Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive192

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Columbine

I think it is not wise to have the names of people who were injured but survived. It ties them to an unfortunate event, and their privacy should be respected. Jcrimers (talk) 02:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

If they were minors at the time, and have not sought publicity as adults regarding the matter, then it seems sufficient for the main text of the Wikipedia article to refer to them without including their last names.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

We have a policy on this: WP:BLPNAME. Formerip (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Right, but suppose the name of a survivor has been widely publicized. BLPNAME doesn't explicitly address such a situation, other than saying to exercise caution. My view is that, if the person was a minor, and has not as an adult done anything to stay in the public eye, then putting the full name in the main text of our Wikipedia article is incautious.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Unless they've played a particularly significant and widely discussed role in the event, such as Cassie Bernall, or sought publicity in some way such as writing a memoir, we should err on the side of caution and leave their names out. Gamaliel (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:List of Asian pornographic actors

Adding redlinked names of persons who may be notable porn stars. The alternative of WP:WTAF has been discussed on the article talk page, here, and here. – S. Rich (talk) 20:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely not! Nor should any names be added to wikipedia to such a category unless a RS has stated they are an Asian porn actor. Seriously, wtf is wrong with people?Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Pork, we have that, did you review the list? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the list, invoking BLP♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you SqueakBox. Still, I'd like a formal/admin determination that such an addition is improper. – S. Rich (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I dont think that is necessary, that isnt what admisn are for, they are there to block, for instance, a repeated BLP vio offender and any experienced editor can make this call♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

It's a laundry list of actors who may or may not be WP:NOTABLE. We don't know because they don't have articles (yet). Some of them have been previously deleted, but that doesn't mean that an article that passes WP:BIO won't ever be created. There are references associating each name with the Adult Industry. IMO, BLP has not been violated by the listing of a name on a Talk page. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The info hasnt been deleted from wikipedia, you can find it and bookmark it on your computer, as can any other knowledgeable wikipedian given what has been left on the page♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

First off, thank you for the earnest effort to mediate. But honestly, I could care less. I was just trying to organize some information that is typically or easily "lost" in the myriad of edits, revisions, and reverts that happen on WP. According to what others have told me, the accusing User has had similar issues with several other Editors. So while its amounted to a waste of time for me, its apparently a pattern. I'm taking the page in question off my Watch List. Best regards --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it is a problem to have redlinked names on the talk page, especially if each one is supported by a reference, which is indeed the case. Binksternet (talk) 21:19, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Bink, I'll give one guess as to where I got the idea. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Binksternet is correct. SPECIFICO talk 23:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Bink, especially since all of these names are obvious porn-performer pseudonyms, so we're not at risk of identifying regular people as performers. As I said elsewhere, these names are like Long Dong Silver, not Daniel Arthur Mead. MilesMoney (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The only name in the list in the diff at the top of this section that does not appear to be an ordinary name is the one with the last name of "Dynasty". All the rest could easily be the real name of a person. MilesMoney, are you certain you're referring to the same names as the ones being discussed? alanyst 23:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

"Pornographic actor" is likely to be a contentious claim per WP:BLP and thus requires strong sourcing for each and every entry. If such is required in any list, it is also required in any mention on any page including talk pages and in userspace. Just having a site say they were in a porn film is insufficient to so label any living persons. SqueakBox acted entirely in accord with mandated policy IMO. Collect (talk) 23:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Collect, why is it likely to be a contentious claim when the sources we're using list all or most of the porn films the named actor has appeared in and not just "a porn film"? It's not like we are trying to include Sylvester Stalone or Kristine DeBell from Meatballs (film) in a list of porn actors because they were in a single film. These are people who have clearly chosen to be in the Industry. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 23:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Why is calling a person a porn star likely to be "contentious"? Perhaps you fail to note that the redlinked names are not unique identifiers to specific people and if we use your criteria, those "real people" with the common names would have been labeled as "porn stars" to the outside world without any references whatsoever. Sorry -- that is precisely why WP:BLP requires strong sourcing in no uncertain terms. And requires removal of any unsourced claims about living people which might be contentious. Collect (talk) 00:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Collect, I agree with sourcing and thats why the list has it. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

This article is a sobering example of the kinds of problems that arise when we do not take the proper care with such issues. Gamaliel (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

@Gamaliel, wow, interesting and unfortunate turn of events. But its the puritanical and repressed nature of our society that a case of mistaken identity can cause such consternation. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:WTAF is an essay, not a policy or guideline. There's nothing wrong with a list of redlinks or adding a redlink to a list per se providing that they are accompanied by a source, even if that redlink is on the talk page, and that the source is in compliance with BLP as outlined by Collect's comment above. Redlinks without a strong source should be removed immediately and permanently per BLP. Gamaliel (talk) 23:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

WTAF is an essay cited in the redlink guidance. That fact, along with BLP policy, emphasizes the need to keep non-notable (i.e., non-article) names off the pages. (This includes article pages, talk pages, user pages, sandboxes. Why? Because BLP applies everywhere.) Suggesting that adding names on the talk pages, supported by RS, only adds to the burden of monitoring BLPs or would-be BLPs. (I.e., we'd have to go about parsing the references added to talk pages when the poster feels so-and-so might be a pornstar notable enough to get a WP article.) Also, I read "Some of them have been previously deleted, ..." Does this mean we can maintain talk page lists of names of pornstars who once had WP articles? The best and most solidly based course of action is to strictly apply BLP. – S. Rich (talk) 00:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually it means that those names and their association with porn will be on the site in perpetuity. The only way to mitigate the situation is to list them with a reference like I have done. At least there is some context as Collect mentions. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Obviously I agree with strictly applying BLP, but if a strong source is provided most BLP considerations are satisfied. Using redlinks in article or talk or project space to indicate that an article may be created is well established practice, so I see nothing wrong with doing it here as long as BLP considerations are addressed. Obviously, any name which does not meet notability guidelines should be immediately removed as no article should be created on that person. And a list not in article space should not exist in perpetuity but should only remain if part of an active project to fill those redlinks. Gamaliel (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Srich writes: "The best and most solidly based course of action is to strictly apply BLP" but his argument has nothing to do with BLP. It's a straw man.

There can be sourced material about individuals who are not notable and should/do not have their own articles. Thousands of instances of that are found on WP. SPECIFICO talk 00:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

And if the material is contentious, no matter who it is about, it must be strongly and properly sourced. Rose Agree for example. Collect (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Another problematic aspect of adding links to the talk pages are the restrictions in WP:ELNO. In an earlier version of the talkpage, we see www.freeones.com/ listed as a 'reference'. And other redlinked names are 'referenced' by www.iafd.com. Per the WP:WikiProject Pornography#Useful links listing, IAFD attempts to be the porn equivalent of IMDb. The project says IAFD filmographies may be reliable, but expresses doubt concerning biography. And freeones.com is not listed. So much for the strongly and properly sourced data which was posted for the talk page redlinked names. – S. Rich (talk) 01:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Another problematic feature of the references comes from IAFD's opening page: "Covering over 151,946 titles and 129,831 performers and directors, the internet adult film database is the premier resource for information about the American porn community on the web, and is maintained by a volunteer staff of editors...." How many of these folks will prove to be notable? A tough research project to be sure (and I'm almost tempted to undertake it). But the sheer number is daunting in terms of sanity and in terms of relying on IAFD as a reference in talk page listings. – S. Rich (talk) 02:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

As long as the list is reliably sourced ~~(which appears to be the case, although I'm not familiar with these sources),~~ it's fine. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm shocked by this, but it turns out that Collect misrepresented the Rose Agree BLP issue. According to http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/19/she-was-a-librarian-but-the-internet-said-otherwise/?_r=0, the problem was that there was an article which mixed biographical information about a porn actress and a librarian, confusing the two. This is nothing like a cited name in a list. MilesMoney (talk) 02:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Upon further examination, it doesn't appear as if Internet Adult Film Database meets Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source. They seem to be a cross between a fansite and a porn version of IMDB, neither of which are considered reliable according to Wikipedia standards. Nine out of the eleven names are sourced to this website. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I support the removal of any redlinks with inadequate references that don't establish sufficient notability for a full article. Just as IMDB alone would not establish sufficient notability for an article on a key grip or a minor actor, the porn equivalent would not as well. Gamaliel (talk) 03:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I know I'm going to regret having asked this, but how do we establish notability for porn performers? Do they need to win industry awards? Appear on major producer's labels? Have some, uhm, performance-related claim to fame? MilesMoney (talk) 03:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I have provided a link to answer MilesMoney's question. – S. Rich (talk) 03:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Not exactly. What you linked to, WP:PORNSTAR, is a disputed guideline. MilesMoney (talk) 03:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The other source cited, [1] doesn't appear to be reliable either. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

For contrast, could you give an example of a reliable source for this sort of thing? If not, then are you saying there are no reliable sources out there? MilesMoney (talk) 03:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

@MilesMoney: I have no idea. I don't really edit in this topic space. In general, a reliable source is one with a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking and with editorial oversight. Has anyone tried contacting WP:WikiProject Pornography and asking for advice? They appear to have a list that might be useful: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography#External_links. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Lets try to be clear on this idea, I suggested IAFD and Freeones solely as directories or, in WikiSpeak, "3rd party List articles" and nothing more. As far as a source, IAFD is accepted by the Porn Project as this kind of reference. Almost every porn actor article references the number of films the person has done "per IAFD". I'm happy to give up on Freeones.com since IAFD lists everyone anyway. Freeones has its own merits that will come to light in a future article.

They simply demonstrate that there are a number of films/videos attributed to a particular porn actor. I wasn't trying to establish Notability for anyone. Just simply show that they appropriately belonged on a list of potential articles about porn actors. As SR states in regard to IAFD, "The project says IAFD filmographies may be reliable..." And this is all that I'm claiming. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 04:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The fact that IAFD gives us 150K+ titles and 129k+ performers & directors illustrates why simply naming names and linking IAFD to those names is not constructive for the project. As WP:PORNSTAR requires some awards to establish notability, we only muddy the waters if we post listings with "Miss Xxx (pornstar)^[1]" when Miss Xxx has not received any awards. WP:REDLINKs may be acceptable "to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable." If there is no notability + verifiability, then the redlink should not be created. The WP:BURDEN is on the editor who wants to add acceptable material. Adding clearly unacceptable material can be (and is) less than helpful. – S. Rich (talk) 04:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

SR, it would be helpful if you picked a topic and stuck to it. There are other places to discuss Notability, but what we're discussing here is whether or not a redlink that is accompanied by a reference is acceptable to place on a Talk page. If you want to debate or question IAFD as a reliable source, then join the Porn Project and start a discussion there. Treating major topics like Reliable Sources and Notability like one big anamorphic subject is not constructive, beneficial, or worthwhile. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I think Scalhotrod has raised an important point, and I feel that it will greatly further this discussion if Srich would address specifically and in detail the points Scal has articulated in this thread. SPECIFICO talk 23:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Charles Calderon and Ronald Calderon

I removed from these articles here and here, content that look to violate WP:BLPGOSSIP. IP 99.38.132.172 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) cleaned up the content and put it back here and here.

Am I in error or does WP:BLPGOSSIP apply? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 04:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

You are correct. I have reverted the unregistered editor's re-addition of the material on both articles, watchlisted both articles, and provided the unregistered editor with a mild(ish) warning. ("LA Weekly Magazine is not a reliable source for articles on living persons; nor is their opinion of a living person encyclopedic material" being the customised part of that warning.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Good, Thanks Richard-of-Earth (talk) 16:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Susan Abulhawa

Under the section Other Professional Activities, there is a two paragraph section that has been cut and pasted from another article. It is footnoted, but it is fully the opinion of one Howard Silver. His opinion is not a neutral one and should be removed from her biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.138.89 (talk) 05:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed - there is no indication as to why we should consider Mr. Silver's opinion of Abulhawa in any way encyclopedic. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Ninja of Tao

Not sure if this is User:Ninja of Tao's info or an attack page. After reverting much vandalizing by Catboxx12 (talk · contribs) and 76.97.172.11 (talk · contribs), I received this legal threat by Catboxx12: diff. Jim1138 (talk) 10:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any BLP violations there. Catboxx was not challenging Ninja's identity - only his biography. And since that biography does not even potentially defame anyone (except Ninja himself), there are no BLP violations. In the meantime, Catboxx12 has been indeffed as he is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Spanish speakers needed

It's been claimed that the creation of this BLP article was a result of its subject losing some legal case which sought to reduce coverage of him on other websites or other Wikipedia-language sites. The current enwiki article (as linked) is quite heavy on "controversies", both in a section by that name and another section, and also in the lead.

