking and removing the current image for no apparent reason (that makes me think there's a connection). They then started adding unsourced criticism which I've been reverting, now it's been restored with a Greek language source, which I can't assess very well to confirm whether it cites the claim or not or whether it's reliable (I know no more about the subject or issues involved than what I've read in the article). This IP editor seems to have an agenda (and at the same time as adding this source they yet again inexplicably removed the image), so I think the additions needs to be reviewed for sourcing and neutrality. January (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Google translation of source [2]. This is claimed to cite that the subject has been criticised, but from what I can see it seems to be saying that the subject has himself critised someone else. January (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I would appreciate some input from others on this. I removed the section yesterday and I've been reverted without explanation. January (talk) 05:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I gave the IP a 3RR warning and reverted. I think even if the source criticises the person it is WP:UNDUE. I haven't had time to check the source in depth. Regardless, if the IP does not engage on the talkpage after the 3RR warning I will report them at 3RRN. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 06:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I checked the source. This criticism derives from a single person, the president of the Cypriot Association of Investors who criticises the bank and Orphanides for selling Greek bonds to people. Everything else in the section is SYNTH and OR padding and is not included in the source. Unless there are more sources expressing dissatisfaction with Orphanides this is a case of WP:UNDUE. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 07:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

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

I ended up in a potential edit-war with User:Nimom0, when trying to update, broaden and neutralize the biography of this globally heavily debated person. Khalid Yasin could be considered to be in the hearth of the "war on Islamification" and, as such, fueling plenty of anti- and pro-opinions.

The English WP-article is currently broadly cited as a source of criticism on Yasin, more exactly 5 inaccurate cherry-picked claims, which seems to be contradicted by other sources, not at least by Yasin himself on numerous interviews and speeches on the net. Me, as a moderate catholic Christian, want to find an objective truth about this person.

To make the work on this biography more complex, there remains only limited material available in English (mostly during a 2-3 year period in Australia in mid-2000). Currently Yasin is based in the Netherlands, touring across Europe - from which my attention was originally caught to the article (I'm mostly active in the fi- name space).

I believe that Yasin as a media attention seeking English speaking American, educating non-muslims on Islam is a especially problematic person for many, with a stake in the question. I have now researched 2 days on the subject, even watched trough lengthy lectures by Yasin. To my best understanding the biography - as it was - needed plenty of improving. I would prefer to totally re-write the article, as I know only had the courage to add views on some contradictions. Please help with this article, after all, WP should be able to provide quality information also on topics of controversies.--Caygill (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

After some constructive criticism on my page (talk), I did a number of changes to improve quality and balance of existing material. Much needs to be done though, I will try to find both newer material and sources to cite regarding his earlier years.

Question: how to cite a television report of a now-bankrupt Dutch broadcasting company NMO? The original feature interview is available uncut on Youtube, but not via the now-defunct company? It's fairly new and would provide good material for the article. Can I still make a reference to the program&company?--Caygill (talk) 09:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

You are lucky that I know my way in the Dutch television and internet world: just look here to see the interview. I hope it works in your place.Jeff5102 (talk) 15:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

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

In the section "Post-retirement activities," there is a sentence at the end of the first paragraph (diff: [3] ) that seems to have a sarcastic tone, and does not fit with the rest of the section, and could possibly be defamatory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.97.220.89 (talk) 09:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. That was just a drive-by edit a week ago. I reverted it as unclear and undue. Johnuniq (talk) 09:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

A number of issues here but mainly: should the convicts be mentioned by their full names? They were both significantly younger than 18 when sentenced and were recently released after serving full term. In a number of countries they would be now officially regarded "clean" and their criminal record and conviction sealed away. Richiez (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

If the article needs all that tabloid level of detail about the killings, then it will need inline citations to show exactly which claims about the persons concerned are supported by exactly which source. In the meantime, I've blanked those sections. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Craig Mackail-Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please note the following sentences to be irrelevant and incorrect information of the person (Craig Mackail - Smith. These need to be deleted from site Craig Mackail-Smith earnt himself a reputation for being the sweatiest man alive at an early age. At school he was teased for his constant sweat patches and his overly sweaty hair that never appeared to dry out. They called him fish boy. He has 7 toes on his right foot.

also under the heading 'international career' the following statement needs to be taken off the site, again due to incorrect information While playing in a friendly Mackail-Smith punched the referee and received a red card and a 10 match ban. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.33.4 (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

This was vandalism of the article that was put in a few days ago. I have now removed it, thank you for letting us know. Remember that in most cases you are welcome to remove such material yourself, just click Edit. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – MOS, undue weight concerns addressed. JFHJr (㊟) 20:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Users have continued to add undue weight in his article over an interview he did. Consensus on this was to not include, but users continue to flat out ignore it. Truthsort (talk) 21:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

No consensus existed to "not include"... the discussion was split at best. The remark was reduced to a bare mention to alleviate Truthsort's "undue weight" concerns... but he insists on removing sourced content and asserting "consensus" when none exists. Spanneraol (talk) 22:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I dunno about consensus, but a section header called "Personality"? Surely, someone could come up with a better title. Without even reading the discussion, I would change the section header and remove the first sentence (about being "outspoken"). It's silly and it relies on an opinion piece that is so personal as to be unreliable. It's not necessary, anyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I see your point. I removed the section header and the outspoken comment and incorporated the remark into the chronological section. Spanneraol (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

A definite improvement. I tweaked it somewhat. See what you think.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem, however, is that does this really have a significant impact on him? Yeah, it received media attention but honestly so what? It is not as if he was penalized for it. Truthsort (talk) 23:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

We have other articles about sports figures (or entertainers) who express a political view that is reported on in the media, and we put that information in the article (usually in a Personal life section). I don't see this as a significant problem unless it's overdramatized. As far as I can tell, he invites the attention, anyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Many of these articles are those of sports figures (e.g. Etan Thomas) who have spend a good share of their off-season campaigning on several issues. In the case of Scott, it was just one interview. Truthsort (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Though you might draw this distinction, inclusion of even non-notable facts about an otherwise notable BLP is supported by current guidelines as long as undue weight isn't assigned. Right now, the content in question is summed in one sentence. This version seems to comply best with BLP guidelines, so I'll mark this BLP discussion as resolved. If further disputes arise on this particular issue, WP:DRN might be the best place to take it. JFHJr (㊟) 20:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• comment after discussion closed as resolved - An issue is not resolved and there is no benefit in adding resolved to a disputed situation while a good faith contributor objects. I also support Truthsort's position. Reporting of a single position at a single point in time and reporting he's a birther is just undue when its the only thing you mention apart from sport - opinions of the reporter in the citations also are demeaning to the subject. Youreallycan (talk) 20:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Alright. You really can always remove or strike the resolved tag. And edit the article. JFHJr (㊟) 20:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

That issue was well reported in the media so it deserves a mention.. the brief mention is far from undue weight. Spanneraol (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you have more reliable sources reporting he is a birther? It seems imo just totally undue to mention only this apart from sport. Youreallycan (talk) 21:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I added an AP reference to the article. There are really lots of sources out there to choose from.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I, too, think it's worthy of a short mention. However, in response to Rob's comment, I removed the NBC cite because of the reporter's comment, not to mention the casualness of the entire article.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It has been reported and he said it. IMO it's undue to report it for all time in a wikipedia biography when its the only thing you choose to report about him apart from sport. Many many people had doubts about that issue all over america and he is a sportsman, his views on politics are not noteworthy. We are down to a single external now - I am reminded that we are encouraged to report about living people in a cautious manner - not in the manner of an expose - to name and shame a single, perhaps now in hindsight embarrassing comment he made in an interview - and he is a sportsman and hit 100 home runs , and he is a birther - seems undue to me. The citation that Bbb23 has added to replace the attacking one is just a report of the Yahoo article that is already in our article, they quote it. Are there more than this single interview where he expounds his beliefs about Obhama? Youreallycan (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

If you or anyone wants to add more sourced content about other aspects of his life outside of baseball, go right ahead. Spanneraol (talk) 21:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC) There is a Kansas City Star article [4] where he again reiterates his beliefs at a later time. Spanneraol (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

We could add .. prior to Obama releasing the long version of his birth certificate and verification of such, Evans, like many thousands of other Americans was dubious about his birth place and his eligibility to be president. ... What we can do - is remove this until additional content about his other beliefs apart from sport are added - as at that point this birther labeling will not be undue. Youreallycan (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, that kind of makes sense as it was Yahoo that did the interview. You're not challenging the interview itself, so the idea is that many other press outlets picked up on it, which supports that it received "media attention", and we're not even including the team's reaction to the controversy. The report in our article is about as minimal as it gets. I don't see why Scott has to continually affirm his beliefs for them to be noteworthy. He's a major sports figure. He makes a controversial comment. He doesn't retract it. It's worthy of a short bit.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree with the added proposal above ("prior to Obama" etc.). It makes too many WP:OR assumptions about what Scott believes, why he believes it, and seems to be wrong based on the later Kansas City article (when was the long form released?).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Most sports players don't bother commenting on political issues. The fact that this one did gives a higher profile to this subject's comments on the controversy. I don't think it's just that he holds a view, and that it's the only thing reported in the article aside from baseball. JFHJr (㊟) 21:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Bbb's position. There's no point in omitting this information until later. this approach not only skirts answering the question altogether, it has nothing to do with the merits of inclusion. Proponents of inclusion (in a limited fashion, and as one sentence) have found a way to include it without giving it undue weight within the mention. Shifting the burden to a hypothetical rest of the article, though in good faith, isn't helpful. As a public figure who made a controversial statement that wasn't retracted, its limited mention is acceptable as something WP:WELLKNOWN regardless of whether yet-to-be-written aspects of his private life are ever in fact composed. This isn't his private belief system or private life anyway. This subject made it very public. JFHJr (㊟) 22:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

WELLKNOWN has to do with allegations and incidents in a public figures personal life. I do not believe this interview falls into this category. Truthsort (talk) 17:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Was their a decision to put that quote into the article? Seemed better without it to me. Spanneraol (talk) 01:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

No, there was no decision, Rob just added the Personal life section, the sentence about firearms and small government, and then the part about the Obama birther stuff. I tweaked the Obama stuff a bit and debated with myself over the merits of what Rob did. I ended up personally deciding that Rob's changes had pros and cons and not to object to them. You are, of course, free to comment if you are unhappy with the changes. Certainly, no consensus was reached.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWSPAPER flat out states "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." No one has ever been able to prove that this is the case with this interview. Getting coverage does not automatically mean that the content can be included. You have to look if there is any enduring notability in this and there simply is not. Now, someone has expanded it to more than just one sentence mention.

That refers to the notability of a person, not the validity of including information about someone who is ALREADY notable. Spanneraol (talk) 19:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It is not entirely on notability of a person. It is also regarding whether info can be added into an article. The policy states "For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Truthsort (talk) 00:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

That means if someone is just in a brief news mention you cant have an article on them.. not that you cant include information in an article. Brief news mentions are often included in articles... and your previous remarks that this incident was just a one time thing that will be forgotten seems to be proven incorrect even today when the articles on his being non tendered by the Orioles made mention of the controversy. Spanneraol (talk) 01:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC) Please refrain from reverting the article till we can reach a consensus here. Spanneraol (talk)

(edit conflict) I have to say that the recent edit-warring on the article is completely unconstructive and unnecessary. All that's going to happen is an admin is going to come along and lock the article because of the continuing battle. I think we have to reach some consensus as to what belongs in the article, either here at BLPN or on the Talk page. We now have several versions floating around, all the way from absolutely nothing to whatever. Although I see nothing wrong with going back to what was in the article before Rob edited it, at the same time, there is no urgency to any of this. So, whatever version we leave in place (even if it's Truthsort's "nothing"), we should just leave it and talk about it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Rob and I reached a compromise (though we had the discussion on my talk page instead of here, which was probably the wrong place) and went with the current version... I was also fine with the version before he edited it.Spanneraol (talk) 01:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to hear you and Rob reached a compromise, but that doesn't necessarily establish a consensus. If you wouldn't mind, why don't you put in the text of your compromise, your original text, and any other version (besides nothing, of course) that has support so we can figure out where everyone is?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

These are the two versions that we've had in the article:

• Current version (under personal life header): In 2010, Scott commented to the media during the dispute regarding President Obama's birth certificate, saying that Obama wasn't born in the USA, and said, "I was born here. If someone accuses me of not being born here, I can go -- within 10 minutes -- to my filing cabinet and I can pick up my real birth certificate and I can go, 'See? Look! Here it is. Here it is.' The man has dodged everything. He dodges questions, he doesn't answer anything. And why? Because he's hiding something."^[1][2]

• Previous (short) version, which was in Orioles section after the 2010 season: After the season, he received some media attention about his support for the Obama birther conspiracy theory.^[1][3]

• Original version, before it was shortened: Scott is known as an outspoken individual.^[4] In a December 2010 interview, Scott echoed the birther conspiracy theory, saying:^[1][5]

"Obama … hmm … Obama does not represent America. Nor does he represent anything what our forefathers stood for … He was not born here. That’s my belief. I was born here. If someone accuses me of not being born here, I can go — within 10 minutes — to my filing cabinet and I can pick up my real birth certificate and I can go, 'See? Look! Here it is.'"