The article needs some attention to examine the sources and work out how much of this is justified or reasonable. While we don't censor articles because someone is unhappy, neither should we be engaging in, or permitting, "revenge editing". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Paul Sally

Multiple users (mostly anonymous) have repeatedly added a date of death to Paul Sally's article, claiming that he has recently died. (latest example) Since there are no published reports of his death, the edits are inappropriate at his time. The article should be protected. Edge3 (talk) 01:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: Added to WP:RFPP Edge3 (talk) 02:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Resolved: The page has been protected. Edge3 (talk) 02:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Adrienne Papp Comment

Adrienne Papp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Could this article be looked at, please? It appears to be very much a vanity article, with much of the editing by what appears to be a single-purpose account. Which has added links to an article by this person to various wiki articles. And the External Links section could do with some trimming, perhaps? Thanks for whatever help can be provided. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Attract and Repel ‖ 01:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Susan Lindauer

I have gone through all of the sources I could find and meticulously fact checked statements made in the article against the sources, and to the best of my knowledge the article stays true to the sources. This BLP is a bit touchy, in part because it addresses the mental state of the subject. The sourcing used is from solid sources, such as the NYT. Some editors seem to want to slant the events discussed in the article through the view of Lindauer, and ignore what the RS actually state. One editor made such an edit using a reference from RT.com which describes itself as "... covers the major issues of our time for viewers wishing to question more and delivers stories often missed by the mainstream media to create news with an edge. RT provides an alternative perspective on major global events, and acquaints international audience with the Russian viewpoint". The "news" stories this source presents seems to have a conspiracy theory bent, so I question its reliability. In any case, I'd welcome a review of my review.Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the categorizations of her as a spy, because it is exceedingly questionable whether she was at any point engaged in espionage, and at any rate, that represents a crime of which she has not been convicted. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Dov Lipman

There is a blatant error regarding Rabbi Lipman's relationship with the current head of the Ner Israel Yeshiva (Rabbi Feldman) that I have tried to address in two edits and that has been returned to the Biography each time. Rabbi Feldman is listed as Rabbi Lipman's former Head of the Yeshiva. In fact as documented in references 5 and 6, Rabbi Feldman was not only not at the Yeshiva during Rabbi Lipman's tenure there, he has in fact never met Rabbi Lipman. Rabbi Yaakov Weinberg of Blessed Memory was the Head of the Yeshiva then.

This is significant firstly because the lack of familiarity can account for Rabbi Feldman's misinformation that led to his retraction of the term "wicked" apostate. Secondly, the use of the term "shamed" itself is misleading as that term never was used by Rabbi Feldman and in light of the much milder retraction, is defamatory to Rabbi Lipman. Thirdly, the invitation by the largest Orthodox body in the U.S. (the RCA) to Rabbi Lipman to give a keynote address this year after the matter with Rabbi Feldman was publicized shows that the education issue in Israel is complex, not universally accepted in the Orthodox world and not helped by name-calling in a Biography.

A less crucial point that I tried to address is the sentence saying that Rabbi Lipman's position is in line with Education Minister Rabbi Shai Piron. That statement is not relevant to Rabbi Lipman's Biography inasmuch as there is no evidence that Rabbi Lipman was influenced at all by Rabbi Piron.

In the interest of fairness, I strongly request that the sentences from "This is also the position of ..." through "unintentional sinner" be removed. References 5 and 6 should also be removed as they document the dispute that should be removed from the Biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.159.152.96 (talk) 18:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Daniel Whyte III

[email protected]

Mr. Wales:

We trust that you are doing well.

My name is Syntyche with Gospel Light Society Intl.

In December of 2008, we filled out the details on the Wikipedia page for our founder, Daniel Whyte III. Over the years, we have edited the page a couple of times to add information to it. We want to thank you and the Wikipedia staff for providing this free service that we and many others have benefitted from.

However, recently, we found out that some of the information on the page was removed by a user named Dougweller who stated that certain portions were not properly sourced. We attempted to add information to the page on yesterday with better sourcing, however, the same user took down the majority of content on the page as of this morning, December 31, 2013.

We do not want to cause any trouble regarding this matter, because if you knew Daniel Whyte III, you would know that he is not someone who is ineterested in being promoted, or desirous notoriety or fame. However, we found two articles online stating that Dougweller has been accused of removing factual information from other articles on Wikipedia. The links to those articles are below:

We sent the first link to you in a direct e-mail message as it was unable to go through.

The second link is: http://www.jasoncolavito.com/1/post/2013/03/scott-wolter-and-richard-thornton-accuse-wikipedia-cherokees-and-forest-service-of-anti-wolter-conspiracy.html

Honestly, we really do not know what is going on. But we cannot imagine Wikipedia or anybody else having a problem with a Christian minister and writer who has authored 34 books that do nothing but glorify God, proclaim Jesus Christ, and encourage young people and others to live good, decent, quality lives. If you feel like Doug Weller is just doing his job as you have instructed him, we are willing to be educated as to how to put things on Wikipedia so that they will not be taken off. We have no interest in supplying misleading information in this forum as we are Christian people who are striving to do the right thing. We were just taken aback and disturbed to find this negative information about someone editing Daniel Whyte III's Wikipedia page who claims to be associated with Wikipedia.

We would like to re-list the bio information along with the following information (which Dougweller removed) on the page:

1. Daniel Whyte III's degrees from accredited universities. He holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Theology from Bethany Divinity College, a Bachelor’s degree in Religion from Texas Wesleyan University, a Master’s degree in Religion and a Master of Divinity degree from Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary.

2. The list of Daniel Whyte III's books which have been published by Torch Legacy Publications (www.torchlegacy.com), which is officially registered in the State of Texas and is a part of GLM Omnimedia Group, LLC. Torch Legacy Publications has been around since 1992 and its books have been distributed through major distributors such as Choice Books, Bookworld, Ingram, Baker & Taylor, and STL Distribution, which have sold books to major bookstore chains such as Barnes & Noble, Borders, Books-a-Million, Family Christian Stores, Lifeway and others.

3. The list of radio broadcasts and podcasts which Daniel Whyte III is the host of.

Is there an editor/administrator who we can go through in order to make these changes and have them approved so that we will not have any further issues. We can provide proof for the three items mentioned above. Please let us know what we need to do. Your help is greatly appreciated.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Best Regards,

Syntyche

P.S.: We just found Doug Weller's name on your site as an administrator. That makes us feel a little better. So, we are going to forward this e-mail to him as well.

Also, we are going to resubmit the bio, as it came from our president's website. We didn't think we were violating any copyright issues by taking the information from our president's own website. If you do not mind, we are going to rewrite it and submit it with the proper sourcing. Or, if someone at Wikipedia needs to do it, we will be glad to send it to them for posting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwwdts (talk • contribs) 00:04, 1 January 2014

I've added appropriate messages about COI and copyright to the editor's talk page. Obviously well-meaning but not familiar with our policies and guidelines. Note that Whyte is president of GLM Omnimedia Group LLC[2] and affiliated sites include:

Top sites within our network include:

www.InternationalChristianHerald.com

www.BlackChristianNews.com (BCNN1.com)

www.UrbanChristianNews.com

www.LatinoChristianNews.com (www.LCNN1.com)

www.NewAmericaToday.com

www.TheBlackDaily.com

www.GLBN.TV (Gospel Light Broadcasting Network)

www.BCNN3.TV

www.BCNNRadio7.com

www.GospelLightSociety.com

www.GospelLightWorldRadio.com

www.GoToChurchOnline.TV (www.GTCO.TV)

So "Several of Whyte's books have also been named BCNN1/BCBC Bestsellers." is not quite as significant as it appeared to me at first.

I'd also appreciate other input here. I'll tell the editor about this. Dougweller (talk)

Randall Carver's birth information

I reverted unsourced info of his birthdate and birthplace. However, his official website may verify his birthplace and birthdate, but his birth year is missing. Also, it explains his family history that is not covered by secondary sources. Is his official website reliable per WP:BLPSPS? If so, which info must I include from the website? --George Ho (talk) 07:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Louis Joseph Posner

A sockpuppet (Admin Bbb23 removed the sock's entry on this page) seems to be very upset about this article's very existence, understandably as the article contains some embarrassing information and one might reasonable assume the sock has some sort of association with Posner. The article is over at AfD, several of the comments invoke BLP, which should be of some interest to the readers of this board. Would those that haven't seen or responded to this AfD request take a peek and share your thoughts?Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Robert M. Place

This IP seems to have removed the material in question from the article about black magic, but may have removed a bit too much. Mr. Place may not be a historical figure, but that does not preclude him from being a reliable source.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

This is sourcing issue, not a BLP issue. Mangoe (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

That's right, nothing to do with BLP policy. Place is used as a reference (I added the info from memory) and the content is not promotional in any way. Place is considered a reliable source and is used as a reference in other texts subsequently used as references here. IP seems to misunderstand how Place's work is being referenced as a reliable source in this context. I've reverted to a pre-removal version. Stalwart111 10:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Emanuel_Sifuentes

Emanuel Sifuentes

This article seems to be a copy of a lot of the material from the Billy Collins article. For example Emanuel Sifuentes is not a distinguished professor at Lehman College and has not bee Poet Laureate of the United States. Other information that I have no way of knowing about (place of birth) matches the information on the Collins page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcsmom (talk • contribs) 15:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Stubified to remove all copied material and Prodded. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Dr. in article name?

Should the BLP article be Dr Raghuram or his name in the article, P. Raghuram? I would make it the latter. Advice?--DThomsen8 (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, what is used more commonly in reliable sources? Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

This has been discussed already and there is a policy regarding it. The person's name is correct for the title. Their achievements or titles should be in the body of the article including earned status such as being a "doctor" whether its medical or a PhD or honorary. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 23:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia generally uses the normal name - and mentions titles in the body of the article. Exceptions are made for some inherited titles, etc., delineated in the MOS, some of which are given following the name of the person in the title of the article. Wikipedia, as being edited by a herd of cats, is not absolutely consistent in any of this. Collect (talk) 23:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

See ~~WP:HONORIFIC~~WP:CREDENTIAL. We don't put "Dr." in front of a person's name, except in very narrow circumstances. Roccodrift (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

If the user is notable under the name that includes the title (e.g., Dr. Spock for the famous American pediatrician Benjamin Spock) a redirect can be created, but the article should be titled using their disambiguated person name. Dwpaul ^Talk 23:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Done --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Steve Wilkos

The article states that Steve served in the Marine Corps from 1982-1989. Earlier in the article it states he saw action in the Korean War. This cannot be correct. The Korean War was fought before Steve was born.

Also, the artcle states that Steve is a world class skater and is under contract with Xtreme Skating? This is hard to believe and has not been verified... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.241.222 (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

That actually says his dad served in Korea. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

And I reverted the Xtreme Skating info, as it wasn't backed up by any refs. Thanks! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Reveille (dog)

Reveille (dog) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I'd be very grateful if someone with BLP experience (and maybe an interest in dogs, sport etc!) could please have a quick look at this article and its recent history. Accusations, possibly of criminal, or at least dubious behaviour, against named individuals have been made and removed. The article is currently a bit of a mess after many recent edits. My interest is (very) tangential and I don't know enough to fix it or watch it usefully. Can anyone help, please? Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Well I see the removal of this is sourced to this, which is a dead link as far as I can tell. As such, it is unreferenced and can be removed uncontroversially. Even if it were live, judging from the URL it seems it's someone's recollection, so it would have to be worded as such rather than presented as fact. Like everything else, we have to say what the sources say. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that. It looks like the article is being watched a bit more now and I think the BLP issues will be safer as a result. I shall shut up and drink tea for a bit. Cheers DBaK (talk) 13:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Jon Paul Piques

This page has no real sources or true information. The 2 references on the page do not include any information at all about the person.

The Personal section, more importantly the last 3 sentences, have no basis for inclusion whatsoever and no sources.

This biography significantly exaggerates the persons past, but in reality his career is not verifiable or notable.

For these reasons, this biography should be deleted.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.42.51.27 (talk) 20:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Well this is not the place to report issues with lack of notability, but nonetheless I've nominated it for deletion since he doesn't seem to meet either WP:NFOOTY or WP:BIO. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Potentially defamatory statements @ Chris Kluwe

I'd like some editors experienced in BLP matters to have a look at Chris Kluwe. Kluwe is an NFL player who recently accused a former team of firing him for his activism in support of same-sex marriage. Kluwe authored a piece [3] carried by Deadspin (a part of Gawker) that makes some fairly ugly allegations against a former assistant coach (Mike Preifer), and even went so far as to say "If there's one thing I hope to achieve from sharing this story, it's to make sure that Mike Priefer never holds a coaching position again in the NFL, and ideally never coaches at any level." Apparently, Preifer has denied the accusation, which makes it "contentious".

My concern here is that Wikipedia is facilitating WP:LIBEL, and per that policy there doesn't seem to be an exemption created by attributing the statements to Kluwe. The key bit here is Kluwe's explicitly stated intent to damage Preifer's career. (Note that malicious intent is one of the elements of libel.) Thoughts? Roccodrift (talk) 09:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

To centralize the discussion, please comment at the ongoing thread at Talk:Chris_Kluwe#Accusations against Minnesota Vikings.—Bagumba (talk) 09:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

James Norton

An ip editor claiming to be Norton has objected to a recent edit to that article: see Talk:James Norton#Edit to Education section. The contentious statement is currently not included in the article and I have tried to advise the editor as best I can. Can he take any further action to prevent what he sees as a misleading statement from appearing again? I have not yet discussed this with the other editor involved in the sequence of reverts, User talk:Zhu Haifeng. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Commented on the article talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks. Gosh, as if anyone would take an encyclopedia that seriously. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Angie Vu Ha

This appears to be a self-written (Auto-biography) of an non-famous, aspiring model. Sources are weak and not from external, reliable locations. Objectivity in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.195.251 (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

David Berlinski

Mr Berlinski does not appear listed on the 'Discovery Institute's page of 'Senior Fellows'. (nor could I find him listed anywhere on the Discovery Institute's website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.67.96 (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

He showed right up in the cited source for me: http://www.discovery.org/csc/fellows.php. He's the second Senior Fellow listed. —C.Fred (talk) 16:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Ryan Gunderson

This article Ryan Gunderson appears to be about a person who is not notable and the article contains no references. I added a courtesy 10 day schedule for deletion which was removed by user Dolovis. I believe this article has existed in article space far too long without following the rules of a BLP and should be deleted from article space. Scottsadventure (talk) 19:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Just nominate it for WP:AFD. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, Thanks. Is it appropriate to comment on a user pattern on this noticeboard, concerning multiple non referenced BLP's? If not, how is a matter resolved where there appears to be a plethora of BLP articles edited by a single user which are not notable and are all connected to a similar subject matter? A pattern that could be viewed as consistent with that of perhaps a paid editor. Scottsadventure (talk) 21:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The article on Ryan Gunderson was created back in 2007 by Dominant One, who doesn't appear to have contributed since April, 2008 and never started another page in the main article space. So it is difficult to identify the possible BLP pages from your post. Is there another editor that you are referring to? If you don't want to identify this editor, can you identify these other out-of-policy pages? Thanks --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

As'ad AbuKhalil

Could we get some experienced BLP eyes on this article to examine the 2 edits by 79.177.199.82 ? Sean.hoyland - talk 05:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The defamatory material has been repeatedly re-added. This article may be of help in understanding the background. RolandR (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Phil Robertson query

Is US Magazine a reliable source for personal details about this person, and oif so are the details presented complaint with WP:BLP? [4]. (Robertson married Marsha Kay Robertson while a student at Harding University in Arkansas when he was twenty years of age and she sixteen) The US Magazine article does not actually support the entire claim ... but a second source given is [5] which backs AFAICT essentially none of the claim ascribed to it. The claim appears to me to be OR and SYNTH and not actually using either of the two refs attached to it. Searches seem to indicate no definitive opinion on using US Magazine, but I am also concerned that the claim is not even supported by it :( Any input is welcome. Collect (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The Yahoo source backs up the claim. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

It covers part of it -- but does the Yahoo source meet WPLRS as it appears to be "celebrity filler"? The rest (name of university) is not found in the Yahoo source either. And we still do not know whether celebrity mags on general meet WP:RS here. Collect (talk) 23:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The information is readily sourced, but the larger question is whether it needs to be mentioned. It seems undue and POV-ish. Roccodrift (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

There's no reason not to mention it as long as it's sourced. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Given Phil's comments about marrying teenagers that have gone viral, it would seem logical to mention that he followed his own advice. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh look, two nonsensical assertions in a row. No, mere availability in a source does not merit inclusion on its own. And no, Robertson's comments from the Sportsman Ministry video did not "go viral"; they made an appearance in the 24-hour news cycle as a continuation of the larger controversy, and now they are all but forgotten (except among those with an ax to grind who suddenly find themselves on the losing side of the dispute regarding his continued employment with A&E). Roccodrift (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Ax-grinding? Losing side? Seems like talk for waging a battle rather than working with others. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to GLAAD and certain parties within the media, not Wikipedia editors. Although perhaps it is telling if you see yourself in those comments. That's your own call to make. Roccodrift (talk) 00:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up, it's much easier to see what's going on. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The issue with RS is another matter - this seems to be very much a tabloid-dominated subject to begin with. Is there a concern that I'm missing? In most Southern states the age of consent is 16 in any case. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Robertson's recent remarks about gay people and blacks during the Jim Crow laws era have had some repercussions including some of his past videotaped statements being unearthed. The latest one is where he encourages men to marry teenaged girls."New Duck Dynasty Bombshell: Phil Robertson Shares Controversial Views on Teen Marriage" As you point out the view is not unheard of, yet in light of his recent past remarks it paints a picture of sorts. Personally I think people forget that marriage has evolved greatly even in the past decade, and that women as property is still a standard seen around the world even if not considered an enlightened view. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The Daily Mail, which Collect considers a reliable source, supports the fact that Robertson married his wife when she was 16 ([6]). That should satisfy his concern about sourcing. Whether this fact belongs in the article is a question outside the scope of this noticeboard. MastCell ^Talk 00:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually -- it is reliable for lots of stuff -- but is not "best source" for any celebrity gossip material. I had thought my position was clear on that by now. As you doubtless noted I stated "there are no sufficiently reliable sources for every topic under the sun" in that discussion which you aver means far more than it does. Not even the NYT is a great source for celebrity gossip material. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Riiiight. Do you want me to find more instances where you've insisted categorically that the Daily Mail is a reliable source? MastCell ^Talk 00:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

And note that I said "about as reliable as the other British papers" which remains true. There is no such thing as a perfect source -- and even the NYT is not good for "celebrity gossip." Now what precisely is your point here? Are you trying to discuss me or discuss whether US Magazine is a reliable source for celebrity gossip? Cheers Collect (talk) 01:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

What does "a good source for celebrity gossip" mean?

If we're talking about information attributable to the subject of the article, that's not what would normally be considered gossip. If we're misusing "gossip" to mean low-grade trash, then that's not really a sourcing issue, but one of weight. And I don't see how Wikipedia can have articles on stuff like Duck Dynasty without sourcing to low-grade trash. Formerip (talk) 01:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The assertion in question is supported by sources that meet RS and there's no problem including it in the article, given Robertson's notability connected with related issues. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
There seem to be two groups of sources: those that specifically say "16", and those which report the wedding ring gift and in the course of that give a current age and length of marriage which allow a calculation of an age of sixteen. Typically the most mainstream sources (e.g. ABC News) are in the latter group. One has to suspect that Ms. Robertson's age at marriage was not actually looked up. I'm reluctant to include this, even it be true, unless it escapes from the scandal-mongering tabloids and becomes a more general controversy. Mangoe (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
His age at the time seems to be extracted with original research, though her age does seem somewhat supported. Some conflicting details exist, however, as one source noted above says she was 15. I think it is better to stick with what is there presently where we don't mention age.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Some editors seem quite intent on stressing that the wife was "only 15" at the time of marriage (not strongly sourced at all) (under the LA statutory minimum according to some of those editors). Is [7] violative of BLP? [8]? [9]? [10]? Presenting at least four attempts in the course of only two hours in a manner suggestive of edit war to place the contentious claim into a BLP. One editor's edit summary states completely of the norm in that era w/in the ozarks which I think might not comport with Wikipedia standards. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, I don't think the editor who initially added it, who is included in one of those diffs, was trying to suggest something untoward about Robertson. I can't speak for others seeking to keep it in there.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Justin Bieber redux

Justin Bieber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The latest edit-war concerns allegations that Bieber was reported to Interpol, that he participated in a riot, his bodyguards "robbered" [sic] the film from the paparazzi (I thought everyone used digital cameras), he disrespected the Argentinian flag etc. The diff concerning the material is here: [11]. The question is: How much of all that are we supposed to dump into Bieber's bio? Any opinions are welcome. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I wrongly wrote "robbered" instead of "stole" (which is the right word, of course). I'm not a native English speaker so I can commit mistakes. By the way, you don't need to reproduce words exactly as they were written just to remark a mistake. - Fma12 (talk) 04:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I came here to report about the edit. The edit had the expression and I reported it as was written. If you are not sure how to phrase something, I would advise that before you add it into an article you should ask on the talkpage first to get help. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

How much of that are we supposed to dump into Bieber's article? None, in my opinion, Dr.K.. What a pack of trivialities. That whole section called "Contoversies and legal issues" should be eliminated. He gave someone the finger. He showed up late to a concert. He tussled with paparazzi. His pet monkey got confiscated by customs agents. Some rapper sued him (not mentioned in the rapper's bio, and undecided by the courts). What a load of crap. Totally trivial gossip, every word of it. I have never listened all the way through three minutes of a Justin Bieber song, to the best of my knowledge. But this is ridiculous. Am I off base here? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Not at all Cullen. I fully agree with you. There is also the part where a mayor called him a "Princess". In my opinion such stuff should not be included in a serious bio. And yes, I have only been able to make it through a few seconds of one of his songs. I gave up, right after that, listening to any other. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Dr. K, I'm an old editor and always try to write properly; of course if I'm not sure how to phrase something, I'll request for advise, there are very kind persons here who glady help me with the grammar instead of teasing as you did. If you came here "only to report the edit", just put the edit without remarking my mistake ("sic") because it is not relevant for this debate. - Fma12 (talk) 12:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll request for advise, there are very kind persons here who glady help me with the grammar instead of teasing as you did. If you came here "only to report the edit", just put the edit without remarking my mistake ("sic") because it is not relevant for this debate. My reference to your phraseology was very relevant, and characterising my actions as "teasing" does not assume good faith, so leave the personal attacks. I put "robbered" to indicate that you are calling people robbers in a BLP, something which is extremely serious, not to "tease you". I also added " [sic]" to indicate that the phrasing was not mine but belonged to your edit so that editors were informed about what was being edited into the article. If you are about to accuse people of being "robbers" or "thieves", in a BLP, you need very strong sourcing and you should be very cautious as to the phrasing you are attempting. Accusing people of stealing or robbing something should not be done while you are unsure of the meaning of words. So I advise you again: Next time you add very controversial material into a BLP, like calling people criminals, make sure you know what you write or at least ask someone for help, ahead of time not after you added something very serious, for which you are not sure about, to the article. Second, you wrote that they "robbered the film". These were digital cameras, they don't have film. Are you sure this is correct? How can these people "steal" or "rob" something which does not exist? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

About the subject of this discussion, some of the incidents were facts, not suppositions: p.e. sweeping the door with the Argentine flag; it was covered by reliable newspapers and agencies not only from Argentina (here, here -this link inlcudes to video so the incident was shoot and later reproduced on youtube and social networks- but international media (as seen here, amongst other sources). Due to this incident JB was sueded by local lawyers (this is also a fact, as told on this Spanish web). Nevertheless, user Moxy arbitrarily deleted the edit from the article, considering them "not relevants" as only argument, then alleging such absurd causes like "the links are not in Spanish", as if he was a sort of judge that decides what deserves to be included and what not.