Considering how the event keeps getting mentioned in articles about Scott, I think some mention should be included. If other people have different wording in mind, feel free to propose such. Spanneraol (talk) 03:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

If anything, it only deserves to be mentioned in one sentence, but it is ridiculous that two users can go off onto another user talk page, not inform anyone involved here and create their own consensus. Truthsort (talk)

Thanks, Spanneraol. I prefer the current version with a little tweak for style (the material leading up to the quote is awkward). It also has the added advantages of (1) having it in the Personal life section and (2) having the sentence before it with other material about Scott's life. Those advantages are thanks to Rob, actually. If I had to choose between the two other versions, I would vote for the previous short version. I never liked the "outspoken" sentence, and I think it's too much to not be in a Personal life section, so I don't see the point.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

How about reverting back to that version since there was no consensus on the current version? Truthsort (talk) 04:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with bb23 that the current version is a bit better, in that the additional personal life stuff adds some context to his beliefs. Spanneraol (talk) 14:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The article has been substantially edited by an IP user and then by Mattinbgn to remove most of the content relating to the subject's current notability. I don't think it voilated BLP policies but I think those users thought they did. It might be worthwhile for the deleted material to be examined and for users more familiar with these issues to decide on what should be included and what shouldn't be. The subject is a former lawyer for high-profile criminal figures who turned into a Police informant so it needs to be treated sensitively. --Brandonfarris (talk) 06:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Editing at this article has not quite reached the stage of edit-warring but I am more than a little concerned at the tone of the article and the contributions made by Brandonfarris (talk · contribs), the creator of the article. Much of the article was excised by an IP editor [5] with the edit summary "Removal of content which is intentionally prejudicial and one-sided in nature" and I have to say I tend to agree with the IP editor.

The creator of the article may not have an agenda with the creation of the article but clearly they need to reconsider their edits in the light of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons particularly "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement" and "Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased or malicious content." This edit and this edit among others does not appear to meet policy obligations being sourced to little more than reporting of rumours and scandals and as such is not consistent with the policy obligation to "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject."

The heavy and somewhat lurid emphasis on what appears to be a minor criminal offence here appears to breach WP:UNDUE and the WP:BLP requirement present material "responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." It would be hard for a reasonable person to view Brandonfarris's edits to this article as conservative and disinterested IMO.

I suggest the article is fully protected until the AfD is closed, at the very least. -- Mattinbgn (talk)

I have no agenda with the article and won't edit it til others here have a good look at it. Its material deals with sensitive subjects, I acknowledge that, but I certainly didn't consciously have an agenda in assembling the sourced material as I did. The drug offences referred to in the article ought not be given undue emphasis but I think they are interesting and perhaps provide some context to what happened later in the subject's career in terms of her close associations with Underworld figures. It is certainly an unusual situation for a barrister and has been prominently reported recently. There is an anonymous user editing the article (who is probably concealing a connection with a user recently blocked) but Mattinbgn raises a good point about BLP. I support the protection of the article too. --Brandonfarris (talk) 06:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Given that the article cites no sources whatsoever, it shouldn't be on Wikipedia at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

That's because they've all been deleted as noted above. I haven't reverted the deletions but someone should consider doing that. --Brandonfarris (talk) 06:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• I am very concerned that the informationectomies included excising all the references. When the {{afd}} was initiated the article only had old fashioned bare-url references. I fixed those three, and added two more. The article revision history shows I spent at least half an hour doing so, and I think it was a very series mistake on the part of the excisers to excise all the references. Geo Swan (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• I request User:Mattinbgn to explain further his or her concerns with this edit. In particular I call on them to explain why their concern was so serious as to require total excision of the passage they describe as questionable, but to also require the excision of the references and material that surrounded the passage they describe as questionable.
• User:Mattinbgn why did you remove the documented fact that she has been the subject of death threats?

• That was an IP editor. Show me a ref for one of my edits that you are concerned about other than supporting the reasanable concerns of the IP editor that you and others seem to be ignoring. Editors adding' material that is likely to breach BLP concerns should be more careful about how they do so if they do not want all the supposedly good edits to be reverted along with the others. My concerns are exactly as detailed above and are quite clear. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 03:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
  • User:Mattinbgn it can become very confusing when contributors insert their replies in the middle of another contributor's comments -- as you did here. Please don't do this.
  • The IP editor removed all the references from the article, and portions of the article that could not reasonably be suggested were BLP violations. In repeating that IP editor's overly broad excision don't you share responsibility for it? Geo Swan (talk) 12:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• User:Mattinbgn when I came across the {{afd}} I spent looking for references I looked for references that would contradict the {{blp1e}} concern that had been voiced. I found that she was prominent enough in 2004 that she was sought out for her opinion of the hit show Desperate Housewives when it was first shown on Australian TV. This demonstrated, IMO, that our article was incorrect when it asserted she had recently risen to attention. This demonstrated, IMO, that she was already notable in Australia, when she was asked for her opinion. And this demonstrated, IMO, that she was not a {{blp1e}}, that she was known for something other than her (long) association with the Paul Dale case.

• I support keeping the article as I explain here. The rest of your comment is therefore irrelevant, at least as it concerns me. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 03:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
  • User:Mattinbgn it can become very confusing when contributors insert their replies in the middle of another contributor's comments -- as you did here. Please don't do this. Geo Swan (talk) 12:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• I added back in some of the material and references removed in the informationectomies and referencectomies. Out of respect for the unexplained BLP concerns my restoration is modest. 22:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Geo Swan (talk)

• Unexplained??? My concerns are clearly explained above. Let shift the burden of evidence to you to show that your edits comply with BLP per WP:BLP "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material." That would be you, no? -- Mattinbgn (talk) 03:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I accept, at face value, that you believe you have adequately explained your excisions. But did you explain why you removed all the references? Did you explain why you removed any reference to Gobbo's role as a witness against Paul Dale the former policeman accused of corruption, her fears for her safety, due to her role as a witness? Did you explain why you removed the coverage of The Age seeking Gobbo's opinion of Desperate Housewives? No? Then I stand by describing your excisions as unexplained. Geo Swan (talk) 12:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The same anonymous user (IP beginning 188.28... or 188.29...) continually inserts poorly sourced and contentious edits into this BLP article without editor consensus. Previous warnings have all fallen on deaf ears. On Sunday 11 Dec, 188.28/9... revised article 13 consecutive times within a 5-hour period.

Edits' sole source is a book whose title, author, and perspective has already been sensitively incorporated into article with editorial consensus. No media attention has been given to author's (tiny minority) claims regarding subject, except for a negative comment (refutation) by a major psychologist in a New York Times review. Not a single published reliable secondary source has carried the author's claims, reflecting their tiny minority and contentious nature.

In view of user's past behavior, and constant bad faith revisions which amount to vandalism, I strongly recommend disciplinary action to prevent an umpteenth edit war.

Oughtprice99 (talk) 08:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

First, this is not the place to seek sanctions against a user. Second, as you know, your report of the IP to WP:AIV was summarily reverted and a note was placed on your Talk page that the IP is not vandalizing the article, and you shouldn't be saying they are. If you have a content dispute, take it to the Talk page and discuss it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Bbb23,

Thank you for your contribution. Could you help me with the definition for continuous anon IP edits (13 edits by a single user in a 5-hour period on 11 Dec, for example) without consensus that revise a BLP article in a contentious and potentially defamatory way? If there is another word than vandalism, I would be grateful to know what it is.

Many discussions on Talk page have already been initiated, but when anon IP users claim that article subject is a scam/fraud/liar etc. it is hard to see how any consensus can be reached.

Oughtprice99 (talk) 07:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The thirteen edits in question are these; they do not mention the words "scam", "fraud", or "liar". In fact, most of them just moved spaces around, italicised book titles, etc. There is no policy that says IP editors are not permitted to make such changes over several consecutive small edits rather than one large edit. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Demiurge1000,

Actually, the smaller edits (several of which simply reverted what user had done only minutes before) seem to have been an attempt to camouflage a far more contentious and potentially defamatory edit on article's subject within them, without seeking consensus and in contravention of Wiki's BLP rules. User has long history of edit warring and of disputing with long-standing Wikipedia editors (off2riorob and Fae to give two examples) over his revisions to article content. References to 'scam' 'fraud' 'liar' etc. come from user's talk page comments which suggest he believes Tammet has conspired to defraud the entire media and scientific establishments etc.

Oughtprice99 (talk) 08:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

If the formatting changes were "an attempt to camouflage" then it was a very unsuccessful attempt, since anyone can click the diff link I provided just above, and easily see that the thirteen edits by two IP addresses made these various minor changes along with the addition of one small and relatively uncontroversial paragraph containing two statements, sourced to a book whose status as a reliable source has not been coherently questioned.

I am normally happy to consider the stated or implied motives of editors (as indicated on talk and project pages, for example) as background when assessing the edits made by them, but neither of the two IP address have ever made any edits to project or talk pages at all. So there are some obstacles in making assumptions about which other editors they are the same people as, just as there are obstacles in making assumptions about your identity.

Regardless of all this, the article has now been fully protected by User:Ged UK until 13th January. I suggest you use that time to engage in good faith discussion on the talk page with the various IP addresses and other interested parties, to establish everyone's views and concerns about what content should be in the article and why, and reach some form of compromise. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Ched Indicated that I copied a bio from a web site. This I did as I also wrote the bio on the website (I am Kimo Williams> Should I instead copy it (the same information) from the original word document. See email below:

The Wikipedia page "User talk:Kimowilliams" has been created on 14 December 2011 by Ched Davis, with the edit summary: add welcome

This is a new page. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kimowilliams for the current revision.

To contact the editor, visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ched_Davis

Note that additional changes to the page "User talk:Kimowilliams" will not result in any further notifications, until you have logged in and visited the page.

Your friendly Wikipedia notification system — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimowilliams (talk • contribs) 16:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

There has been a Twitter prank regarding Scott Baio (specifically, claiming that he's dead) and the article is getting vandalized. Chris Goodwin (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I've semi-protected it for a couple of days. January (talk) 18:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

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

I think it is a BLP concern, and not only a WP:TITLE concern, to name the article presently named Bernard Madoff the slightly more trivializing name Bernie Madoff. Others obviously disagree. Perhaps more input here would yield a more broadly-based decision on that question. Bus stop (talk) 16:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I've commented on the talk page regarding naming. I don't think this raises an intelligible BLP issue since the most recognizable name by far, as used in domestic media, has been "Bernie." There doesn't seem to be any indication that the name is trivializing, and it seems likely it's the name he actually goes by outside of court. Others, please chime in. JFHJr (㊟) 23:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

It is trivializing by definition. A child named Bernard would affectionately be called Bernie. We are an encyclopedia, and Madoff is a 70 year old man who will be incarcerated for life. You are saying that "it seems likely it's the name he actually goes by outside of court" but nothing other than the number of Google hits suggests a re-name to "Bernie Madoff". In fact his name is Bernard L. Madoff or Bernard Lawrence Madoff. This would be his legal name. It would be most compliant with our WP:BLP concerns. Bus stop (talk) 23:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

We should go by what most of the reliable sources called him (and he called himself in a business setting) before the scandal broke, not reflect any shift that reflects a subtle belittling by nickname. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It should not be a big deal what the article name is. The man went by both names at the same time. Formally, he was Bernard. Familiarly, he was Bernie. Forbes refered to him as Bernie Madoff in 1992. Many other sources give both names, assigning Bernard to the business entity and Bernie to the man. Others such as this one demonstrate that Bernie is the name you say to his face but Bernard is the name you use to list him. I would not bother to change the article as it serves its purpose fine right now. Binksternet (talk) 01:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Trivializing the name?! A possible BLP concern?! I'm warming up my electric trouting machine as we speak (patent pending). As I pointed out on the talk page, the Encyclopedia Britannica lists him as "Bernie Madoff". No, it's not a redirect. Is there any other more respected encyclopedic source that we should defer to? Still think there's a BLP violation? Nevermind CBS [6](in conjunction with the Associated Press), ABC News[7], CNBC[8], Time Magazine[9], published best-selling books[10], etc. Bringing this to the BLP board is totally absurd and a complete waste of time. Doc talk 04:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Doc—I think there are BLP concerns. I don't think a person who already has pariah status deserves to have their Wikipedia entry changed from "Bernard Madoff" to "Bernie Madoff". The difference in the number of hits on Google for the two names is slight. The higher quality sources tend to support the name with which our article is presently titled. In the past several hours I have listed sources that I think show this on the article Talk page. If there is support in sources, that would not be strictly speaking an argument based on BLP concerns. But we need not compartmentalize our arguments totally either. Lower quality sources such as tabloids may be indulging in sensationalism, which the term "Bernie" may lend itself to, more-so than the other name. We do not have to follow in their footsteps if an editorial decision is made based on a sense of propriety and perhaps based on an exemplary sense of high-mindedness. We are hardly forced to follow Google hits if there are 11 million of one name and 13 million of the other name. So far no editor seems to have moved from this thread on the WP:BLPN to the Bernard Madoff talk page. So I don't think any harm has been done as of this point by my initiating this thread here. But if you would like it removed, that is alright with me. If immediately archiving it is possible, that is OK. Bus stop (talk) 05:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

No answer again to the Encyclopedia Britannica question. Why? Is it not even worth noting? I think it's extremely noteworthy and telling of any possible BLP concern. Doc talk 05:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

A comment in passing - can we get a requirement for "an exemplary sense of high-mindedness" added to policy? ... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

FWIW - I don't think that Bus stop is completely off-base with certain arguments to keep the article as it is - just the BLP ones. It's very well-established that plenty of reliable, high-quality sources call him "Bernie", and for us to name the article as such in no way trivializes or defames the convicted criminal who will never see freedom again in a million years. The consensus of high-quality reliable sources seems to be in favor of "Bernard", a point that Bus stop has established well. This whole thing needs to go back to the talk page, where there is currently a growing consensus not to move it. Oh, well. 'Nuff said. Doc talk 05:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Doc—it is hard to argue with the Encyclopedia Britannica. I don't know why they named their article "Bernie Madoff". Maybe they are trying to cast off their image of being an old and stodgy set of reference books and they felt that a more lighthearted naming of that article would reflect well on them. I honestly don't know. It seems to me to be an error in judgement. Are they on familiar terms with Mr. Madoff? I think there are style issues. A hardcover book for instance may fly off the bookshelves faster with "Bernie" in the title because there is the implication of "the inside scoop". Why do you suppose the Encyclopedia Britannica chose to name their article "Bernie Madoff"? Bus stop (talk) 06:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

That's the very question: why would they name their article as such? Obviously not out of serious concern for what we call BLP - so it must be something bigger (and of even less concern than possible defamation or trivialization). There are so many good and bad people known by their nicknames on WP only because they are known to the greater world by those names first. It's all so crazy, isn't it? No rush on deciding any of this, of course: the debate is often more enlightening than the problem that started it. :> Doc talk 06:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Doc—let us consider the name "Magic Johnson". Several significant distinctions apply.

"Bernie" is merely a variation on "Bernard"—many people named Bernard are alternatively named Bernie. "Magic" relates to an important quality pertaining to Mr. Johnson. "Bernie" doesn't relate to any quality pertaining to Mr. Madoff.

"Magic" has significantly replaced "Earvin" as a term of reference in that individual's instance; we don't see that "Bernie" has replaced "Bernard" in the instance of Mr. Madoff. Here are the Google search results concerning Magic Johnson:

"Earvin Johnson"—About 583,000 results (0.11 seconds)

"Magic Johnson"—About 9,580,000 results (0.20 seconds)

For the Google search results on Mr. Madoff's name variations, see that article's Talk page.

A last significant distinction is that "Magic" implies a positive quality. "Bernie" does not imply a positive quality. You can argue that nor does the term "Bernie" imply a negative quality. That may or may not be true. In the context of a man incarcerated for life, the marginally more dignified term "Bernard" is a choice that can be seen supported by our BLP policy, although I cannot point to wording in that policy articulating this. Bus stop (talk) 15:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Positive quality vs. negative quality when determining a well-established nickname's suitability for WP. Hmmm. That's mighty subjective. What about the other examples I mentioned? Doc talk 06:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Mette-Marit, Crown Princess of Norway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An IP has added a section to this article about a video supposedly made by Mette-Marit before she married the prince. There was a previous discussion on this issue a few years ago (see the Talk page). I reverted the addition for relevance and the sort of vague innuendo about what the video contained. The whole thing strikes me as tabloid-type stuff that doesn't belong in the article. I can't read Norwegian, but machine translations seem to support the notion that there is no good source for what is even in the video.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• Salam Pax
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Salam_Pax&action=historysubmit&diff=466042475&oldid=462549645

Came across this on recent changes -- looks like the subject of article is removing openly-available sourced information about himself. However, he is apparently worried about his own safety since the article identifies him by his real name, while most of his writing was done under a pseudonym. Looks like a tough one, but thought it should be mentioned here. a13ean (talk) 19:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the recent edits, but I think it is obvious that the subject's real name is not a secret and there's no BLP issue about including it in the article. --FormerIP (talk) 02:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Discussion ongoing about appropriateness of political views section(s); additional assistance requested. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 02:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• Gottfried Helnwein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mercedes Helnwein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Michael Doven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Denice Duff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jason Dohring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Alexandra Powers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Christopher Smith (performer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• MC Lyte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:My Name Is Terl has been adding categories to biographies of living people in violation of WP:BLPCAT and using a source that is considered to be unreliable (www.truthaboutscientology.com). Some of you may recall the site and some of the names from previous discussions. It has been peaceful in this area recently, but I still have some of these BLPs on my watchlist for just this reason. I have left a note on the user's page, but since I make it a point not to edit Scientology articles, can someone please clean up these BLPs? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• -  Done - Youreallycan (talk) 01:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
    • The new user replaced all the additions - I have removed them again. Lets hope the new user has a read of a few policies rather than replace them again. Youreallycan (talk) 18:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, but it is totally inappropriate and against WP policy to revert without discussion. Reliable sources have been used. You have no cause to revert. My Name Is Terl (talk) 09:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Reverting is part of the Bold change, revert, discuss cycle. It's a normal part of wikipedia. see WP:BOLD. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

And basically, what you both are claiming is that anyone who openly declares themselves as Scientologists in Scientology publicaitons, or who talks about Scientology and the fact they are Scientologists in the media, we should not list the fact that they are Scientologists. Well, hell, might as well remove Scientology categories for all Scientologists, even David Miscavige. My Name Is Terl (talk) 09:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

And the fact that the two users above ganged up against me and reverted all my legitimate and sourced edits without discussion shows a level of censorship that can only mean they are fronting for the Church of Scientology or something like that. The above Scientologists aren't even in the closet about Scientology! There are plenty of media articles about their membership! Ridiculous to have my edits reverted like this. I'll take this as far as arbitration if these two users persist - I cannot stand injustice on WP when legitimate sources are used. My Name Is Terl (talk) 09:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

On your talk page, I've pointed you to the relevant policy (WP:BLPCAT, which is part of WP:BLP). A source you have used (www.truthaboutscientology.com) has been discussed in the past. The consensus is that it is not a reliable source and should not be used on biographies of living people. If by "arbitration" you mean an ArbCom case, then I don't think it has much hope (see WP:ARBSCI for a start). Try WP:MEDIATION instead. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

If I can throw in my 2 cents here, I'd like to point out that unless the reason a person is notable is because of their involvement with Scientology, it should not be mentioned in the article at all. For example, we don't make a point to mention that a random celebrity is Islamic or Christian in their article. Mentioning a person's religious beliefs would be expected if that person is the Pope, but not if their claim to fame is something completely irrelevant to their faith. I'd go as far as to suggest that Tom Cruise's article should exclude any mention of Scientology. He's an actor. I don't care if he prefers skimmed milk over 2%, I don't care what his favourite band is, I don't care what kind of car he drives, and I don't care that he's a Scientologist. Maybe if he has refused to star in a role due to his religious beliefs, that might be worth mentioning. But, if he just happens to be a Scientologist and it doesn't interfere with his acting career, then I see no point in mentioning it. If we're going to give credence to such banal minutia as a person's religious leaning, then we might as well list how many pairs of socks they own. It's equally irrelevant, as far as I can see. --WFF12 (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Christopher Hitchens died today. This is just a heads-up, as it is a recent death of a high-profile individual; I haven't seen any significant problems on the article, but think it worth monitoring. Best,  Chzz  ►  11:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I am wondering what our position is on videos such as this. Would this be adequate for:

1. That he self-identifies as jewish?

2. Quotes regarding other claims made?

Thanks! un☯mi 16:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• - Dick Morris - He did say he was "speaking as a American , republican and a Jew" so it seems simple to accept he is a person of Jewish descent. He does not state any belief in Judaism. It seems this is the edit you are talking about. I reverted it as the tape does not not support any religious belief at all. I would add a time mark if I used a video as a support. As for the interview comments .. I think we need to take care quoting a comment out of a single interview and presenting it in a biography can lead to weight and undue issues, so I would be more careful what I was quoting him opining about unless it was a widely commented position of his. I would have to have more specifics of the desired addition to consider. Youreallycan (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I haven't given much thought on 2. to be honest, though it does seem that our current article on Dick Morris lacks indication of the 'cut of his jib' as it were on issues such as the current administration and Israel. My point-of-entry into this was this ANI thread. un☯mi 17:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes I just was reading that. I think Jayjg does a difficult and needed job in such often repeated situations and occasionally we can all get a bit bitey when the same issues come along time after time. Apart from saying that, Jayjg is to be thanked for his good work on that thankless task. Youreallycan (talk) 17:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Would we be in compliance with WP:BLPCAT (as well as WP:RS) to fill out the Infobox to read "Religion: Jewish" at the Dershowitz article? This thread presents arguments pro and con. Bus stop (talk) 18:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

This same argument is being discussed concerning Scientology above. If I can throw in my 2 cents here, I'd like to point out that unless the reason a person is notable is because of their involvement with Scientology, it should not be mentioned in the article at all. For example, we don't make a point to mention that a random celebrity is Islamic or Christian in their article. Mentioning a person's religious beliefs would be expected if that person is the Pope, but not if their claim to fame is something completely irrelevant to their faith. I'd go as far as to suggest that Tom Cruise's article should exclude any mention of Scientology. He's an actor. I don't care if he prefers skimmed milk over 2%, I don't care what his favourite band is, I don't care what kind of car he drives, and I don't care that he's a Scientologist. Maybe if he has refused to star in a role due to his religious beliefs, that might be worth mentioning. But, if he just happens to be a Scientologist and it doesn't interfere with his acting career, then I see no point in mentioning it. If we're going to give credence to such banal minutia as a person's religious leaning, then we might as well list how many pairs of socks they own. It's equally irrelevant, as far as I can see. WFF12 (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

WFF—but I think that we do find that Dershowitz's religion does have bearing on his area of notability—namely that of a lawyer. I also tend to think that it is the whole person that is spoken about in a proper biography. Yes, I would agree that not everything that is found in every source needs be revealed and propounded upon in an article—but I think we can make judicious choices. I think we as editors have that latitude. Bus stop (talk) 18:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

But, does this man regularly and routinely call upon the fact that he is Jewish or his Jewish beliefs in his profession as a lawyer? I would say that if it's a mainstay and a deeply relevant part of who he is professionally, then it merits inclusion in the article. But again, if he just "happens to be" Jewish, then it becomes a trivial, indeed meaningless fact. WFF12 (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

WFF—consider the following:

"Second, Dershowitz's religious heritage has infused his perspective and commentary on a variety of legal topics from criminal justice to professional responsibility, to constitutional law. Because of his Jewish, and particularly religious Jewish upbringing, he uses Biblical and Jewish commentary as sources of analogy and reference."[11]

"And finally, Dershowitz has assumed the role of popular translator. He wants to explain his Jewishness, his religion and other religions in a manner that, though scholarly, can be understood by a broad audience. He can use his visibility and access to convey his perspectives and concerns. He believes, from his meetings, from his research, from the letters he receives - from Jews, non-Jews and even anti-Semites - that he knows what is on the mind and souls of many Jews of all ages and that he has a unique window into the mind of the anti-Semite."[12]

I would submit that what we have described above is a suggestion of a proximity of religious convictions and professional conduct. This provides a window inside the man, which is something biographies can strive for. Bus stop (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Bus Stop, you speak of "the whole person" yet you ask to put a person into a category. Do you not see the disconnect there? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