To conclude, I think that if we don't want to have a large list of incidents involving JB in diffferent countries, the section "controversy" should be eliminated. I'm rarely involved in edit wars, but when I'm sure that my edits are constructive and reverted without a valid reason, my reply is to search for a consensus, just like in this case. - Fma12 (talk) 12:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Would WP:NOTCENSORED come into play here? If the story is published in reliable sources then I feel it should be included we as an encyclopedia can not sugarcoat everything to make someone look like a saint either. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I found some more official sources for things involving Justin that are in the article. (BBC) (BBC)<-- Graffiti done by Justin in Australia and Rio. This is CNN addressing the possible rumors though about things that have gone downhill in Bieber's life for neutrality. (CNN). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

We have to look at what is notable in the long term as his in the news everyday. Do we report everything he does like a tabloid paper? I think not lets look back over the past week below and here at the BBC. Simply not sure what he did a month ago (what is being inserted into the article) has any coverage now at all...why because its a daily thing as in everyday a new news story. Would we write about the daily mishaps of Elvis or MJ in this manner I think not...plus this is a living person. WP:NOTEVERYTHING - WP:PAPER - Moxy (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree. WP:CENSORED does not come into play here. Rather WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM as well as WP:NOTNEWS. The legal problems section in Bieber's biography is like an open sore. It collects all kinds of trivia of very doubtful value and should be trimmed, not expanded. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree 100 percent the whole section is a problem. All we need to say is over the past 2 years hes been in the media spotlight for a variety of personal incidences -- Moxy (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind that with a high profile celebrity, there will be lots of reliable sources covering some unimportant and unencyclopedic aspect of the person's life, especially if it sells papers. In general, articles, especially BLPs should not have "controversy" sections. In specific, the entire first paragraph of Controversy and legal issues should be removed as unencyclopedic fluff. The same probably goes for the rest of the section. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The way I see it, the word "controversy" is being misused. Is there any dispute that he gave people the finger? Or that an unrelated paparrazo died, or his monkey was seized? If so, the article doesn't explain it. Does an alright job with the graffiti and Anne Frank bits. But anything not a legal issue or truly controversial (as opposed to scandalous or sensational) has no place here. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree. Thank you Moxy, AQFK, Hulk for your input. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I really think think that his much documented (in many languages) insult to the Argentine flag needs to be in the article, as it tells us something about him (be it maturity/immaturity/experience/intelligence) I suspect had a foreign national toured America and trashed their rightly venerated flag, some editors here may fell differently. Giano 21:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the flag incident struck me as odd. At first glance it looks weird. He went to a country to perform for them and then he insulted their flag in front of such wide audience. Yet we don't know the context of the incident. Was he making a point about the perils of nationalism? Or the use of nationalist motifs during the Argentinian junta years? I don't know. But I find it very unusual to just trample on a flag for no reason. I don't think that one can rely on tabloid reports if one wants to find the deeper context of the incident. Perhaps there is no deeper context and that simply was a gratuitous act of insult. But still we need more sober sources than tabloids to actually report on it before it can be included, at least imo. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I remember why I stopped reading this article and talk page. The fact is that Wikipedia is not really supposed to cover every single incident in anyone's life, including Bieber's. One can pick up a tabloid at the market if one wishes all this "stuff." Prune it to heck. Wikipedia is not a gossip sheet. Collect (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The incident with the Argentine flag was not just such trivial. Using the national symbols to sweep the floor is a big offense here in Argentina (and worlwide as well, I suppose). If other incidents are detailed in the article, why not to include this? Moreover, this issue was covered not only by the local media like Clarín, La Nación, El Nuevo Herald, Infobae but international media too (CNN, El Informador (Mexico), Rolling Stone, Daily Mail among others).

On the other hand, other celebrity like Diego Maradona has been involved in a lot of controversies during his entire life, but his article on the Wiki does not have any section refers to his behaviour and multiple incidents where he was involved. My POV is: if every incident referring to JB has to be discussed before including them in the article, let's quit the "controversy section" of the article. - Fma12 (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

That one seems truly controversial to me. The sources make it clear there was one side (concertgoers) who thought it was disrespectful and another (Bieber and his reps) who didn't. It's also somewhat a legal issue, as "disgracing the flag" is a crime punishable by up to four years in prison. He doesn't necessarily have to be charged or convicted for it to be relevant enough. And the coverage makes it notable enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not too concerned about including this incident. If you think the RS coverage is strong enough then it can/should be included. I still cannot believe that Bieber set out to deliberately insult his Argentine fans but that doesn't really matter. IMO it was a gesture gone wrong. Perhaps Bieber wanted to send a message to his beliebers that as a group they transcend national barriers and picked the most visible symbol of that and destroyed it, but then the whole thing turned into some type of Monty Pythonesque fiasco. But again, this is strictly my personal opinion and doesn't count. The rest of the stuff in the criticism section is another matter and imo it should be trimmed. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Didn't anyone read Bieber's explanation? Try Rolling Stone. People throw stuff up onto the stage all the time and he pushes it off to the side of the stage so nobody trips and get hurt. He saw a bra and what he thought was a t-shirt on stage. Maybe it was a t-shirt with an Argentine flag on it. So he swept it to the side of the stage. And people freaked out. As for "four years" in jail for this, I thought we only mentioned legal matters like this when someone got convicted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

People freaking out and two sides to stories is what controversy's all about. The legal issue thing is a little blurrier. In my mind, dropped charges, failed lawsuits, messy divorces, detained monkeys or any event pertaining to law is a legal issue. But something a bunch of non-law types (I hope my lawyer isn't a Belieber) think might have resembled a potential crime...maybe not. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Cullen for your link to the Rolling Stone interview. It doesn't surprise me because as I said before it is hard to imagine someone gratuitously insulting the nationality of the fans he is trying so hard to entertain. But the way the whole incident went out of control through all these misunderstandings reminds me of a Monty Python skit. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 07:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Heel (professional wrestling) might make it easier to imagine. Since adopted by many performers. Not saying Beiber's doing it intentionally, or has the stones to try this, but he is remarkably famous for being despised, and vice versa. Vicious, lucrative cycle. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Does the statement "A page with this title has previously been deleted" create a BLP problem?

I've been contacted offwiki by the representative of a living person in regard to a deleted BLP article. The article was as far as I can see deleted according to process (an AFD, followed by numerous speedy deletions over the years citing CSD G4, G11 and A7). The person is clearly not notable according to our criteria and there is no chance of an article on the person surviving for any length of time, nor is there any obvious redirect target for the article.

The problem is that our deleted BLP page is also the first result on Google when you type this person's name in, so when a user comes along who is not familiar with our processes and punches their name into Google, they get a page from us saying that the person is "not notable", "deleted in a deletion discussion", "advertising" and "promotion". Clearly not a good look for that person, particularly as they are still active in business. Is anyone here aware of any previous discussion on this topic? Ideally I'd say that the deletion log should not be shown to logged-out users when they go to a page that doesn't exist, but there may be reasons this would be difficult or unwise.

I've chosen not to identify the person in question so as to keep this discussion on a "generic" level and avoid causing the person any further embarrassment or distress. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC).

I think it does expressly for the reasons you spell out. I looked at Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing but it doesn't look like the magic coding can be used in article space. Was it just recently deleted? Maybe it takes a few days to clear the cache? Otherwise you might get help at Wikipedia:Village pump/Technical. Sportfan5000 (talk) 08:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

obviously not. what utter hogwash. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

If your future boss were to Google your name and the very first hit is showing a promotion article , presumably by you, was deleted, I think there is a issue about doing harm to a living person. Sportfan5000 (talk) 11:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Or an article created by someone else at the same location as your name (particularly an issue I suppose with people approaching the notability threshold, or those with common names). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC).

I still wonder if it won't be resolved in a day or two when Google's caches clear out the now non-existent page? Sportfan5000 (talk) 12:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Can Wikipedia arrange to have "non-existent pages" actually deleted from Google results? I suspect Google would cooperate as they have naught to gain from linking to empty pages ... Collect (talk) 13:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I know there's a roundabout way of removing deletion summaries from deleted articles (perhaps at the oversight level?) which might be invoked, but if the page was recently deleted then it might be that Google still hasn't gotten wind of it. Now if it's not gone in a couple of days then they might want to contact Google and ask them to remove the result for the given search keyword(s). As to whether this is a BLP issue where we have responsibility, that's hard to tell. It depends on how harmful the deletion summaries are to the subject. In any case, I'd wait for it to go away from Google if possible. MediaWiki returns a 404 status to web browsers and indexers for deleted content, so that's how search engines know something should be removed from their cache. They just need to index it again. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

A request that Google reindex a specific page or site can be submitted here.[12] Dwpaul ^Talk 18:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

In my experience, deleted pages do not typically show up in Google search results. (I can attest to this for several reasons, once of which is that there have been several attempts to create a mainspace article about me, which were speedied, and I'd know if they were being indexed under my name.) It may just be that as suggested, this is a temporary issue that will disappear in a couple of days as the crawler does it work, in which case the situation may be unfortunate but unfixable. If it's a longer-term problem than that, perhaps caused by some change in how either Wikipedia or Google does its coding, then I regard it as a very serious problem, because notices of deleted pages should absolutely not become a part of anyone's search profile. It would be good to hear from Lankiveil if the page that was the original subject of this thread disappears from the results within the next couple of days. We also need to bear in mind, of course, that there are other search engines besides Google, and monitor that our no-indexed pages are not appearing on these either. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I've requested that Google re-index the page (thanks User:Dwpaul!), I'll keep an eye on it and report how it goes. The article was originally created in 2008 and has been repeatedly recreated since then, none of the creations are obviously autobiographies. It was most recently deleted in December, and that's the version of the text that's showing up in the cache. Thanks everyone for the suggestions and feedback Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC).

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T61733

We should be serving up the deleted page notice as HTTP 404, much as we do the "no such user" notice. I've filed a bug for it. — Scott • talk 18:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Fantastic, thanks Scott! I can confirm the page is now no longer in the first page of results when you search for this person's name, so all's well that ends well I suppose. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC).

Fantasy defense

David Marks is an attorney that pioneered the Fantasy defense according to several sources which include CBS news. This defense was reported as "groundbreaking" by CBS in the trial of Patrick Naughton. SqueakBox (talk · contribs) now believes that including the attorney by name in the article on Fantasy Defense violates WP:BLP (he first claimed Marks had lack of notability on the talk page). I believe this is hogwash as the sources are strong and including him as the attorney who effectively brought this defense into the lexicon is highly relevant to the article about the legal strategy/tactic. It is similar to the article Telephone stating that it was first patented in 1876 by Alexander Graham Bell.