"Jewish" isn't a religion. "Judaism" is. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to get involved in this, but a small quibble. Judaism is a religion. Jewish is an adjective that can describe religious beliefs and/or culture/ethnicity.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Pardon my ignorance, but is it kosher to publicise where one of his children goes to school in his article? Quintessential British Gentleman (talk) 21:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I have removed it as it is not really relevant to the subject Liam Neeson. MilborneOne (talk) 22:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Noel Mazzone has not been named offensive coordinator at UCLA, yet. source, no announcement on the official website of UCLA athletics, uclabruins.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.48.9.46 (talk) 01:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I restored the version before the changes because they were unsourced. Also, the lead was updated without updating the body, which makes no sense. Hopefully, editors will not scream bloody murder but add sources.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Could somebody here please chime in at Talk:Charlize Theron? Some misguided soul thinks that we should "Americanize" this actress who clearly achieved notability while a South African national simply because the films she acted in were American films. She had 12 years of notability as a South African national before becoming a naturalized American citizen in 2007, and according to WP:MOSBIO should be described as South African, as that is the nationality she held at the time she became notable. Yworo (talk) 06:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Heh, I think what you really mean is you want someone to come to the Talk page and agree with you (your reference to "misguided soul"). WP:MOSBIO is a miserable guideline when read literally, and I won't argue in favor of it. In my view, citizenship is immaterial to how we should describe a person. What matters is where they achieved notability, not what their citizenship was at the time of achieving notability. Theron is an American actress because she didn't start acting in movies until she was in the U.S. Whether she retained her SA citizenship, changed her citizenship later to American, became a dual citizen, none of that should matter. I might also add that this is another one of those Wikipedia guidelines that engenders too many disputes that waste editor time and stems from the Wikipedian obsession with labels and categories.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with Bbb23. The idea that Yworo says that people are trying to "Americanize" shows that he has a POV and battlegroung mentality that is effecting his editing in this case, and he would be best servered to stop edit warring over this and let uninvolved editors form some consensus for the lede. --68.9.119.69 (talk) 03:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Bbb32, It sound like you're advocating original research about this living person. Checking for reliable sources, I see that as little as 2 hours ago she was identified as a "South African Actress" in an article by the UK Press association. The recent months throws up dozens of other similar articles from around the world identifying her likewise. Searching for any article calling her an "American Actress" throws up no news articles. The same goes for books, with tons (from the current and past years) identifying her as South African and none identifying her as American. I also don't see any articles or books where she has self-identified as anything other than South African, so why would you suggest that anyone try to force through American, African-American, or South African-American which aren't supported by any sources without generating our own conclusions? Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 13:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Bbb32 may be doing the terrible things you accuse them of, but I'm not.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't agree with you at all Bbb23 (and I'm really against that Bbb32 dude). By that logic, "where they achieved notability", George S. Patton would be Algerian or French, and Douglas MacArthur would be Filipino or Korean; neither one of them did nearly as much in the USA. And let's not even mention Neil Armstrong, or Roald Amundsen. --GRuban (talk) 16:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

How do you know Bbb32 is a "dude" or even a human being? :-) People like Patton and McArthur or false analogies. No one disputes that they are American generals. The fact they fought wars in other countries is irrelevant, they were fighting for the U.S. (glossing over McArthur and the Philippine part). People who "permanently" leave their country of birth and become notable in their adopted country are quite different. I might also point out that in looking at the article, I saw no citations for Theron's self-identification with South Africa, but even if it were true, she moved to the U.S., didn't make films until coming to the U.S., and has lived in the U.S. ever since. None of this would matter if Wikipedia weren't obsessed with categorizing people into little boxes. We could just report the facts and not characterize her one way or the other.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Source for Bbb32 dudeness: [13]. This argument is more like it, in fact it is our guideline Wikipedia:Nationality. As to whether we should even have that, well, yes, there is such a thing as national pride in the world, and sometimes that means putting people in little boxes. If you don't think it's useful, why are you arguing so hard that she should be in a different little box? --GRuban (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Good point (not the YouTube thing, whatever that is), but that's partly what I said. Take out South African, don't put in American, just call her an actress.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

You've just been Rick Rolled. It happens to the best of us. The Interior (Talk) 20:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Blame it on my editing from an Android, it's really difficult to catch typos. I'm back on the PC now, and yes I meant you Bbb23. We should describe the person as they are best described in sources about them, or as they have described themselves at the time they became notable. There will be exceptions for instance Isla Fisher who has openly identified herself as either a British or Australian actress depending on the country of the media organisation she is speaking to. As a result the consensus has been formed that no nationality should be mentioned in the lead but that a description of her life an upbringing in the article body better explains the reasons why she has identified as both. However Charlize Theron is regularly referred to as a "South African Actress" that fact is indisputable and she has never argued against the fact that she's considered that way so there isn't any BLP issue if we refer to her that way as well. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Now you're blaming it on an OS, huh? Seriously, I knew you meant me and we all make typos, I was just having fun - and I learned a new Internet meme (thanks, Interior) - good ole Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Further to two previous threads at this board, and User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_89#BLP_case, note Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tahir_Abbas_(3rd_nomination). --JN466 11:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to recommend this one for further attention by more people. Please read all the arguments carefully, as I think it's an important case.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

re this edit, I'm unsure on the policy about minors, does it need oversight? pablo 11:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Removed as per BLP "The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject.", if anyone wants to oversight it, fine. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 11:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

p.s. not even sure if the personal life section needs to be there at all, has no relevance, is not sourced etc. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 11:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree with deletion, and Wikipedia:Oversight may indeed be appropriate. --JN466 11:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Rita M. Gross (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I recently checked the Wikipedia page about me and discovered that someone had inserted a section in my very brief entry on "Brushes with the Law." Much of the information is inaccurate and the rest is irrelevant. The listed reference did not check out when i tried to check the author's referenes. I tried to edit the article myself, but the offending material was repeatedly re-inserted.

When i read some of the history of the page, I was amazed at some of the things that had been done to it over the years, like substituted "shitface" for my last name. in view of the mean and inaccurate things people are doing to this page, i request that the page be taken down entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rita gross (talk • contribs) 14:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the "Brushes with the law" section as it was unreferenced other than primary court sources.

Wikipedia doesn't normally remove biographies of living persons just because the subject of the article requests it. However, you may be able to make an argument for the deletion of the article on the grounds of its subject not clearly meeting Wikipedia's standards for notability. It would assist in this if you could prove your identity by email and indicate you prefer the article deleted - follow the instructions under "Contact us by email" at Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

My apologies for reverting the content blanking by Rita gross , I should have checked more carefully what the content was.Theroadislong (talk) 17:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

My apologies also for reverting the anon editor for the same reasons given by User:Theroadislong. It would had been easier for everyone had the anon editor put some sort of edit comment as to the reasons why the deletion was needed. Thank you-RFD (talk) 18:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I've nominated the article for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rita M. Gross. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The article is extremely promotional in tone, far from the "disinterested tone" required by BLP policy. For example:

"Tasmin Little has further established her reputation as Artistic Director with her hugely successful “Delius Inspired” festival"

"Tasmin has played with many of the world's greatest orchestras in a career" (emphases added).

The remarks are not referenced, but this has already been noted. Tireisias (talk) 21:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Almost the entire article was copied from her agent's website, which I've removed as a copyright violation. January (talk) 00:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Tiffany Hines may look 28, but she's actually 34. She was born in 1977. I knew her parents well and she and my daughter, who is 34, were infants together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.75.252 (talk) 00:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The birthdate, along with a lot of other material in the article, was not sourced, so I removed it. If you have a reliable source for what you claim to be her birthdate, please provide it. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

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

What should we do about this? ([14]) The Wiki article doesn't mention a thing about this and this informaion does come from a forum, which to say the least with questionable reliability, nonetheless it needs more confirmation on whether it is true — Preceding unsigned comment added by BHillbillies (talk • contribs) 22:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

If her alleged death is added to the article, it must be reliably sourced period. And you're correct that the forum is NOT a reliable source. In a quick Google News search, I found nothing to corroborate the claim in the forum.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It wouldn't be any surprise if her alleged death was not covered by any internet news site, because she is not that known outside the animation industry, what is really fishy is that neither voicechasers or the BCDB have reported anything on the subject, however since her being alive is now disputed, a possibly living people category must be added to her page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BHillbillies (talk • contribs) 17:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted your addition of this cat as, per its text, it is not an appropriate cat for a person who is 76 years old.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The category is for people whose whereabouts have been unknown for a reasonable amount of time and whose being alive is questioned, as is hers. Therefore the best thing to do is to include it in her article as not to misinform wiki users. Also i wish to point out that Rocky Jones, Space Ranger actor Robert Lyden who a child actor of the 1950s, was born 1940 the earliest is also in that category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BHillbillies (talk • contribs) 16:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're wrong, Category:Possibly living people is limited to people over 90 years old.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but the Social Security Death index seems to confirm, since we are getting nowhere here, gonna add it to her page, though still quite not sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BHillbillies (talk • contribs) 23:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

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

There is a long-running (three and a half years) debate about whether Richard Quest identifies as gay or not. The only source that backs up this claim is one from The New York Post [15]. My questions are twofold:

• If Quest were openly gay, wouldn't there be more reliable sources to back this up?
• Is the New York Post a reliable source? At the very least it's sensationalist - the headline for this article is "Kinky News Network".

Thanks, -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Not remotely sufficient. Not only is the Post a trashy tabloid, but even careful reading of the article doesn't even make clear if they are saying that he has stated that he is gay, or that it is reported (by persons unknown) that he has stated that he is gay - another thing entirely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Any further comments? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Andy. I also don't understand the cited source currently in the article ([16]), supposedly in support of Quest describing himself as gay and Jewish. Quest doesn't do either in the article. The subheadline in the article states, "Quest describes himself as gay and Jewish." However, there is nothing in the body of the Pink News article to support that bold statement. The Post article, although not very good, is better than that. Anyway, I'm going to remove the statement and the cats from the article as unsupported.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no controversy here. One person -- Craig Ferguson -- objects to my published views on the impact of media on children. These are the same views held by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the AMA, the American Psychological Association, and the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychology. Ferguson is just plain out of order. Please remove the disputed tag on my biography -- it borders on being libel. Vic Strasburger, M.D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vstrasburger (talk • contribs) 04:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Since the relevant material was based on primary sources, with no evidence of notability, it seems entirely reasonable that it was deleted. Though we discourage involved persons from editing articles, in this case it seems entirely justified. I have removed the tag. Having said this, it might have been better to draw other peoples attention to the issue earlier, rather than editing the article yourself. I suggest that if the problem recurs, you raise the matter here, and let others deal with it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Please have a look at the reference used in the third paragraph of the Political views of the Michael Moore article. It does not seem reasonable to me that I would need to watch an hour and a half documentary to check for accuracy of a statement. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

You could request a time stamp. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 22:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Have added a tag asking for clarification. --BwB (talk) 21:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, I have given this post enough time and it seems that more experienced editors have no concern over this material. Here is the material covered by the documentary that is being used as a reference:

During September and October 2004, Moore spoke at universities and colleges in swing states during his "Slacker Uprising Tour". The tour gave away ramen and underwear to young people who promised to vote. This provoked public denunciations from the Michigan Republican Party and attempts to convince the government that Moore should be arrested for buying votes, but since Moore did not tell the "slackers" involved for whom to vote, just to vote, district attorneys refused to get involved. Quite possibly the most controversial stop during the tour was Utah Valley State College in Orem, Utah. A fight for his right to speak ensued and resulted in massive public debates and a media blitz. Death threats, bribes and lawsuits followed. The event was chronicled in the documentary film This Divided State.[48][clarification needed]

I would have thought that an article on a living person, especially an extremely controversial person, would require better referencing than one documentary. Gandydancer (talk) 18:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the first part of the paragraph (the part about buying votes, etc.) is in the documentary. None of the reviews of the documentary I've read (and I've now read many) mentions it. So, I removed that and reworded the rest, which now reads:

During September and October 2004, Moore spoke at universities and colleges in swing states during his "Slacker Uprising Tour". The tour gave away ramen and underwear to students who promised to vote.[48][49] One stop during the tour was Utah Valley State College. A fight for his right to speak resulted in massive public debates and a media blitz. The Utah event was chronicled in the documentary film This Divided State.[During September and October 2004, Moore spoke at universities and colleges in swing states during his "Slacker Uprising Tour". The tour gave away ramen and underwear to students who promised to vote.[48][49] One stop during the tour was Utah Valley State College. A fight for his right to speak resulted in massive public debates and a media blitz. The Utah event was chronicled in the documentary film This Divided State.[50]

I found some refs for the ramen and underwear (one's a press release, so it doesn't really count, but the other is okay, and I put in the press release anyway for more context). Based on the rewording, I don't think it's particuarly contentious. What do you think, Gandydancer?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I felt that you did a good job, however the editor that I have been dealing with has altered your edit. I will leave it up to you to decide if it still complys with Wikipedia standards. Gandydancer (talk) 14:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The other editor's change was reverted by another editor.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was aware and as expected the edit has been reversed. Also, would you please have a look at the rate that the talk pages are being archived? I believe that the time for archiving has been changed to hide the fact that this article has seen considerable debate. This is discussed at the bottom of the last page archived. Would it be possible to return the talk to at least the discussions as late as October? Thanks for your help. Gandydancer (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I've looked at the MiszaBot archiving procedure, and I edited it to remove two parameters so the defaults are used. What do you object to about the current procedure? Also, what topics do you feel should be unarchived and why?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia tells us that "[t]he fact that one would have to read or watch the whole thing does not make the matter original research. The work is verifiable, even if it takes more time[...]The same is true for non-fiction works." Why haven't Gandydancer and/or Bbb23 verified the sources, but instead "delegated" other editors to do what's essentially anyone's job? And why are you reverting mid-discussion? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the relevance of anything you've said to this topic. Are you talking about the original topic or the archive issue? Either way, what do you mean?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The first citation pertains to the first comment in this thread, specifically – "It does not seem reasonable to me that I would need to watch an hour and a half documentary to check for accuracy of a statement." The second source pertains to the fact that the wording has been reverted (multiple times) mid-discussion, since I do not see a clear consensus here. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I think the current wording comports with the sources and is reasonably balanced. I don't believe anyone but you thinks otherwise, and at this point I'm not sure what your objection is.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem I have is that the statement has been trimmed to look not controversial, including the omission of a very important description as for how Moore "danced" around the legal system. It's a direct violation of WP:NPOV. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

What do you want to add, and what are your sources for the addition? I didn't see any good source for your earlier statements about Moore and the "legal system".--Bbb23 (talk) 18:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Bbb23, you have asked, "what topics do you feel should be unarchived and why?". I believe that the present talk page should include at least discussions from October because when one looks at the previous (archived) page which starts in 2009 and then suddenly even talk from October 2011 is archived, one does have to wonder if somebody is trying to hide controversy and why that may be so. Gandydancer (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I dunno, Gandydancer, you haven't convinced me. In particular, the most recent discussion in the archive was whether posts should be deleted (for BLP issues) and whether they should be archived. I haven't personally looked at the merits of the issues, but several experienced editors expressed support for removal and archiving, and I am reluctant to unarchive such a discussion. I also don't see how it adds much value at this point.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Guys, let's focus on the issue at hand here, you can discuss archiving in a new sub-paragraph. Whoever trimmed the statement, did that particular editor verify the source to make sure it is not there? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 21:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

As I recall, when I reworded it, I checked the sources (except the documentary itself), and the material I removed did not comport with the cited sources. Feel free to revisit the edit history, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

My question was primarily referring to the documentary itself. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

If you want to cite to the documentary for the proposition that Moore acted illegally or possibly illegally, or some other permutation of that kind of assertion, you're going to have to do better than cite generally to a documentary film. Such an assertion about a BLP requires high-quality secondary sources, not the opinion of a film maker (and I don't even know what you think the film says, the context, etc.).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

...and again, I'd love to see which policy discredits the documentary as a source. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 13:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Instead of asking questions about policy and sources, why don't you address the concerns of editors about what the documentary says, who says it, when in the documentary it's said - essentially the full context - along with what material you want to add based on the documentary? This isn't a Plot section of a film where editors can add information purely based on having seen the movie. You want to add negative information about a BLP - more is needed to do that.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

My concern is (and has always been) that the editor who originally added the material, along with the documentary as a source, is supposed to be assumed to have verified said source. If you or Gandydancer wish to dispute it, one of you must undergo the verification process. Instead, the information was speedily removed under the pretense that the source is too long to verify, although Wikipedia clearly states otherwise. I already asked the following question on the article talk page: why are you delegating other editors to do what's essentially anyone's job, including you – which is to verify the source in question? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

We're going in circles. I've tried to be patient, but I'm done.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't listen to the film even if I wanted to because I don't presently have any sound on my computer. So I have no idea what it may or may not say. However, I understand that something stronger than a primary source would be necessary when an article includes information that may be damaging to a living person's character, isn't that correct? Gandydancer (talk) 19:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

That's very much correct, especially with this topic, but a good approach for all topics. The Interior (Talk) 00:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, having more intervention from User:Figaro who changes mos - insists in caps that education is not part of early life in the Chris Brown (veterinarian) biography. User:Cameron Scott helped out last time but this is getting silly when the idea is to improve an article. Explaining has not helped and I don't know what to do next. Anyone? Manytexts (talk) 12:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not that big a deal, but I've cleaned up the material a bit, addressing Figaro's concerns by renaming the section header. The article, even though it's short, really needs better sourcing.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. With others editing it's more "normal" now. No, it isn't a big deal but I didn't like being unfairly reversed by the same editor each time I put it in house style only to find it was worse than before, when improvement (even of stubs) is the aim. Again, cheers Manytexts (talk) 08:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Most content in the article describing Max Demian's history with Albany Park Theater Project is untrue. Content was copied without permission from copyrighted material at the following locations, but the achievements of actual persons reattributed inaccurately to Max Demian: http://www.aptpchicago.org/about/biographies/#maggie and http://www.aptpchicago.org/about/biographies/#colby. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aptpchicago (talk • contribs) 07:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The spelling is not correct The correct spelling is Ummen Chandi. He is the Cheaf minister of Kerala, So kindly Change The name in every article in which the above Name is mentioned. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Binpj (talk • contribs) 10:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The sources appear to be divided as to the correct English form of his name. – ukexpat (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

moved from Help Desk to ANI to here Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 11:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

A few months ago user Reptozoid created a Wikipedia page for Advocate Vikram Varma in Goa, India

If you check the profile

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

You will see Reptozoid has discussed and made allegations against one of Vikram's clients that totally violate Wikipedia policies of Biography of Living persons. He has left the following comment about a British Mother Fiona who currently has 3 minor children

" Fiona MacKeown and her children were recognized as regular drug users during the period of Scarlett's death and was reproached child neglect by the authorities. MacKeown sold TV rights of the aftermath of Scarlett Keeling to Channel 4 U.K. for a sum of 15000pounds. "

Separately, Reptozoid has used words like 'death' and 'mistress' in another case

" Tourism Minister Micky Pacheco's involvement in the death of his mistress Nadia Torado "

Note Reptozoid has never made any contribution to Wikipedia other than this profile page. He has specifically picked up a few legal cases and published what he thinks could harm the Wikipedia profile.

Please could you get one of your Editors in India or UK to look into this asap

Thanks and regards GurgaonUser (talk) 05:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Jon Bon Jovi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Gossipcop dot com has an article claiming reporting what it calls a fake story being spread on Twitter about the cardiac arrest/death of Jovi. Users might want to watchlist and watch out for the story's inclusion and remove. BLP has been semi protected. - Youreallycan (talk) 23:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's just a rumour, although apparently he is halfway there. --FormerIP (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Is he living on a prayer? Ian.thomson (talk) 02:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

No, but I think he's halfway there. Ravensfire (talk) 02:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I just said that. But I don't want to argue about it, so take my hand and we'll make it, I swear. --FormerIP (talk) 02:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Dang it - that seemed perfect to me, and I forgot to look up. Time to put my keyboard in hock. Ravensfire (talk) 02:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

We can make jokes based on song lyrics here, but this person was forced to send out a photo of himself holding a handwritten, dated cardboard sign, just like a kidnap victim, because Twitter rumors got out of control. Thank goodness that we minimized the impact on his Wikipedia biography. Who knows how many of his fans came here to check the facts? It is really important to get these things right. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Keep the Faith. Everything will turn out ok. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 06:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. It's taken as a joke on ESPN, but the advice that Herman Edwards gave NFL rookies this year should be used by a lot more people. "Don't press send!"

See here [17], here [18], and starting perhaps here [19]. Also WP:IBX talk page discussion.

I'm afraid SPhilbrick might be under one or more of several false impressions:

• that material qualifies as "contentious" if he's contending over it for reasons of pro forma guideline conformance alone;
• that anyone in the field of economics (or even a lay reader closely acquainted with Krugman's work) would find anything remarkable about the list of influences on Paul Krugman that he wants deleted, until the list complies with some infobox guidelines. There is nothing controversial about the statements implied by this "influences" infobox listing. Those statements are correct, as simple web searches reveal immediately. Much work remains to be done, but I don't see how that fact requires deletion of those names.
• that anyone in the field of economics (or even a lay reader closely acquainted with Krugman's work) would find leaving Krugman's influences only at Keynes, or Keynes and Hicks, or Keynes, Hicks and Samuelson, anything but ludicrous. As I pointed out (repeatedly) to SPhilbrick, this could easily play into a perception that Krugman is not a modern economist. And there's never any shortage of people looking for reasons to downgrade him as an economist. Wikipedia is the last place those people should find encouragement in that view.

I've repeated my points about WP:BLP violation risks over and over to SPhilbrick. I have yet to see where he responds to them. The way I see it, he is prioritizing the guideline for economist infoboxes, and the general guidelines for infoboxes (WP:IBX), and finally (recently) the general guideline WP:BRD, over a much more important policy: WP:BLP. He claims otherwise, but I haven't seen where he justifies his claim.

On the matter of my supposed WP:BRD violation, I see no basis for consensus with someone who won't acknowledge the most important issue. And I don't see anyone else in this discussion with whom I might arrive at consensus. So I'm just being bold and repeatedly restoring the "influences" list, adding yet more references, while slowly (impeded by SPhilbrick) bringing the article into compliance with the guidelines he prioritizes.

Basically, Paul Krugman is a modern economist with easily identified contemporary influences. If he had in fact been significantly influenced only by Keynes (as SPhilbrick left the infobox influences at one point), he wouldn't even be a community college professor. Like all scientists (even if in social sciences -- and I guess economics still is one), anybody at the top of his/her field is standing on the shoulders of a good many giants. Among the first giants in Paul Krugman's case was Rudi Dornbusch, Krugman's own dissertation advisor and, upon his death, the subject of an affectionate (brief) informal obit by Krugman. SPhilbrick keeps deleting even that name, unless infobox guidelines are followed to the letter. But that leaves Paul Krugman apparently not even influenced by one of his most important direct influences. Perhaps SPhilbrick's perception of economics doesn't allow him to see it as a field where a good economist probably needs up to a dozen major influences just to make notable progress, not to mention the kind of stellar progress Krugman achieved. But in that case, SPhilbrick is simply wrong about a field of which (so far) he evinces no particular knowledge in the first place.

P.S. Just got a message from SPhilbrick: on Dec 15th, after I'd raised WP:BLP issues with him repeatedly, for days, with no response, he says he thought I was only joking about that. And that "[t]he most charitable summary of this [claim of BLP vio] is "silly"." He also urges me to make a report here.[20] He claims I'll find your response "illuminating". Yakushima (talk) 14:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• Yakushima, please try to keep discussion posts shorter and more on point. You're doing yourself a disservice by posting at the length you do (to some extent here, more egregiously on the article's talkpage and MastCell's usertalk). Keeping the infobox concise per guidelines and normal practice simply is not in my view a BLP violation, or anywhere close. I'm sorry, but I think your claim that it is is a misunderstanding of the BLP policy, and of the exemptions to WP:3RR. You're certainly not exempt from the 3RR rule in this case. Instead of referring to WP:BLP, please try to get consensus on the talk page for your non-standard additions to the infobox. About your point that "I don't see anyone else in this discussion with whom I might arrive at consensus": right. People never like to get involved in a discussion where one participant contributes increasingly long, diffuse posts (and long, diffuse, increasingly angry and scornful posts are even worse in that regard). They see it as too much of a timesink. There probably won't be much of a discussion of the infobox, and so little chance of a consensus, on the talkpage unless you try harder to summarize your points and avoid repeating them. Bishonen | talk 06:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC).

Bishonen, the main reason my posts are long is that, as with so many disputes over Paul Krugman, the edit in question brings in all three of the factors that make editing the article problematic:

• BLP
• controversial topic
• technical (economics).

If you have neither the knowledge of the subject nor the tolerance for the complexity this sort of dispute requires, why are you commenting at all? "tl;dr" is no refutation of my points.

Another reason my posts are long is that they discuss the very problematic behavior of SPhilbrick in this dispute.

"Keeping the infobox concise per guidelines and normal practice simply is not in my view a BLP violation, or anywhere close. I'm sorry."

These were not MY "non-standard additions." They were someone else's. They just happen to have be correct: ALL of the names were in fact influences on Krugman's, and significant ones - AS I DOCUMENTED WITH CITATIONS THAT SPHILBRICK (and now you) HAVE DELETED, LEAVING SOME OTHER SUPPORTED STATEMENTS IN THE MAIN TEXT SUDDENLY UNSUPPORTED IN RS.

You make no argument whatsoever as to why the "occasional exceptions" allowed for guidelines don't apply here. Your response is therefore basically "you're wrong because I said so." Do better, please. Explain why I'm wrong.

"try harder to summarize your points and avoid repeating them." If I've repeated them, it was to try to find some way to summarize my case that SPhilbrick would finally address. He claims now he thought I was joking even afterI made my case several times in all seriousness. But he didn't even bother to tell me he thought I was joking until the third (or was it the fourth? fifth?) time I presented my case on various Talk pages? How credible is that? This means I'm dealing with an editor who's assuming bad faith editing on my part, while violating AGF himself. Not just an editor: an administrator. You don't find that troubling? Yakushima (talk) 05:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

My changes have been reverted once again, in violation of WP:BLP. Because some people just don't understand the state of controversies over Paul Krugman, I've written what I hope is a clarification, on the Talk page for the article: [21]. If you respond here, I'd appreciate seeing a note there about it. And vice versa. Yakushima (talk) 11:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

[22]. Best wishes. Bishonen | talk 23:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC).