Discussion on the talk page has gone nowhere, the WP:BRD process has now degenerated into SqueakBox edit warring over it [13], [14], and Squeakbox has suggested bringing this issue here for additional comment. Toddst1 (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The allegations made are sourced to a newspaper but are also quite controversial because the Fantasy Defense is also known as the pedophile defense that allegedly allows pedophiles to escape justice and which was architected by said attorney. Given this IMO we should only include the name of the lawyer if we think he is notable of an article here, otherwise given the controversial nature of this entry we should use discretion and not add the name. Given that hysteria does surround pedophilia issues at times we need to take BLP especially seriously with this issue of pedophiles allegedly being helped to escape justice. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate SqueakBox's sensitivity to BLP concerns in this highly sensitive area. However, in this instance, Mr. Marks's own website contains this media page linking to press coverage of the case involving the defense, which mitigates the concern that he would be harmed by being associated with it. (That being said, I am doubtful that the defense itself warrants an article, as opposed to a reference in a broader article.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

If we do need an article for this, it would be pretty much ideal to have one that actually includes an explanation of what the "fantasy defense" is. Formerip (talk) 23:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I've added a better description of what the defense is and restored the name of the attorney along with an additional citation - the media list on Marks' web site. Toddst1 (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Marv Newland

Marv Newland directed the experimental/animated short CMYK for the National Film Board of Canada in 2010.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.142.124.120 (talk) 02:06, January 5, 2014 --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

It is unclear what you want by making that statement here. If you have a source, you can simply add it directly to the article yourself by clicking the "edit" link directly above. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Joseph Urgo

User Paul Ivolgin repeatedly inserts contentious information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JRU2956 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The material wasn't properly referenced, and accordingly shouldn't have been added. Having said that, a properly-sourced statement that Urgo had resigned would hardly be 'contentious' in of itself - provided it accurately reflected the sources. Looking at the article, there are further problems however. Little of it has proper online citations, and I've just had to remove a paragraph which was almost entirely copy-pasted from a Washington Post article [15] discussing Urgo's departure from St. Mary’s College, Maryland - such copy-pasting is a clear breach of copyright, and entirely contrary to Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Should the name of Amanda Berry's daughter be mentioned in Ariel Castro kidnappings

Clear consensus of no inclusion of minor's name

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

Amanda Berry's daughter is also the biological daughter of Ariel Castro. She was kept in captivity (even though she was a minor and most probably didn't know anything) along with the other 3 victims and is thus a victim of the crime First of all there are reliable sources for her name. A few of them is this, this and this. Some editors disagree of including the name of Amanda Berry's in the article. The sister of Amanda Berry asked the court to remove her name from the public records. They think that therefore their names should not be included according to WP:BLPNAME since they think that they are objecting disapproval of mentioning her name. They also say that family members asked for her privacy by calling her Amanda's daughter. They also say that she is non-noticeable. Also they say that it is victimization of the victim (the daughter) and by not including her name we are following WP:AVOIDVICTIM. However according to the Wikipedia article of Public records are government related documents which can be viewed by the public. As such newspapers, news websites and Wikipedia do not come under public records. Also in this link it is clearly visible that they are asking for the media to leave the daughter alone. Not only that I think they are extremely wrong about that she is non-noticeable. Also I highly doubt how including her name will victimize her. Therefore, I think that including her name does not violate WP:BLPNAME and think that including her name is the best thing to do. I don't think that we are violating the privacy of the family in any way. Should her name be added to the article? KahnJohn27 (talk) 21:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Radar and The Daily Mail are tabloids and not acceptable as reliable sources for information about living persons.

We are talking about a child victim of kidnapping here. There is vanishingly little encyclopedic value in including her name, and given the expressed wishes of her family, I am in full support of keeping her name out of the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

KahnJohn27, the fact that Wikipedia is not 'public record' has absolutely nothing to do with WP:BLPNAME or WP:AVOIDVICTIM. They are our own policies, covering our own content. And they clearly apply here. There is no obvious encyclopaedic merit of including the child's name, and the fact that the family have asked for privacy is certainly something we should take into consideration, though even without this, I can see nothing in anything you have said which appears to justify inclusion of the name. Why is inclusion "the best thing to do"? Best for whom? Clearly not for the child, or the family. When it comes to such circumstances, policy and practice are clear enough - we don't include names unless there are very good reasons to do so. You have provided none. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose No it should not be added. Anyone who thinks this isn't a violation of the family's privacy is exhibiting WP:NOCLUE. You really need to take a course in how people are victimized but we don't have time for that now. MarnetteD | Talk 21:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I think we are past WP:NOCLUE and into the realms of WP:ICANTHEARYOU given KahnJohn27's insistence in this matter.Martin451 00:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose The child is entitled to as much privacy as possible in the circumstances. Her involvement is as a secondary victim of a horrendous crime committed against her mother. Keeping her name off Wikipedia (and I would be looking for revdel at the very least wherever it has previously appeared) is a part of letting her get a real life apart from these events. Bielle (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Revdel was suggested at wp:ani recently. I wonder if an admin would be so good as to do it.Martin451 00:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Per my previous comments and previous consensus on the talk page. WP:BLPNAME, WP:AVOIDVICTIM, WP:HARM, specific requests for privacy for the daughter from the family (as opposed to KahnJohn27 previously claiming they gave permission) all apply here. There is no good reason to name her.Martin451 00:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I note that the original source is a book which has been cited by the DM. Even so,I don't see any value adding her name.Two kinds of pork (talk) 00:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Strong Oppose This is an effort by one editor to force an edit against clear-cut consensus on the article talk page. There is no argument in favor of including her name, and between ANI, here and the article talk page, a number made against it. There is clear consensus in opposition already (giving this effort a whiff of forum shopping), and only one editor who cites something he refers to as noticeability (which I assume he has confused with WP:NOTABILITY) and using an irrelevant argument predicated on the handling of public documents as a thin pretext for violating a minor child's privacy for a reason he has never articulated. I see no good, much less compelling, argument to include the daughter's name, and it should be left out. --Drmargi (talk) 16:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Strong Oppose When it comes to WP:BLP, there is a delicate balance between openness and the rights of the subject(s) who are still living. One often hears the mantra that Wikipedia is not censored. Against that we have the policy that we don't include the names of non-notable children, the ruling to keep the child's name out of court records, and the fact that most mainstream media has not published the child's name. Since Wikipedia is often used as a source of information, it could be considered part of the media - and just because the victim said she wanted her daughter's name out of the public record doesn't mean she didn't want it out of other sources as well, including Wikipedia. Further, we should look outside the box of what WP:BLP states and look to why it does so. One reason is to avoid litigation against Wikipedia - which operates with a very small financial base and could well face real jeopardy if sued over this matter. As I stated before, I strongly oppose the inclusion of the child's name. When interpreting rules that are open to interpretation, it's better to err on the side of caution - and "be bold" doesn't equate with "be reckless". Best to keep the minor child's name out of the article.THD3 (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey excuse me over here. But what the hell is this going on? This was not sone consensus started by me. BLP noticeboard is a place where you ask for advice from other users and admins on whether the name should be included or not. And that was my only objective over here. To ask for advice. It isn't a place for a consensus voting, you should have done that on the talk page of the article. KahnJohn27 (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, but what the hell are you talking about?!? You opened the thread, and the response has been, the response. There is no set format for how it should be given. People are commenting/voting/whatevering. If you don't like it, too bad!! --Malerooster (talk) 01:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I remember there being on DRN about the Delhi gangrape. It said that tabloid can be used as sources because tabloid is a type of newspaper format and it's not necessary that every info in it is gossip. Your comment that Daily Mail cannot be used as a source has no basis in Wikipedia policy. Thanks for hijacking the post by the way. KahnJohn27 (talk) 01:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Here Cullen328 says that "Minor children of article subjects should not be mentioned by name unless they are celebrities themselves or are discussed widely in reliable sources." The daughter is discussed in reliable sources so I think she can be mentioned. KahnJohn27 (talk) 01:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

What you're permitted to do by policy and what you should do as a good human being can be very different things. There is no encyclopedic value in telling our readers this girl's name, and that means there is no good reason to mention it. Let's not pointlessly traumatize her any further just because other sources are. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that there are good grounds for suggesting that WP:BLP policy would require us to exclude the name anyway:

Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material.

"Regard for the subject's privacy" seems to me to be the important issue here - and so far I've seen nothing from KahnJohn27 that actually explains why we should breach such privacy, beyond assertions that we can - which doesn't address the 'burden' requirement at all. Given the clear and unequivocal opposition to inclusion wherever this has been discussed though, whether policy actually forbids inclusion or not is a moot point - the name clearly isn't going in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

User:KahnJohn27 appears to fail WP:COMPETENCE and WP:IDNHT. Martin451 02:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh ok so I'm being a bad human being by mentioning her name. I'll just say it once that I follow Wikipedia policy and what you are saying is a personal opinion. Next time I'm complaining about you at ANI if you do this again. If it does not defy policy then there's no problem and on Wikipedia you have no right to tell who's being good or not. Wikipedia rules itself say Wikipedia is no place for personal opinions. KahnJohn27 (talk) 02:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose inclusion of this child's name. It seems to me that KahnJohn27 misunderstood what I intended in that quote. I was speaking of minor children like Malia and Sasha Obama, or Siri Cruise, who was featured in a photo layout by Annie Liebovitz in Vanity Fair magazine, or Prince George of Cambridge. I am talking about children who have received significant, ongoing coverage in a wide range of reliable sources, not minor child victims of a notorious crime, whose names are mentioned in passing. I hope that KahnJohn27 can recognize clearcut consensus. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see even one comment aside from yours, KahnJohn27, in support of including her name. Don't do it. Wikipedia may not be a place for personal opinion, but it is a place for humane judgement. Bielle (talk) 02:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose I think that just adding " Her six year old daughter" would be enough here. As for as avoiding hard because it is a child, there are living victims of crimes (Elián González) so not every case is as clear cut here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

When did I ever say I was going to "do it"? I don't about victimising the minor but you people are sure victimising me by painting me in a bad picture. I just asked for an advice at this noticeboard. User:AndyTheGrump himself told me to ask at BLPN and I did. Frankly I'm actually not going to take an RfC now because except Cullen328 and Bielle I didn't trust anybody's suggestion anybody over here because it seemed like most of you were either making personal attacks or enforcing personal opinions. What's so incompetent in asking for advice? I think.at the talk page for Ariel Castro kidnappings I myself said that I too somewhat agree that name should not be included. I wasn't really fixed on including her name if you really think that. I didn't even actually care if her name was included on not. I was just trying to ensure no Wikipedia policies were being violated here. I asked Cullen328 personally to look at this case since I trust his judgment. Since most editors including him disagree on including the name I too agree on not including the name. Now since I am not going to "do it" maybe I am a good human being now and not so incompetent in your eyes? KahnJohn27 (talk) 04:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Probably time to close this discussion. Arzel (talk) 05:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

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

DJ Funk

Obviously written by the artist/someone close to them Very poor grammar Does not follow wikipedia structure guidelines — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.252.242.100 (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It was a WP:COPYVIO from here. I have reverted to the version before that was inserted. Cheers! Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 22:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Joseph Urgo 2

User AndyTheGrump repeatedly removing factual information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JRU2956 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

User:AndyTheGrump removed material he identified as a copyright violation. The material, if it's properly sourced, will need rewritten before it can be inserted. —C.Fred (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I've also invited User:JRU2956 to discuss further concerns with the article at Talk:Joseph Urgo. —C.Fred (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Suzannah Lipscomb

81.108.148.216 repeats information that is contentious, eg that the subject married Drake Lawhead. The marriage is over and the subject does not wish this to be in the public domain. To keep reinserting it shows no regard for the subject's privacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MdeBohun (talk • contribs) 00:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources that verify the fact, the subject's wishes are pretty irrelevant. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

A blog at my-wedding-concierge.com doesn't seem particularly reliable to me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

LaChanze

Dear Sir/Madam,

Editor JorgeDMC has repeatedly deleted vital updates to this page. I have been instructed by the Living Person (LaChanze) to update her information on the basis of regularity and accuracy. The names of her minor are not to be displayed under any circumstance.

Please contact me directly if there are any questions.

Sincerely,

Lori Fulton — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babylori (talk • contribs) 03:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Babylori and thank you for bringing this to our attention. Minor children of article subjects should not be mentioned by name unless they are celebrities themselves or are discussed widely in reliable sources. This is not the case here. I have the article on my watch list, and have left a note for the editor who added the names of the children. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Paul Johnson Calderon

This biography has been discussed at WP:ANI in recent hours in a section called "Legal threat" and has been the subject of frantic editing. In my opinion, the sourcing of the article is atrocious, and I deeply doubt that any of the current sources establishes the person's notability. It is a morass of gossip, as I see it. I must get to bed, but I would be grateful if other editors with BLP experience would survey the situation and take whatever action is deemed appropriate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

This should be redirected to High Society (2010 TV series) as is the usual practice for non-notable reality show "cast".--ukexpat (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Robert Spitzer at Gun control

I have requested an edit be done to the protected article Gun control to remove a BLP violation regarding Robert Spitzer. In the article he is currently said to agree that gun control was used in the genocide of Jews, but we don't have any sources for him saying that. Iselilja (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Sharon Stone

I checked the materials referenced in the footnotes, and cannot find any support that her brother "Mike Stone" is the same person to whom the link directs. According to IMDB her brother was in a few movies, but I would think there would be some mention of his affair with Priscilla Presley etc. Also the Mike Stone listing does not list Sharon Stone as a sibling, that would certainly be worth mentioning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.154.159.214 (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Different Mike Stones. Her brother appears to be at IMDB here, whereas the one that was linked from the article seems to be here. Link removed.Martin451 21:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Moughenda Mikala

The moderator says I need a consensus to post a link to a felony warrant issued to Moughenda Mikala. http://www.oakgov.com/sheriff/Pages/most_wanted/fugitives/mickala.aspx

This is a link to a page belonging to the Oakland Sheriff's department in Michigan. Moughenda Mikala is, in fact, a current fugitive, a former doughnut shop clerk, and a garbage truck driver (CHECK THE POLICE SITE, not making this up), who has convinced Western people that he is a "10th generation shaman from Gabon". Nearly everything in the entry is fake (though very specialized and arcane). To start: If you subtract 10 generations, it comes up long before his people arrived in Gabon. "10" just had a nice ring to it. Look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fang_people#Early_population_movements Just do the math. Subtract his age (45) from the number of years after his ancestors arrived in Gabon (circa 1850), then divide the number of generations... and you get 10 generations of 10 year old mothers. Bologna. His website says he can cure AIDS and cancer.