Shaquille O'Neal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Shaquille O'Neal is pursuing an Ed.D.in Human Resource Development at Barry University, NOT a Ph.D. in Leadership and Education. He is featured on the homepage of the School of Education <<http://www.barry.edu/hrdedd/default.htm>> accessed, Dec. 19, 2011. The Wikipedia biography conflates the two distinct degree programs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsbury (talk • contribs) 02:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Whatever his course of study, we need the text to be supported by reliable sources. --BwB (talk) 11:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The link to Barry University in the article was dead. I replaced it with your link and changed the text to reflect Ed.D. instead of Ph.D. It's true that one of the sources says Ph.D., but I figure the Barry cite is more reliable for this assertion and that the newspaper article just got it wrong.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

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

I don't know if there is an objective problem, but Juan Cole [twitted] Any Wiki-ers please consider using this to correct the awful Wikipedia article on me http://www.juancole.com/toward-an-authorized-biography. trespassers william (talk) 11:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The section about dismissed charges about him struck me as a dubious inclusion. --Dweller (talk) 12:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree and have boldly removed the entire section. Sperril (talk) 13:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Werner J. A. Dahm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I just had to stub this BLP because most or all of it seems to have been ganked from his online profile at Arizona State, "Copyright © 2010 Arizona Board of Regents". It is also apparently an autobiography problem for User:Wdahm, User:Jdahm, and User:Wernerwiki. The subject is undoubtedly notable, but it's gonna have to be rebuilt from the ground up. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Michael Brodkorb is a former staff member of the Minnesota State Senate. Before that, he was a vice-chairperson of a political party at the state level, a political activist, and a blogger. None of that makes him quite notable and he isn't well known. When he was fired, a few days ago, related to an alleged affair with a politician, an article popped up about him. I'm concerned it's just a coatrack. Jonathunder (talk) 00:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Any changes I make to this wiki are at the personal request of Mr Starr. He does not want the older photo of him that was on the site previously. He would like his contact links left as they are, as they lead to more information about him and his music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamikonoichi (talk • contribs) 01:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

If you are declaring that you have a conflict of interest with regards to Mr. Starr, it might be helpful to mention it on your own userpage so other editors are aware of it. I've looked at your edits and haven't seen any problems with them. Sperril (talk) 04:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I do. He restored several links in the infobox that shouldn't be there. It's fine for his official website to be in the infobox, but not the other three, two of which are social networking cites that are pointed to in his official website.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't object to yanking them out. Sperril (talk) 05:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

While wikifying/copyeditiing and whatnot, I came across this article, Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion. This article is notable I'm sure, however, there has been a page created for just about every person who has won this award and they are all linked on this page. As I started browsing the articles of those people, I noticed that none of them seem as though they pass the WP:GNG even with this award. Here are the first 3 articles starting at the top of the page to give you examples: 1, 2, 3. If they are only notable for winning the award, and they are already listed on the award page, then shouldn't there be no need for them to have their own page? Is it okay to start deleting those BLP pages? GrainyMagazine (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It looks as if the series of articles was created as a work task, not by the individuals concerned but as part of the avowed aim of the award, which is promotional. Very few of the articles have any prospect of expansion as they concern leaders of (mostly) small British businesses. Since they serve no real informative purpose, have very low hit rates and were possibly created in conflict with WP:PROMOTION I think they should be removed. Exok (talk) 22:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it is that I could have been promoting. Some of these people are very notable, and winning the award is probably enough to make them notable in its own right. I had a finite amount of time available to start articles on those that didn't have them, and I expect people to look at ways of expanding the articles. I'm not sure there's any percentage in mergeing the stubs back, but it would be a possible solution for any that are truly NN. Rich Farmbrough, 22:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC).

I'm sure that they are not all non-notable. But the problem is that as of now (if the Queen's award isn't enough) none of the articles establish any type of notability. None of the articles say anything more about the person than what is already said on the Queen's award page, which is that they won the award. If you can expand the articles and add info and sources to show that they are notable then there's no problem. GrainyMagazine (talk) 23:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I've already done that for the first Lifetime award you mentioned. I have also added the 2011 winners to the master article. More work needed of course. There is a small profile of each 2011 winner on the award website. Rich Farmbrough, 23:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC).

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

• - Recent related similar report

Two other editors keeping adding slanderous infomation to the article, had to remove it yet again. I have no problems including the arrest, but the inclusion of details violate Wikipedia policies of Biography of Living persons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.217.25 (talk) 12:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Quest&action=historysubmit&diff=466677798&oldid=466543251 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.217.25 (talk) 12:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The sources support the details so I am not seeing a BLP violation... – ukexpat (talk) 16:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Do we really have to continue to repeat, after three years, when it is not ongoing republished at other secondary sources, this dismissed misdemeanor charge like some kind of low quality titillation publication? Youreallycan (talk) 17:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the US-based sources support nothing regarding the details beyond saying that the police claimed this. The Daily Record story is clearly lifted from the New York Post, so we have one trashy tabloid parroting another, without the disclaimers. In any case, going into such details about matters of no concern to his notability, and of no legal significance for that matter, is totally undue, per WP:BLP policy. This is tabloid titillation, and as such incompatible with an encyclopaedic article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Rob's removed the material, and I have no problem with that.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I beg to disagree, leaving out some globally very widely reported facts about a person does not improve anyones biography. Simply enter "Richard Quest" in Google and you will have 5 out of 10 listings about this old controversy. The controversial matter could be dealt with in a short, to the point factual chapter. --Caygill (talk) 11:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The writer of this article (Max Gerson) has a clear bias against the subject and is trying to marginalize the subject matter and show his therapy as "quackery" despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The writer has cited research of the American Cancer Society in the article, I have attempted to provide a more balanced view and cited The Gerson Therapy book, among others but that's not good enough? Citing a source that has a clear bias against the subject shouldn't be allowed without a contrary point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amusedspaceman (talk • contribs) 21:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

You don't really expect any support here for your edits, none of which is reliably sourced (WP:SELFPUB), do you? I suggest you leave the article alone.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Max Gerson is dead, so I'm not sure how you feel WP:BLP applies in this case. The "writer of this article" is not a writer. There are dozens of authors at work on this article. Sourcing for this article has been heavily discussed on both the article's talk page and at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, where this subject should be discussed. For some background, please review prior discussions at Talk:Max Gerson, Talk:Max Gerson/Archive 1 and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_92#Obituaries_and_vanity_publications_as_sources_for_cause_of_death. If you have new reliable sources to add or concerns about how the current sources are being used, I'd suggest briefly summarizing your concerns on the article's talk page. If there is a disagreement about what is or is not reliable in this context, I'd suggest the reliable sources noticeboard. (Broadly stated concerns that the article or "the writer" is "biased" aren't particularly helpful. Please be more specific.) - SummerPhD (talk) 02:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Heh, I was so startled by the edits Amused wanted to make and the chutzpah for them to come here and complain that I didn't even notice Gerson died over 50 years ago. I should pay more attention. :-) As an aside, I think you're wasting your breath.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Gerson's therapy is a fringe theory and shouldn't be given undue weight in the face of scientific skepticism. His own book isn't a reliable source for medical articles. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Timothy Fok (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I may have inserted some facts about his family some time ago, but now am unsure that some of the facts (particularly on the son's DUI) really belong in this article, as they could be construed as an attack. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I removed the discussion of his son's arrest. I see some other dubious wording but am tired now. If another editor could help with a clean-up, that would be wonderful. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

After I woke up, I removed some unsourced criticism from the article. The section about his divorce is poorly sourced, includes rumors and his ex-wife's biography has a different divorce date. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Heads up! More eyes needed at this article and the relevant AfD page, there is a concerted campaign by SPAs and anon IPs (at least 3 or 4) to continually re-add trivial stuff to this article sourced to PR websites and blogs that just host the content that people send to them. Just stubbed it (again).
These people think that by filling the article with puffery and trivia that it will save it from the AfD, please take a look, AlphaSur (talk • contribs) went so far as to remove the SPA tag from his post at the AfD, another anon IP forged a fake User signature. Where are the Wikipedia anti-spam cannons when one needs them? CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 09:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC) p.s. I will be travelling and off-wiki so please give it a look in

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

I find it hard to believe that Wikipedia allows materials that "alleged" actions happened with respect to a living person. Also, the fact that this matter is before the courts is very important. Wikipedia should not be a platform from which people can attack others based on allegations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Levant19 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

At first glance, the material about the documentary seems well-sourced and presents both sides of the story. Can you explain your concerns in more detail, Levant19? Perhaps the length of the section constitutes undue weight compared to the relatively brief coverage of other parts of his life. NPOV expansion of other sections of the article may be an appropriate course of action. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I've welcomed the new editor Levant19 and encourage others to do so. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

James O'Keefe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The lead of the article contains the following: "Because his work has become widely seen as deceptive, O'Keefe's success in gaining extensive media attention has caused controversy and discussions of journalistic standards." (italics added). It is contended that sourcing for the phrase in italics is in the body of the article, where several journalists and a few law enforcement agencies are quoted describing O'Keefe's videos as "misleading", "deceptive", "heavily and selectively edited", etc. My position is that it is a contentious, unsourced or poorly sourced statement about a living person and should be removed immediately from the article; I am accused of edit-warring for doing just that. An earlier version said "Some journalists have said that O'Keefe's work is deceptive", and this is acceptable because several of them are quoted in the body of the article. But a sweeping generalization like "widely seen as deceptive" requires, in my opinion, a direct and reliable source, noted in line. --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for posting here. To others who are interested, there is prior discussion on the talk page that merits review. causa sui (talk) 03:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's an argument from WP:LEADCITE:

Some material, including direct quotations and contentious material about living persons must be provided with an inline citation every time it is mentioned, regardless of the level of generality or the location of the statement.

(Sorry this is out of sequence, but I just found it). --Kenatipo ^speak! 23:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Kenatipo has already tried removing that sentence using (by my count) 5 different objections. As each one is rebutted, he comes up with a new one. For example, above he claims that the sentence is contentious, but has yet to provide a single source that actually disagrees. We're supposed to take his word that it's contentious because he doesn't like it. He's also been single-handedly edit warring with myself, SarekofVulcan, Xenomorphic, MastCell to remove it. It seems pretty clear at this point that here's here to advance an agenda. Getting to the specifics of this case, here are the sources that have already been provided to back up that particular sentence:

• Comparison of the raw video with the released one revealed editing that was characterized as "selective" and "deceptive" by Michael Gerson, opinion writer in the Washington Post, who wrote, "O’Keefe did not merely leave a false impression; he manufactured an elaborate, alluring lie."
• Scott Baker of The Blaze wrote in March 2011 about the NPR videos that O'Keefe was "unethical" because he calls himself an "investigative journalist" but "uses editing tactics that seem designed to intentionally lie or mislead about the material being presented."[3]
• The journalist Chris Rovzar of New York Magazine, in reporting on the NPR video, wrote that O'Keefe's videos are "edited in a highly misleading way."[79]
• Time magazine noted that the video "transposed remarks from a different part of the meeting", was "manipulative" and "a partisan hit-job".[53]
• "The evidence illustrates that things are not always as partisan zealots portray them through highly selective editing of reality. Sometimes a fuller truth is found on the cutting room floor." - California Attorney General Jerry Brown,
• Despite the fact that O'Keefe is a known liar, and that his past video stings have been edited in misleading ways, much of the mainstream media ran with his latest. -- Andrew Sullivan for The Atlantic
• So Mr. O’Keefe has been found to cut both corners and video to achieve a certain outcome. What’s so bad about that, right? The Daily Show does it all the time. But Mr. O’Keefe seems to understand if that he feeds video into the maw of the 24/7 news cycle, news organizations will link first and ask questions later. -- David Carr for the New York Times
• To the list of journalism's greatest disgraces, let us now add James O'Keefe. O'Keefe calls himself an investigative reporter, though as far as we can tell the only group of journalists he has anything in common with are habitual fabricators like Jayson Blair, Stephen Glass, and Janet Cooke. But that's not the scandal we're talking about. The real scandal is that—even though by the time he posted a "sting" of a top NPR fundraiser, O'Keefe was notorious for creating deceptive video smear jobs (ACORN? Hello?)—the media repeated the allegations uncritically. -- Monika Bauerlein and Clara Jeffery for Mother Jones
• I am kind of ashamed of myself in retrospect that I took the James O'Keefe NPR video at face value last week and wrote a post without thinking to myself, hey, let's hold off here for a minute until we have a chance to see what the full context is, how this thing was edited. We know O'Keefe and his confederates have a track record in that regard. Sure enough, it emerged last week that the editing on that video of former NPR exec Ron Schiller talking with fake representatives of a fake Muslim nonprofit was not only misleading but in journalistic terms outright corrupt. -- Michael Tomasky for The Guardian

These sources (and there are more that could be provided) all call him a liar, manipulator, or some variations thereof, without any qualifications. The sentence as it appears in the article is, if anything, too conservative -- it could simply be rewritten as Because his work was deceptive'. Raul654 (talk) 16:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's #6, Raul654, an argument from WP:LEADCITE:

Some material, including direct quotations and contentious material about living persons must be provided with an inline citation every time it is mentioned, regardless of the level of generality or the location of the statement.

Can we please all play this game by the same WikiRules? Please? --Kenatipo ^speak! 12:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

That is an argument for adding citations to that sentence using the references already available in the article (which I would be fine with). It is *NOT* an argument for deleting the sentence, which is what you have been doing. Raul654 (talk) 12:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't completely agree (and I've never argued for deleting the entire sentence); it is an argument for deleting the first contentious phrase of the sentence, because the beginning phrase lacks the inline citation required by LEADCITE. Your problem, as I see it, is that you don't have a citation that says it's a widely held perception, and, you can't add 10 quoted opinions together and get "widely seen" out of them to put in the lead. (And, in the unlikely event you do find a cite for that phrase, the entire sentence may be SYNTH, as Lionelt pointed out, and may have to be broken in two.) --Kenatipo ^speak! 13:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Your problem, as I see it, is that you don't have a citation that says it's a widely held perception - the key phrase here is "as I see it" - you are the only one making such a ludicrous claim that we need a gallup pole to extrapolate "widely held". And you again claim it is contentious despite the fact that you have yet to provide a single citation (your own opinion not withstanding) that it is untrue. Here's an idea: why don't we just remove the 'widely seen' caveat, and rewrite the sentence to say: Because his work was deceptive. That should mollify your concerns.

the entire sentence may be SYNTH, as Lionelt pointed out - There's no synth here, but I'll mark that down as the 7th argument you've tried floating in your IDONTLIKEIT quest to whitewash O'Keefe's biography. Raul654 (talk) 14:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

As I understand our policies, the burden of proof is on those who add contentious, unsourced claims to BLPs, or in this case, those who would retain a contentious, unsourced claim. So, you have until the 21st (is it?) to find a source. --Kenatipo ^speak! 15:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Nine sources have already been provided both here and on the talk page. However, if you are going to assert that it's a BLP violation to have this sourced claim in the article, you have to show - at the very least - that someone disagrees. And I notice you failed to respond to by suggestion to drop the 'widely seen as'. Raul654 (talk) 16:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

"Nine out of 10,000 journalists find O'Keefe's work deceptive", and for you that makes it a "widely held" opinion. I just don't understand how you can see it that way. Here's a few people who either don't think O'Keefe's work is deceptive, or, if they do, that he's no worse than Michael Moore: O'Keefe, Andrew Breitbart, Clark Hoyt, Zev Chafets, Brooke Kroeger, Dean Mills, Jerry Brown(holds conflicting opinions) and me. Finally, I didn't respond to your suggestion that we drop the "widely seen as" because I thought you were joking. (You are joking, aren't you?) And, we still have to deal with the SYNTH issue. --Kenatipo ^speak! 01:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

None of your afore-mentioned folks contradict the fact that O'Keefe's productions are deceptive, except perhaps Breitbart -- but then he's the worst possible person you can cite in support of your argument after his involvement with the Shirley Sherrod and ACORN video deceptions. You confuse Kroeger and Mills' discussions about using deceptive pretenses to perform undercover reporting with deceptively editing video; the latter they did not support nor comment on. Jerry Brown has not expressed conflicting opinions; his comments about O'Keefe are not mutually exclusive, and none of his opinions have conflicted with the findings of the CA AG Office findings. I only know of one Hoyt source, where he comments only about a subset of ACORN videos from a Breitbart website (not all of O'Keefe's subsequent productions) before certain unedited videos were available, and he, too, confirms deception (and that his paper was "wrong"), while noting like Brown did that poor conduct still occured. I see nothing else from Hoyt and nothing from Chavets, but I'd certainly be willing to consider any specific sources you could provide. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Although I don't think anything anyone can say would convince you, I agree with Raul654. The phrase is supported by many sources (more than necessary) and is therefore a reasonable assertion.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

You could convince me, Bbb23, if you would directly address my policy concerns (I'm really not that intractable). Just for the sake of argument, suppose I found 9 journalists who stated that O'Keefe's work is not deceptive. Would you then support adding "O'Keefe's work has become widely seen as not deceptive" somewhere in the lead? Secondly, I noticed back in August you used WP:LEADCITE as one of your arguments (in BLP/N Archive 131, James O'Keefe). Why don't you think LEADCITE applies to the sentence under discussion: "Because his work has become widely seen as deceptive, O'Keefe's success in gaining extensive media attention has caused controversy and discussions of journalistic standards." ? --Kenatipo ^speak! 06:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

"...suppose I found 9 journalists who stated that O'Keefe's work is not deceptive."

That's a high bar. I'd settle for just one for starters. Otherwise, I see no reason why we shouldn't consider dropping the "widely seen as", as suggested above, to make the sentence clearer and more accurate. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The following is an excerpt from Zev Chafets's profile of O'Keefe in The New York Times Magazine, July 27, 2011. I would point out that the article never uses the words "deceptive" or "misleading". I've bolded the parts I thought were relevant or interesting. Compared to our O'Keefe article, it's a model of balance.

• “Undercover journalism goes back to at least the 1820s in this country,” says Brooke Kroeger, the director of the Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute at New York University, who has written a book on the subject, to be published next year. “And the use of hidden cameras to do it came into prominence after World War II.” Muckrakers, of course, are advocates, loved or despised according to the targets they choose. “For years, advocacy groups such as those for a better government have partnered with journalistic organizations,” Kroeger says. “Last year the Humane Society released an undercover video of the inhumane treatment of pigs in Virginia that got picked up by media around the country and won applause from animal lovers. Many of those same people vociferously went after O’Keefe for his exposé of NPR. It’s basically a question of what you care about and what side you are on.”

• Earlier this year, two of O’Keefe’s actors, posing as fictitious representatives of a Muslim philanthropic organization, had lunch with Ron Schiller, NPR’s senior vice president for development. In the course of ingratiating himself with these potential donors, Schiller was caught denigrating Tea Party members and Republicans in language that the corporation later said it was appalled by. The scandal hastened the departures of both Schiller and his boss, Vivian Schiller (no relation). When it was suggested that the tapes had been dishonestly edited, O’Keefe invited people to watch them in their entirety. “He said it, that’s just a fact,” Dana Davis Rehm, a spokesman for NPR, said of Ron Schiller. In the aftermath, NPR conducted sessions on ethics for its support and operational staff and is planning to publish updated ethics guidelines in September.

• His takedown of ACORN was even more devastating, although Bertha Lewis, ACORN’s former chief executive, contends that the videos were dishonest. “He is demon, a liar and a cheat,” she says. “What he did was despicable. He created a fiction.” Bertha Lewis still insists that ACORN did not offer advice on how to break the law. Clark Hoyt, a former public editor for The New York Times, reviewed O’Keefe’s raw footage and edited tapes and concluded that “the most damning words match the transcripts and the audio, and do not seem out of context.”

• There is no doubt that O’Keefe disseminated only the material that supported his thesis about ACORN, but this kind of selectivity is the norm in advocacy journalism. “I put James O’Keefe in the same category as Michael Moore,” says Dean Mills, dean of the University of Missouri’s school of journalism. “Some ethicists say it is never right for a journalist to deceive for any reason, but there are wrongs in the world that will never be exposed without some kind of subterfuge.”

posted here by --Kenatipo ^speak! 00:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

On the above piece:

My comments only were about undercover reporting in general, which, when used selectively, under strict ethical guidelines and controls, has an important place in journalism. ... That's as far as I go and that is all I meant. ... Obviously, spurious selective editing is unacceptable journalistically and ethically and would undercut and/or discredit, any project, regardless of its provenance. ... I hope that's clearer. None of that got into the piece. --Brooke Kroeger

I would only say that I was not attempting to assess the relative worth or ethics of Moore and O'Keefe overall. I was speaking only to the narrower point of whether either one is a journalist. I think neither is. I think they are both advocates. --Dean Mills

It's as if Chafets thinks that the charge of dishonest editing is somehow answered by the mere challenge to look at the full tapes. What happened when journalists accepted that challenge? James Poniewozik of Time wrote an article titled "The Twisty, Bent Truth of the NPR-Sting Video." He concludes that Ron Schiller said something objectionable and that the video was misleadingly edited, which aren't mutually exclusive, even if Chafets treats them that way. -- Conor Friedersdorf

Xenophrenic (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

So, what's the point? One point is that if The New York Times company (of all people!) can publish an article about Mr. O'Keefe that's fair and balanced (i.e., one that doesn't denigrate his work at every turn) then so can Wikipedia, which they tell me has rules about NPOV. Why the strident insistence here on "heavily", "selectively", "deceptively" etc., when the flagship of liberal POV in the U.S., in the persons of Chafets and Hoyt, doesn't insist? Another point made by Chafets is that your view of O'Keefe's work and methods depends on what you think of his targets. In our case, the O'Keefe-haters seem to chant the mantra "Saying that O'Keefe's work is deceptive is like saying water is wet: everyone knows it and it needs no explanation". Is it deceptive? Clark Hoyt, a former public editor for The New York Times, reviewed O’Keefe’s raw footage and edited tapes and concluded that “the most damning words match the transcripts and the audio, and do not seem out of context.” When it was suggested that the (NPR) tapes had been dishonestly edited, O’Keefe invited people to watch them in their entirety. “He said it, that’s just a fact,” Dana Davis Rehm, a spokesman for NPR, said of Ron Schiller. "There is no doubt that O’Keefe disseminated only the material that supported his thesis about ACORN, but this kind of selectivity is the norm in advocacy journalism. “I put James O’Keefe in the same category as Michael Moore,” says Dean Mills, dean of the University of Missouri’s school of journalism." My simple recommendation is that those editors with a negative opinion of O'Keefe and his work stop pushing their POV and start following Wikipedia policies. --Kenatipo ^speak! 02:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Very nice. Now back to the issue raised on this BLP/Noticeboard for discussion, this specific sentence from the article lede:

Because his work has become widely seen as deceptive, O'Keefe's success in gaining extensive media attention has caused controversy and discussions of journalistic standards.

You've done a fine job above of substantiating this summary sentence, especially the part about causing controversy and sparking discussions about journalistic standards. I also see that you have yet to cite one single source to refute that sentence. You've cited a number of quotes and sources above, most of which already exist in our article, as if they somehow counter the text under discussion -- but they actually substantiate it. Now you are veering off-track with comments about editors, "the O'Keefe-haters" and "editors with a negative opinion of O'Keefe and his work stop pushing their POV", and I don't see that as being beneficial. I see that you've raised this issue on several other forums now, so I'm off to review those... Xenophrenic (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

What I notice about the follow-up comments you've posted by Kroeger and Mills is that neither one apparently took the opportunity to say O'Keefe's work was deceptive or misleading. If they had, I'm sure you would have informed us of the fact. Please review WP:BURDEN -- I have no obligation to prove anything when I remove contentious, unsourced material from a BLP; the burden is on those who add back the contentious material. So far, that burden has not been met. [(Personal attack removed) -Xenophrenic] I don't have absolute certainty about the correctness of my position, which is why I've asked questions about Policy in other places. And, I was invited to do so by causa anyway. --Kenatipo ^speak! 20:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I did not post those follow-up comments to convey that O'Keefe's work is deceptive or misleading. Numerous reliable sources have already been provided to convey and substantiate that fact. I posted those follow-up comments to clarify that you are incorrect in your assertion that, "Here's a few people who either don't think O'Keefe's work is deceptive, or, if they do, that he's no worse than Michael Moore..." The fact is, they have given no indication that they think that. You quote Zev Chafets, who cherry picked quotes from Kroeger, Rehm, Mills, et al, and frame those specific words as arguments -- arguments those individuals never made. For example, you present us with this in bold type: "He said it, that’s just a fact," Dana Davis Rehm, a spokesman for NPR, said of Ron Schiller. Yet you (and Chafets) fail to mention that Rehm prefaced that by noting that the videos unfairly present several innocent comments by Ron Schiller and Liley as inappropriate, and "No one should be surprised based on O'Keefe's record that the video was heavily edited with the intention of discrediting NPR". (Oh look, your source says O'Keefe has a record of that!) The fact that some of O'Keefe's targets may say inappropriate things or display poor conduct does not negate the fact that O'Keefe also produces deceptive and misleading videos. The summary lede statement conveys that O'Keefe's productions are widely seen as deceptive; it does not convey that the subjects of those productions are pristinely faultless, yet that seems to be what you are trying to argue against.