The whole entry for Moughenda Mikala is completely fabricated and fraudulent. I dont know how to change it. Most all of his references on the wiki page are his own interviews. Internet magazine interview him, then he posts the links as a credential.

If this could be added to the end of his entry, it should be fine: "Moughenda Mikala" worked in Detroit as a doughnut shop clerk and a garbage man before become a shaman to Western People." (it is sited below) "Moughenda Mikala is currently a fugitive, wanted in Oakland Country, Michigan on a felony warrant." (Also, sited below)

This is the reference. http://www.oakgov.com/sheriff/Pages/most_wanted/fugitives/mickala.aspx

If this is not acceptable, please let me know hot to fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.134.131 (talk • contribs)

What you need are several reliable sources that cover the issue, rather than a single primary source. Beyond that there are issues of weight as well as consensus that things like warrants and arrests are generally excluded from biographies until there is an actual legal outcome. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for engaging. The link is to the Sheriff of Oakland County, Michigan. It is straight from the source. He is a fugitive. What other reference would be acceptable? Any other source would be hearsay. Are you suggesting that the Sheriff's website is not legit? Do you really need a case number? I don't know what would be more sufficient.

Second, he did in fact commit a crime. He failed to show. That is where the warrant comes from. I agree with you that current court proceedings should be excluded, because everyone is innocent until proven guilty. In this case, he is a fugitive, at large, who failed to appear. He has been at large for nearly a year. He is GUILTY of failing to appear. Are you contesting that part? He has committed a crime, a FELONY warrant has been issued, and he is a fugitive. Delinquent child support aside (a child has been abandoned), he is certainly a fugitive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.134.131 (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not "contesting" anything, I'm saying you are using a primary source, which is never a good idea in biographies (I do hope you read the policy part I linked to previously). As such, adding that to the article is essentially original research, which is even less of a good idea. Find a secondary source, and then you can seek consensus. Without that this is a non-starter. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. One thing we have in common, is that we both want to do the right and responsible thing. Your responses have been courteous and professional. I appreciate that. Thank you for taking the time to look into this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.134.131 (talk) 00:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm happy to help. If only all of these were resolved so amicably :) §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Jakerogers77 (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC) I would perhaps consider requesting this bio to be deleted as, like you stated, the references are mostly sourcing his own words from interviews and not secondary sources.

Outrage (2009 film)

Should rumours about living person be included? --George Ho (talk) 04:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The whole film is about outing politicians who are said to be hypocritical because they vote against gay rights but they are closeted gays. Some of the proof shown in the film is hearsay, some of it is very solid, but the article about the film should tell the reader what the film is about. Binksternet (talk) 04:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Is this a trick question? Are we considering this edit which helpfully lists the "politicians [who] were accused in the film of being closeted gays who vote against gay rights"? The answer depends on who you are. To someone on a mission to expose closeted gays, the answer is "removing this is censorship!", while to someone understanding the role of Wikipedia, the answer is "no way that material is going in the article". Johnuniq (talk) 04:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

You'll notice in that diff that I refer to BLP in restoring a list of names. The BLP section is WP:WELLKNOWN. As Collect says, BLP is not 'optional' on Wikipedia. WELLKNOWN is the working section. Binksternet (talk) 15:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Collect is now on a bender. Seems not to know about WELLKNOWN. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

If a claim would be a BLP violation in any article, it is banned by policy. Else a person could simply add an article about any source, and use that article to promulgate every BLP violation found in that source! As such would clearly be a violation of WP:BLP of it were in individual bios, it remains a violation in the article about the putative source. No other reasonable interpretation is possible, alas. Collect (talk) 14:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems fine. We are using a high quality secondary source to explain what is in a film in an article about a film. We do in fact explain conspiracy theories, which are presumably false, that link public officials and private individuals to nefarious acts. I don't like the list format though. TFD (talk) 14:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

MNope -- it states allegations without reliable sources backing such allegations. The précis of the film can mention that it is about politicians, but it ought not label specific living persons. This is a backdoor to a violation which would not even be allowed on userpages, and is a bright line violation of WP:BLP. And it is "more contentious" than labeling a person as "left wing" by a mile. Collect (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

We don't do allegations without RS backing such allegation. But if another work does that, and the work is notable and it is pivoted around that, then it only makes sense to repeat it. Let's make an example. If a BLP on Cyclopia (me) says "Cyclopia is suspected of eating kittens", with a poor or no source, that is a BLP violation. But if there is a book called "Cyclopia: the Wikipedia editor who is also a horrible kitten eater", and the book is notable, and the allegation is a main theme of the book, then (and only then) we ought to repeat the claim, because it is what the book is about, even if the claim is bizarre/false/unproven.--cyclopia ^speak! 15:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. At the end of the day, BLP policy exists to prevent the inclusion of unencylopaedic information in Wikipedia, not to enable the redaction of encylopaedic information. That ought to be all that really needs saying. Formerip (talk) 23:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Huh. I thought the foremost purpose of BLP was to protect living individuals from undue harm caused by the indiscriminate propagation of damaging information (or misinformation) by this very public, very search-engine-indexed site, and that even "encyclopaedic" information still had to clear a higher bar of caution and concern for how it might harm article subjects. alanyst 23:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

You thought wrong. BLP is basically a tightening of our core policies and an advice to err on the side of caution, and consider privacy. It doesn't mean we need to actively censor the coverage of works of art that happen to say bad things about people. --cyclopia ^speak! 00:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

(ec) I'd say you thought wrong. BLP policy, essentially, asks us (a) to ensure reliable sourcing for information about living people and (b) to write conservatively with regard to information about living people (i.e. not to gratutiously include or emphasise negative information in a way that would be unencyclopaedic). There are then various offshoots such as BLPNAME, but none advises suppressing encyclopaedic information, and WELLKNOWN specifically advises not to do this. Negative information about living people, including allegations which are unsubstantiated or even false, can be significant and even indispensible to the coverage of a particular topic. BLP does nothing to prevent such allegations being included in an article. Formerip (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment I agree with cyclopia and FormerIP. BLP is mostly a tightening of our existing policies. It does not override NPOV or V. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Question Are there multiple sources for each person on that list, with respect to the film? One simply can't watch the film and then use that as the source. The sources should be used to determine if each person belongs on the list. Two kinds of pork (talk) 01:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Various sources report various politicians or other persons discussed in the film. When I was looking for the best sources, I noticed that Larry Craig was discussed by the most sources. Other names appeared with less and less frequency, all the way down to Mary Cheney who was only mentioned by Huffington Post. Binksternet (talk) 01:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I would start by nixing Cheney, and anyone with less than 3 sources, 2 unless they are "high sources" (not huffpo).Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree we should not watch a film and report what it says about living persons. Instead we should report what reliable sources have said about the film, which is what we have done here. TFD (talk) 02:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment The main reason for BLP policy is to avoid libel, per the "Libel" policy. It is libellous to make a false defamatory statement about a person. However it is not libellous to state that such a claim has been made, and we routinely report stories about persons charged with crimes. We also report Lyndon Larouche's theory that "Queen Elizabeth II is the head of an international drug-smuggling cartel" and the "New World Order (conspiracy theory) that the Rockefellers are behind a "conspiracy" to impose a" one world government". Neither of those claims are supported by any reliable sources. As long as we have reliable secondary sources that those claims were made, and report that they were made, not that they are true, we conform with WP:LIBEL. The other issue is weight. It would violate weight to report every theory about a BLP in their article. But it does not violate weight to report them in articles about the source of the claim, provided it is signifcant to those articles. TFD (talk) 02:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- BLP exists because the community has decided this is an encyclopedia, not a website where anyone can add muck to attack a living person—for example, the fact that articles should not repeat rumors has nothing to do with a fear of legal action. WP:BLP mentions defamation in order to alert editors that they are not immune from legal action, and to point out the obvious, namely that material that is possibly defamatory needs to be handled carefully. No editor is qualified to "identify" libelous material. Johnuniq (talk) 03:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  - There is no difference between biographies of living persons and deceased persons. Someone who is the subject of a BLP article may die. The specific reason for the policy is libel. While you say that no editor is qualified to identify libelous material, we avoid libel by using reliable secondary sources, which is done here. Major newspapers btw have access to advice on libel, and therefore we are generally safe in using them as sources. TFD (talk) 05:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
    - No, BLP does not exist because of libel - libel has different legal definitions in different countries. BLP exists because we recognize that it is very easy to use Wikipedia as a compendium of smears, attacks, defamation, rumormongering and coatracking, and that our articles have a very real effect on the lives of the people we chronicle. We have a responsibility to run this project in a respectable manner. Just because we *can* publish something does not mean we *must* publish something, and editorial judgment is not censorship. BLP directs us to use that editorial judgment liberally and err on the side of caution when writing articles about living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
      - Of course it is libel. It is possible to smear entire groups of people, such as in racism and to smear deceased people. While the laws of libel differ between nations, the meaning of libel is the same - it is "defamation" as you correctly term it. Libel is merely defamation in writing or broadcast, as opposed to slander, which is defamation in speaking. TFD (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be difficult to have a decent summary of the film without including some of the names, but the current means of going about it is all wrong. People allegedly outed as gay in the film should only be included to the extent that those individuals are significant in the context of the film and only where appropriate. In other words, they should be mentioned in a summary of the film if their place in the film is significant and mentioned to the extent that those alleged outings were significant points of critical commentary. Another note is some of the material being removed concerns people who are openly gay and at least one person who was alleged to be gay who has since come out as gay, Ken Mehlman. One of the individuals, Ed Koch, died early last year and his alleged orientation was mentioned frequently in reports of his death, including some mentions of this film.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a good summary of the way I feel. Further, I do not believe that this film should be used as a source to introduce its rumormongering into biographies. The film is not a reliable source in any way, shape or form, and its allegations are not particularly encyclopedic. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

From what I've seen the film is following on investigative journalism that predates it. The main thrust it makes is that the mainstream media is complicit in underreporting these incidents, unlike its effort to capitalize on sex scandals that are not specifically gau, the main exception being Larry Craig. Sportfan5000 (talk) 08:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hear hear TDA & NBSB. This is why I proposed requiring 3 sources making note of each person on the list in this article, or two if they are sources like the NYT,Washington Post,LA Times, etc. Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Dov Lipman

There is a blatant error regarding Rabbi Lipman's relationship with the current head of the Ner Israel Yeshiva (Rabbi Feldman) that I have tried to address in two edits and that has been returned to the Biography each time. Rabbi Feldman is listed as Rabbi Lipman's former Head of the Yeshiva. In fact as documented in references 5 and 6, Rabbi Feldman was not only not at the Yeshiva during Rabbi Lipman's tenure there, he has in fact never met Rabbi Lipman. Rabbi Yaakov Weinberg of Blessed Memory was the Head of the Yeshiva then. This is significant firstly because the lack of familiarity can account for Rabbi Feldman's misinformation that led to his retraction of the term "wicked" apostate. Secondly, the use of the term "shamed" itself is misleading as that term never was used by Rabbi Feldman and in light of the much milder retraction, is defamatory to Rabbi Lipman. Thirdly, the invitation by the largest Orthodox body in the U.S. (the RCA) to Rabbi Lipman to give a keynote address this year after the matter with Rabbi Feldman was publicized shows that the education issue in Israel is complex, not universally accepted in the Orthodox world and not helped by name-calling in a Biography.

ref. 5 and 6 in the Biography, which should also be deleted in the edit.