You are correct when you say, "I have no obligation to prove anything when I remove contentious, unsourced material from a BLP" -- but the problem is that you are removing neither contentious material, nor unsourced material. That would be akin to removing the summary statement from the lede of the John Wayne Gacy article that he is a "serial killer and rapist" because you find the widely held description "contentious"; or that the wording in the lede "isn't cited", or that "only 9 of the thousands of book authors out there" call him that; or that the description is used by "just some journalists" and not all... Xenophrenic (talk) 23:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, no number of negative opinions about O'Keefe's work in the body can be synthesized into "his work is widely seen as deceptive" OR "his work is deceptive" in the lead. You have not understood what Chafets, Kroeger and Mills have been trying to tell you: that you either love or hate a muckraker depending on whether he gores any of your sacred cows. It's obvious to me that you hate O'Keefe's work because he's gone after Planned Parenthood, ACORN and NPR, probably all causes dear to your heart. The TRUTH is that the liberal left thinks O'Keefe's work is deceptive. I have no problem with the article saying the American left hates O'Keefe's work. But, stating that his work is widely seen as deceptive, or is deceptive, is unacceptable because it violates BLP and LEADCITE as contentious, unsourced material. --Kenatipo ^speak! 01:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

We're talking about two completely different things. You are talking about "negative opinions", and I'm restricting my discussion to just the facts. You are welcome to rejoin that discussion. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

And, I suppose I need to remind you, even if you do find a source saying "his work is widely seen as deceptive", you'll still need to find a source saying that this was what caused the discussions about ethics in journalism. You see, the real reason O'Keefe's work caused the journalists on the left to scream like mashed cats is because his work damaged some of their favorite organizations. Their distress didn't come from the subterfuge or misdirection he used, but from the damage that he did. His detractors didn't cry about Mike Wallace or Michael Moore. So, the sentence needs at least to be broken into two sentences because the cause and effect idea has not been sourced. --Kenatipo ^speak! 01:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, let's all pretend we're contributing to an encyclopedia, not working towards a political agenda or being part of a news organization. Everybody edits interview video - and I mean everybody. Should we start calling CBS News "deceptive" because they edited the Sarah Palin interviews with Katie Couric? Press outlets don't like it when they get scooped by amateurs and bloggers. It doesn't mean we have to take their outrage seriously. Let's evaluate with common (neutral and encyclopedic) sense. Kelly ^hi! 07:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, let's pretend that. Let's start by pretending that we know the difference between editing for brevity and dishonest contextomy. Does anybody outside the extremist Right pretend that O'Keefe's work isn't purposefully misleading? If not then let's avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

All right, I'll bite. What is the difference? I'm thinking of the facts that O'Keefe published all of his unedited video and CBS didn't. Kelly ^hi! 08:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

As should be blindingly obvious, the purpose of the former is to shorten the piece without changing the meaning of statements made in it (and preferably without misrepresenting the overall tone or flow), the purpose of the latter is explicitly to change the meaning of statements by removing them from their proper context. "I'm thinking of the facts [sic] that" O'Keefe's edited and unedited videos tell a completely different story! I dare say that you could edit Gone With the Wind to make it look like Rhett married Scarlet in the end -- but it wouldn't be the same story. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Hrafn [sic], can you count? One fact is that O'Keefe released his raw video. Another fact is that CBS didn't. O'Keefe's videos, edited or raw, showed ACORN to be an incompetent, corrupt and borderline-criminal organization, and that's why they aren't around any more. There's only one story there, edited or raw. Same idea with NPR–there's only one story there whether the videos are edited or not, and the videos, edited or not, are the reason Ron Schiller is gone. --Kenatipo ^speak! 21:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Kenatipo: (i) yes I can count, (ii) the standard English is "the fact is" (i.e. 'it is factual that') whether the number of facts is singular or plural; (iii) the article records that O'Keefe released the complete video in order to avoid prosecution himself, (iv) the article also records that no evidence of wrongdoing was found in the undoctored video, which that ACORN acted completely appropriately -- so the claim that it "showed ACORN to be an incompetent, corrupt and borderline-criminal organization" is simply WP:COMPLETEBOLLOCKS. Regurgitation of these tired, reality-divorced talking points amounts to no more than sticking your fingers in your ears and saying la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la when confronted with O'Keefe's blatant malfeasance. This is not even pretending you're "contributing to an encyclopedia". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

What's blindingly obvious, Ravin' [sic], is that you have blinders on and don't even know it! I will soothe your Viking temper by telling you an amusing story: Once upon a time there was a videographer named Mr. JO. He made an undercover video of Mr. Acorn. The first part showed Mr. Acorn as a model husband, kind to his wife and loving and supportive of his children. The second part of the video showed Mr. Acorn doing away with his mother-in-law who he never liked. Our videographer, Mr. JO, didn't approve of murder and he gave the part of the video of Mr. Acorn doing away with his mother-in-law to the press and it was on the internet and TV. Everyone who knew model husband Mr. Acorn was outraged and called Mr. JO a deceptive, manipulative liar, because he only showed the murder and not Mr. Acorn being a good husband. Mr. JO's ethics were questioned by several journalists, most of whom were sympathetic to Mr. Acorn beforehand. The state attorney general investigated the entire incident and his report stated that, while Mr. Acorn's homicidal behavior "appeared contrary to the norms of American society", Mr. JO's video sought to portray Mr. Acorn's behavior in the worst possible light and was therefore deceptive and misleading. (The Acorn family had campaigned vigorously to get the AG elected, but this of course in no way affected the AG's report). To his credit, the AG did point out that even though Mr. Acorn changed his name he could not escape scrutiny and any further display of homicidal behavior would land the re-named Mr. Acorn in deep trouble. Mr. Acorn's supporters blamed everything bad that happened to him after this on Mr. JO, as though Mr. JO was the one who murdered Mr. Acorn's mother-in-law. And they all lived happily ever after. --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Kennypoo for that amusing fairy story, which has about the same level of substantiation as your "showed ACORN to be an incompetent, corrupt and borderline-criminal organization" fantasy. Lacking WP:RS to back up either version, I remain profoundly unimpressed, and simply refer you to James O'Keefe#Reception, which tells a very different story and has the novel difference of actually having reliable sources to back it up. Have fun in your Right-wing echo chamber -- it's a real shame that reality has such a nasty liberal bias. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I just don't see why the opinions of liberal journalists have to be over-represented in O'Keefe's article. Some editors here are under the mistaken impression that having one's opinion printed in a "Reliable Source" turns it into a fact. "CONCLUSION The video recordings evidence a serious and glaring deficit in management, governance and accountability within the ACORN organization. It is both disturbing and offensive that ACORN employees in different and far-flung offices were willing to engage in such conversations. ACORN’s conduct suggests an organizational ethos at odds with the norms of American society. Empowering and serving low- and moderate-income families cannot be squared with counseling and encouraging illegal activities. This is particularly so given that ACORN received government grant funds and the support of major charitable foundations and thousands of members. ... ... Unfortunately for ACORN, ACORN itself had undermined public confidence in the organization before O’Keefe and Giles walked into the first ACORN office. By covering up Dale Rathke’s embezzlement, keeping him as an employee and going after board members who sought to rectify the situation, ACORN’s management damaged the organization." Not my words, old man, but Jerry Brown's. If O'Keefe's videos were "deceptive", how in the world could Jerry Brown's AG office have come to these conclusions? (Yes, we know Jerry Brown's report wants it both ways.) ACORN? Good riddance to bad rubbish! --Kenatipo ^speak! 01:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

1. "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." (WP:WEIGHT) Additionally, unless you can present reliable sources stating to the contrary, WP:YESPOV and "Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion" applies.
2. "The video recordings evidence a serious and glaring deficit in management, governance and accountability ... counseling and encouraging illegal activities ... covering up Dale Rathke’s embezzlement" Please provide a reliable WP:SECONDARY source substantiating this string of extraoridinary interpretations. They are BALDLY CONTRADICTED by the sources currently in the article. Yes, this is the story that the Right-wing echo chamber has been promoting (with some degree of success), but that does not make these claims reliable.
3. Brown's investigation explicitly failed to endorse O'Keefe sensationalist accusations ("Evidence obtained by Brown tells a somewhat different story, however, as reflected in three videotapes made at ACORN locations in California."[23]) It did find some malfeasance but (i) these were unrelated to O'Keefe's accusations, (ii) they were sporadic rather than pervasive (and so could be attributed to imperfect administrative controls rather than any culture of corruption).

"The evidence illustrates," Brown said, "that things are not always as partisan zealots portray them through highly selective editing of reality. Sometimes a fuller truth is found on the cutting room floor."

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Paula Ann Bland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am Paula's husband. Someone on 22 December wrote scandalous remarks on her wiki page. Whilst I have deleted them I do not want a repeat of this abuse. Please block further attempts of malice. We do gave a problem with someone harassing Paula and it has been reported to the police in London. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petertriplett (talk • contribs) 10:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I have tidied up the article somewhat. --BwB (talk) 11:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the article more - there's now very little left of it. Peter, the vandalism that you reverted is not uncommon at Wikipedia. Unless it rises to significant levels, we do not normally "prevent" it from happening. See WP:SEMI for more information.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Peter made a legal threat at WP:HELPDESK and was properly blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

FFS. Yet another case of legalistic admin nonsense that blocks the complainer without trying to help him. If one thing is going to result in an unnecessary lawsuit it is this type of officious incompetency.--Scott Mac 00:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what FFS means, but we did help Peter. As I stated, the vandalism was removed by Peter himself, and I tried to explain to him a little about how protection works. I note that you left a message on Peter's Talk page, but if you object to the block, you should really address it directly with the blocking admin. And, honestly, I doubt seriously that almost any of the legal threats made at Wikipedia result in a lawsuit against WMF - do they?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Another thought is Peter could request deletion of the article through WP:OTRS. His wife appears to be of minor notability, and if the article is really a lightning rod for problems for him and his family, perhaps that would be the best solution.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Except NONE of that was explained to poor Peter, he just got blocked for getting upset at pretty serious nasty about him being on the BIO and ranting on about the police. Semi protection in such cases is routine (or ought to be) and I have applied it. Please read WP:DOLT.--Scott Mac 00:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that "none" of it was explained - certainly not all of it. I don't even remember the vandalism anymore, and I can't see what it was because it's been revdeleted. I also didn't know at the time how minor an actress his wife is (as far as I can tell, she hasn't acted in years), so I couldn't bring that issue up. And the block happened pretty quickly after his post to the help desk, which also occurred quickly. It didn't occur to me to post more information on his Talk page as you've done, or I would have done so. And, frankly, although your concern for Peter does you credit, your calling another admin's action "officious incompetency" here is a bit much. (I did look at WP:DOLT, thanks (at least you weren't calling me a dolt, which was my first thought), but I still don't know what FFS means.)--Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

It means "for fuck's sake." And Scott is absolutely, 200% correct on the issue at hand. The blocking admin simply dropped a template on the poor guy's Talk page with no attempt whatsoever to assure him that his concerns were being taken seriously or to say "sorry about this, but our policy.... etc, etc." The lack of basic human consideration is appalling. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, now that I know, Scott could have left that part out, too.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)--Bbb23 (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with the wise Short Brigade Harvester Boris here; somebody just got badly bitten for no good reason. IMHO one of the main benefits of blocking for legal threats is that it deals with the pov-pushers who try empty legal threats as a way of pushing through changes which would otherwise be resisted; which is very harmful behaviour - but I don't think Peter falls into this category. If a new editor (unfamiliar with our intricate ruleset) appears with a legitimate concern that an article has been vandalised and libel/slander/whatever added, and if they mention legal remedies, the best approach may be to fix the content and perhaps sanction whoever added the bad stuff, rather than blocking the person who found the problem.

Meanwhile, 166.205.138.159 - who added the problematic content - hasn't even had a warning template put on their talkpage.

However, it's not completely clear-cut; Petertriplett's later edits to the article didn't remove anything nasty but did add the bizarre commentary "Be wary of your dealings with these people". bobrayner (talk) 12:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

He didn't even threaten legal action against us, just mentioned that he'd called the cops (presumably to catch whoever had been making the libellous edits). It's a pretty flimsy excuse to base a legal threats block on. As far as I'm concerned, Peter has done nothing wrong and been bitten hard for his trouble. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC).

• - she is pretty much a private person these days and is only really notable for her role as a child in the half hourly tv show, Grange Hill - which ended 25 years ago.I was thinking to redirect to remove any problems going forward - the biography with a single reference is not really much of a stand alone life story is it? - As per my comment I have now boldly redirected to Grange Hill. Feel free to revert if there are any objections.Youreallycan (talk) 12:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)