94.159.152.96 (talk) 13:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

This issue is being discussed on my TALK page. רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 18:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan

The subject, Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, is the President of the UAE and over a period of months a variety of unregistered IPs have added the same nonsensical sentence, [16] and citing it to completely unrelated articles in the the Huff Post and the Daily Mail. I'm often the only person reverting this and am finding it reverting this quite tiresome. Can it be locked? Gareth E Kegg (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Make a request at: WP:RFPP.--ukexpat (talk) 01:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Lee Breuer

Dear Wikipedia- The Lee Breuer page is quite out of date (it says his latest project with Mabou Mines is "Red Beads" - that information is 8 years old) Additionally, some of the information is incorrect. Below is a comprehensive work history, including awards, selected publications, teaching, etc. I have also pasted below a short narrative. Please feel free to contact me if you require any assistance or additional information.

Best regards, Joe Stackell General Manager Mabou Mines Development Foundation

Collapsing wall of text

WORK HISTORY THEATER: WRITER, LYRICIST, ADAPTER AND/OR DIRECTOR 2013 La Divina Caricatura, La MaMa etc. (Producers: Mabou Mines; piece by piece productions; Dovetail Productions; St. Ann's Warehouse; La MaMa) 2013 Shalom Shanghai. Shanghai Theatre Festival. 2013 Glass Guignol: The Brother and Sister Play. A Williams' Workshop, Weselyan University (Mabou Mines) 2012 Glass Guignol: The Brother and Sister Play. A Williams' Workshop, Sundance Theatre Lab Mass Moca (Mabou Mines) 2012 Sex in a Coma. HERE Arts Center, NYC 2012 Secrets of a Holy Father, Afterglow Festival, Provincetown, Mass. 2011 GLASS GUIGNOL – A Williams' Workshop, Provincetown Williams Festival, Mass. (Mabou Mines) 2011 MABOU MINES DOLLHOUSE Magestic Theater, Boston (Mabou Mines) 2011 MABOU MINES DOLLHOUSE, Kennedy Center, Washington D.C. (Mabou Mines) 2011 PETER AND WENDY, The New Victory, NYC (Mabou Mines- Liza Lorwin Producer) 2011 GOSPEL AT COLONUS, Spoleto USA (Dovetail Productions) 2011 CURSE OF THE STARVING CLASS, Rainbow Festival, St. Petersburg, Russia 2011 ANTIGONE (In Greek), Athens 2011 UN TRAMWAY NOMMÉ DÉSIR (Streetcar Named Desire), Paris (Comédie Française) 2010 THE GOSPEL AT COLONUS, Minneapolis,USA, The Edinburgh Festival, Scotland (Dovetail Productions) 2010 CURSE OF THE STARVING CLASS (In Russian) Saratov, Russia 2010 OPERA OF STONES (In Portuguese) Sao Paolo, Brazil 2009 MABOU MINES DOLLHOUSE, St Ann’s Warehouse, NYC, Moscow, Russia (Mabou Mines) 2009 YI SANG COUNTS TO THIRTEEN, (in Korean) Seoul 2009 PATAPHYSICS PENYEACH: SUMMA DRAMATICA and PORCO MORTO, New York City (Mabou Mines) 2009 PETER AND WENDY, The Edinburgh Festival, Scotland (Mabou Mines- Liza Lorwin, Producer) 2008 THE GOSPEL AT COLONUS, Athens (Dovetail Productions) 2008 MABOU MINES DOLLHOUSE, Bogata, Seoul, Athens(Mabou Mines) 2007 MABOU MINES DOLLHOUSE, Toronto, Rome, Singapore, Edinburgh, Wrolclaw, Madrid (Mabou Mines) 2007 PETER AND WENDY, Washington DC (Mabou Mines- Liza Lorwin, Producer) 2007 A PRELUDE TO A DEATH IN VENICE, Kilkenny, Ireland (Mabou Mines) 2006 CHOEPHORAE, Patras, Greece (Micocci Productions & Lee Breuer, in assoc. with PrimeArt, S.A., Producers) 2006 MABOU MINES DOLLHOUSE, Israel, Hong Kong, Brisbane, Madrid, Los Angeles (Mabou Mines) 2006 THE GOSPEL AT COLONUS, Vienna (Dovetail Productions) 2005 RED BEADS, New York University Skirball Center (Mabou Mines) 2005 MABOU MINES DOLLHOUSE, Charleston, SC (Spoleto USA Festival), Stuttgart, Paris, Strasbourg, Lyons, Minneapolis, Columbus, Chicago (Mabou Mines) 2004 THE GOSPEL AT COLONUS, New York City Apollo Theatre (Dovetail Productions) 2003 MABOU MINES DOLLHOUSE, International Ibsen Festival, Oslo, Norway, (Mabou Mines with Lisa Harris, producer) 2003 MABOU MINES DOLLHOUSE, St Ann's Warehouse (Mabou Mines with Lisa Harris, producer) 2003 TWO LITTLE INDIANS (Frank), HERE (Lisa Harris, producer) 2002 RED BEADS, (opera-Breuer/Story by Polina Klimovitskaya), Mass MoCA (Mabou Mines - work in progress) 2002 MABOU MINES DOLLHOUSE (adapted by Breuer/Mitchell) NY Theatre Workshop (Scheuer/NYTW - work in progress) 2002 THE CHOEPHORAE (Aeschylus, adapted by Breuer/Andritsanou), ITI Convention, Athens, Greece with Armadillo Theater Group (Armadillo Theater Group - work in progress) 2002 PETER AND WENDY (Barrie, adapted by Lorwin), New Victory Theater (Mabou Mines- Liza Lorwin, producer) 2002 ECCO PORCO (Breuer), Performance Space 122 (Mabou Mines) 2001 ANIMAL MAGNETISM (O'Reilly), Festival Divaldo, Pilsen, Czech Republic (Mabou Mines) 2001 ECCO PORCO PART I (Breuer), Performance Space 122 (Mabou Mines) 2001 HAJJ (Breuer), Seoul Theater Festival, Korea (Mabou Mines) 2000 HAJJ (Breuer), Maly Theater, St. Petersburg, Russia (Mabou Mines) 2000 ANIMAL MAGNETISM (O'Reilly) Arts at St. Ann's (Mabou Mines) 1999 PETER AND WENDY (Barrie, adapted by Lorwin), Dublin Theater Festival, Ireland (Mabou Mines- Liza Lorwin, producer) 1998 THE GOSPEL AT COLONUS, Moscow (Sharon Levy, Producer) 1997 PETER AND WENDY (Barrie, adapted by Lorwin), New Victory Theater (Mabou Mines- Liza Lorwin, Producer) 1996 THE RED HORSE ANIMATION (Breuer, reconstruction) Brazil (Mabou Mines) 1996 POOTANAH MOKSHA (Mohn) Brazil Festival of the Arts, Brazil 1996 PETER AND WENDY (Barrie, adapted by Lorwin), Public Theater (Henson International Puppet Festival)(Mabou Mines- Liza Lorwin, Producer) 1996 PETER AND WENDY (Barrie, adapted by Lorwin), Spoleto Festival USA (Mabou Mines- Liza Lorwin, producer) 1995 THE GOSPEL AT COLONUS (Sophocles, adapted by Breuer/Telson), A Contemporary Theater, Seattle (Sharon Levy, producer) 1995 AN EPIDOG (Breuer), HERE (Mabou Mines) 1992 THE MAHABHARANTA (Breuer), Ontological Theater (Mabou Mines) 1991 THE GOSPEL AT COLONUS (Sophocles, adapted by Breuer/Telson), ACT, San Francisco (Dodgers) 1991 THE QUANTUM (Breuer) - The Grey Art Gallery (NYU), New York, NY 1990 MABOU MINES LEAR (Shakespeare, adapted by Breuer)(Mabou Mines) 1990 B BEAVER ANIMATION (Breuer, reconstruction), Public Theater, NYSF-Papp (Mabou Mines) 1989 THE WARRIOR ANT (Breuer/Telson) Brooklyn Academy of Music-Next Wave Festival (Liza Lorwin, producer); Spoleto Festival; American Music Theater Festival 1988 THE GOSPEL AT COLONUS (Sophocles, adapted by Breuer/Telson), Lunt-Fontanne Theatre (Broadway) (Dodgers) 1988 THE GOSPEL AT COLONUS (Sophocles, adapted by Breuer/Telson), Cleveland Playhouse (Broadway preview) (Dodgers) 1987 THE GOSPEL AT COLONUS (Sophocles, adapted by Breuer/Telson), Guthrie Theater, Minneapolis (Liza Lorwin, producer) 1986 THE GOSPEL AT COLONUS (Sophocles, adapted by Breuer/Telson), Alliance Theater, Atlanta (Liza Lorwin) 1986 THE GOSPEL AT COLONUS (Sophocles, adapted by Breuer/Telson), Chatelet Theater in Paris, France; Spoleto Festival, Italy; Barcelona Festival, Spain (Mel Howard, producer) 1986 THE GOSPEL AT COLONUS (Sophocles, adapted by Breuer/Telson), Annenberg Center for The American Musical Theater Festival, Philadelphia 1986 THE WARRIOR ANT (Breuer/Telson), Alice Tully Hall, Lincoln Center (Liza Lorwin, producer) 1986 THE GOSPEL AT COLONUS (Sophocles, adapted by Breuer/Telson), PBS Great Performances (Liza Lorwin, producer) 1986 PRELUDE TO DEATH IN VENICE/HAJJ REVIVAL (Breuer), Dance Theater Workshop (Mabou Mines) 1985 THE GOSPEL AT COLONUS (Sophocles, adapted by Breuer/Telson), The Mark Taper Forum/L.A. Music Center (Liza Lorwin, producer) 1984 THE GOSPEL AT COLONUS (Sophocles, adapted by Breuer/Telson), Arena Theater, Washington D.C. (Liza Lorwin, producer) 1983 THE GOSPEL AT COLONUS (Sophocles, adapted by Breuer/Telson), Brooklyn Academy of Music - Next Wave Festival (Liza Lorwin, producer) 1983 HAJJ (Breuer), Public Theater, NYSF-Papp (Mabou Mines) 1982 HAJJ (Breuer), Public Theater, NYSF-Papp (Mabou Mines); The Performing Garage (Mabou Mines); The American Film Institute National Video Festival - Washington and Los Angeles (Mabou Mines) 1981 THE TEMPEST (Shakespeare), Delacorte Theater, NYSF-Papp 1980 SISTER SUZIE CINEMA (opera - Breuer/Telson), Public Theater, NYSF-Papp (Mabou Mines- Breuer/Telson Producers) 1980 A PRELUDE TO DEATH IN VENICE (Breuer), Public Theater, NYSF-Papp (Mabou Mines) 1980 LULU (Wedekind), American Repertory Theater 1978 THE SHAGGY DOG ANIMATION (Breuer), Public Theater, NYSF- Papp (Mabou Mines) 1976 THE LOST ONES (revised), Public Theater, NYSF (Mabou Mines) 1975 THE SAINT AND THE FOOTBALL PLAYERS (Thibeau, revised), Connecticut Dance Festival (The Bunch, Inc Production) 1975 THE LOST ONES (Beckett, adapted by Breuer), Theater for a New City (Mabou Mines) 1974 B BEAVER ANIMATION (Breuer, revised), Museum of Modern Art (Mabou Mines) 1974 THE SAINT AND THE FOOTBALL PLAYERS (Thibeau, choreography by Breuer), Walker Art Center (Mabou Mines) 1974 SEND/RECEIVE/SEND (Sonnier), The Kitchen (Mabou Mines) 1973 MUSIC FOR VOICES VIDEO (Glass), The Kitchen 1972 THE ARC WELDING PIECE (Highstein), Paula Cooper Gallery (Performance Art)(Mabou Mines) 1972 B BEAVER ANIMATION (Breuer), Loeb Student Center, NYU (Mabou Mines) 1971 RED HORSE ANIMATION (Breuer, revised), Whitney Museum (Mabou Mines) 1971 COME AND GO (Beckett), Brooklyn Bridge Festival (Mabou Mines- Alanna Heiss, producer) 1970 RED HOUSE ANIMATION (Breuer), Guggenheim Museum (Mabou Mines) 1970 PLAY (Beckett, revised), La Mama ETC (Mabou Mines) 1968 MESSINKOFF DIALOGUES (Brecht), Traverse Theater, Edinburgh 1967 PLAY (Beckett), American Cultural Center, Paris 1967 MOTHER COURAGE AND HER CHILDREN (Brecht), Paris Studio Theater 1964 EVENTS & COMMEDIA SONGS (Breuer/Spener), San Francisco Mime Troupe 1964 COMPOSITION FOR ACTORS (Breuer), San Francisco Tape Music Center 1964 THE RUN (Breuer), San Francisco Tape Music Center 1964 LULU (Wedekind), The Playhouse 1964 THE ALLEGATION (Ferlinghetti), San Francisco Poetry Project 1963 THE MAIDS (Genet), ACT, San Francisco, with Anna Halprin of Dancers' Workshop, Ronnie Davis of San Francisco Mime Troupe, and Ken Dewey 1963 THE HOUSE OF BERNARDA ALBA (Lorca), San Francisco Actors' Workshop 1963 THE UNDERPANTS (Sternheim), San Francisco Actors' Workshop 1962 HAPPY DAYS (Beckett), San Francisco Actors' Workshop 1959 THE LINE (Breuer), Theater 3K7,UCLA 1958 A PLAY (Breuer), Theater 3K7,UCLA 1957 THE WOOD COMPLAINS (Breuer), Theater 3K7,UCLA

FILM: WRITER, DIRECTOR 2010 – MABOU MINES DOLLHOUSE – SHOWING – Delhii, India 2010 – MABOU MINES DOLLHOUSE – SHOWING – Bucherest, Romania 2010 – MABOU MINES DOLLHOUSE – SHOWING – Vladivostok, Russia 2009 - MABOU MINES DOLLHOUSE - SHOWING - Cleveland Museum of Art 2009 – MABOU MINES DOLLHOUSE – SHOWING – Shanghai, China 2008 – MABOU MINES DOLLHOUSE – SHOWING – Cairo, Egypt 2008 – MABOU MINES DOLLHOUSE Premiere in Paris, France 2007 – MABOU MINES DOLLHOUSE (filmed for television) Scotland/France, ARTE/France

TELEVISION: WRITER, DIRECTOR, LYRICIST 2008 MABOU MINES DOLLHOUSE, ARTE France 1986 THE GOSPEL AT COLONUS (Sophocles, adapted by Breuer/Telson), PBS Great Performances

PUBLICATIONS 2010 TRAVAILLER DE BOIS in PUCK, La point critique 2009 PORCO MORTO,TDR, Winter 2002 La Divina Caricatura, a novel. Green Integer Series, Sun and Moon Press, San Francisco, CA. 1998 B BEAVER ANIMATION in From the Other Side of the Century Collection. Sun & Moon Press, San Francisco, CA. 1992 'Spin' Magazine USIS, South Indian Theater (Kudiatum) 1992 THE WARRIOR ANT, an art book illustrated by Swan Weil. Vincent Fitzgerald Press. 1989 THE GOSPEL AT COLONUS. Theatre Communications Group Press, New York, NY. 1988 THE WARRIOR ANT in 'Yale Theater Magazine.' New Haven, CT. 1987 Sister Suzie Cinema: Collected Poems and Performances 1976-1986. Theatre Communications Group Press, New York, NY. 1987 'An Ant in Hell' in 'Yale Theater Magazine.' New Haven, CT. Spring, 1987. 1986 'The Theater is Alive and Well and Living in Women' in 'The Village Voice.' New York, NY 1984 HAJJ in Wordplays 3. Performing Arts Journal Publications, New York, NY 1983 HAJJ in 'Performing Arts Journal'. New York, NY. 1982 A PRELUDE TO DEATH IN VENICE in New Plays USA 1. Theatre Communications Group Press, New York, NY. 1982 'Patalogue Magazine.' Italy. A PRELUDE TO DEATH IN VENICE, winner of Patalogue Magazine Award 1981 A PRELUDE TO DEATH IN VENICE. Theatre Communications Group Press, New York, NY. 1978 Animations. Performing Arts Journal, New York, NY. (Includes performance texts of THE RED HORSE ANIMATION, THE B. BEAVER ANIMATION and THE SHAGGY DOG ANIMATION) 1977 THE RED HORSE ANIMATION in Theater of Images. Drama Book Specialists, New York, NY 1977 'How We Work' in 'Performing Arts Journal,' New York, NY. 1976 'A Comic of THE RED HORSE ANIMATION' published privately 1961 'In the City' short fiction. San Francisco Review 1959 'The Wall' short fiction. Westwinds Magazine

TEACHING 2011 Towsen University, Baltimore Maryland, Development workshop - LA DIVINA CARICATURA 2011 Duke University, North Carolina, Development workshop - MABOU MINES MENAGERIE 2010 Master Classes, Moscow and St. Petersburg 2010 National Theatre of Scotland, Glasgow 2009 National Theatre of Scotland, Edinburgh 2009 Guest Faculty Shanghai University 2006 Guest Lecturer Uniiversity of Thessaloniki 2004-06 Guest teaching, Yale University School of Drama, Brown University 1986-89 Co-Chair of Directing Department, Yale University School of Drama 1995-99 Professor of Theater, Stanford University 1994 Associate Professor, UC Santa Cruz 1992-93 Associate Professor, Arizona State University West 1977-80 Associate Professor, Yale University School of Drama 1981 Harvard University Extension 1981 Experimental Wing, New York University

AWARDS 2011 Elliot Norton award for " Best Touring Production" 2008 Honored by the Cairo International Experimental Theatre Festival 2008 XI Festival Iberoamericana de Teatro de Bogota 2007 Golden Herald Angel Award, Edinburgh Festival 2006 Chevalier of the Order of Arts and Letters, Ministry of Culture of France 2004 OBIE Award for 'Direction' for MABOU MINES DOLLHOUSE 1997 OBIE Award for 'Best Production' to PETER AND WENDY 1994 Fund for New American Plays Award, Best American Play, for THE EPIDOG (Breuer) 1986 OBIE Award for 'Sustained Achievement' to Mabou Mines 1985 National Institute for Music Theater Award 'Outstanding Achievement' to GOSPEL AT COLONUS 1985 Los Angeles Drama Critics Circle Award for Best Concept to GOSPEL AT COLONUS 1985 Los Angeles Dramalogue Award for Best Direction and Text to GOSPEL AT COLONUS 1985 National Black Programming Award for Best Production Communicating Excellence to Black Audiences to GOSPEL AT COLONUS 1985 National Institute of Music Theater's Award for the Advancement of Music Theater 1984 OBIE Award for 'Best Musical' to GOSPEL AT COLONUS 1984 National Gospel Association Award 'Outstanding Production' to GOSPEL AT COLONUS 1984 Brandeis University Creative Arts Awards Citation in Theatre Arts to Mabou Mines for 'extraordinary artistic achievement,' re: script for HAJJ (Breuer) 1983 National ASCAP Popular Song Award for GOSPEL AT COLONUS lyrics 1983 United Gospel Association Award for Best Production to GOSPEL AT COLONUS 1983 American Theater Wing Joseph Maharam Award 'Consistently Excellent Collaborative Design' 1981 Villager Downtown Theatre Award to Mabou Mines for Outstanding Season 1980 OBIE Award to Lee Breuer for his script and direction of A PRELUDE TO DEATH IN VENICE. 1980 San Francisco Critics' Circle Award: Best Touring Production to A PRELUDE TO DEATH IN VENICE 1980 Villager Downtown Theatre Award for 'Best Musical' to SISTER SUZIE CINEMA 1979 Los Angeles Dramalogue Critics' Award to Lee Breuer (Direction) for THE LOST ONES 1978 OBIE Award for Best Play to Lee Breuer for THE SHAGGY DOG ANIMATION 1978 Villager Downtown Theatre Award to THE SHAGGY DOG ANIMATION 1978 Soho News Award for Best Ensemble to THE SHAGGY DOG ANIMATION 1974 OBIE Award for 'General Excellence' to Mabou Mines 1958-9 UCLA 'Best Play' Award to A PLAY and THE LINE 1958 Samuel French Award to A PLAY

NOMINATIONS 1988 Tony Nomination for Best Book - GOSPEL AT COLONUS (officially declined) 1988 Pulitzer Prize Nomination for Best Play - GOSPEL AT COLONUS 1987 NAACP Image Award Nomination - GOSPEL AT COLONUS 1986 Grammy Award Nomination for Best Theatrical Album - GOSPEL AT COLONUS 1986 Emmy Award Nomination for Best Direction (with Tod Browning) - GOSPEL AT COLONUS

FELLOWSHIPS 2011 USA Ford Fellow in Theater Arts by United States Artists 2006 Bunting Fellowship - Radcliffe College, Cambridge, MA 2003 Fulbright Fellowship - Greece 2001 Asian Cultural Council - Thailand, Study 2000 Asian Cultural Council - Seoul, Korea, Workshop 1997-2001 John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Fellowship 1995 Asian Cultural Council - China, Teaching at Dramatic Institute in Beijing 1993 Japan-United States Friendship Commission - Japan, Research and Tour Planning 1992 Asian Cultural Council - China 1992 Arts International - China, Teaching and Travel 1992 Arts International - Bali, Rehearsal and Travel 1990-91 CIES Counsel for International Exchange of Scholars - North and South India 1985 Rockefeller Foundation Playwriting Fellowship 1984 McKnight Foundation Playwriting Fellowship 1983 Japan-United States Friendship Commission Exchange Fellowshipn 1982 National Endowment for the Arts Playwriting Fellowship 1979 Rockefeller Foundation Playwriting Fellowship 1978 Creative Artists Public Service (CAPS) Fellowship 1978 National Endowment for the Arts Playwriting Fellowship 1977 Guggenheim Fellowship

FORTHCOMING

PUBLICATION: Pataphysics Penyeach – University of Chicago Press - 2013 PERFORMANCE: La Divina Caricatura, The Trilogy, Parts I and II – La MaMa, NYC 2013 PERFORMANCE: A Prelude to Death in Venice – Paris, 2014 PUBLICATION: Getting Off – Theater Communications Group Press - 2014

A founding co-artistic director of Mabou Mines theater company, Lee Breuer is a writer, director, poet, playwright, adapter and lyricist engaged in a lifelong procession of incendiary experimental theater projects across Europe, Asia, Africa, North and South America.

Breuer is most widely known for his revelatory, upending adaptations of classic works of theater: "Mabou Mines DollHouse", adapted from Ibsen; "The Gospel at Colonus", adapted from Sophocles’ "Oedipus at Colonus"; "Peter & Wendy", adapted by Liza Lorwin from J.M. Barrie’s novel "Peter And Wendy". All continue to tour festivals and theaters around the world.

“I was torn between writing and directing for a long time,” he adds. “My directing was successful but my writing wasn’t. Shaggy Dog Animation winning the OBIE in 1978 was a big turning point. Eventually, I was able to resolve the tension by taking a view of directing as the final re-write. If I couldn’t solve something directorially, I’d change the text.”

Breuer is also noted for his extensive work with puppets. It is Breuer’s “deep purpose” to bring puppetry into serious American theater. “I first saw Bunraku in Japan in 1968 and fell madly in love with puppetry. It is quite simply the deconstruction of working with an actor and with acting itself.”

Breuer is a MacArthur Fellow, a Bunting Fellow, a Guggenheim Fellow and twice a Fulbright Fellow. He has collected many OBIES as well as the prestigious Golden Herald Angel of the Edinburgh International Festival, the French Chevalier de l’Ordre des Arts et des Lettres, and the Helen Hayes Award. He delivered the inaugural lectures for the Samuel Beckett Chair at Trinity College, Dublin and his teaching resume includes time as Co-Chair for Directing at the Yale University School of Drama, as well as positions at Stanford, Harvard, Arizona State University West, NYU, Columbia, Penn State, UC Berkeley, Drama Institute Beijing, Aristotle University Thessaloniki, Athens University, and the Moscow Art Theater School of Acting.

“People ‘buy’ different aspects of my work and it’s all fine with me,” Breuer says. “I can tell you I’m very proud to have directed thirteen OBIE Award-winning performances over nearly forty years. Even a dog puppet won.” Breuer's work received 2 OBIES for Best Productions and he himself 2 for writing and directing and (with Mabou Mines) a Sustained Achievement OBIE. He has been honored with, an American Express/Kennedy Center award for Best New American Play, the Edinburgh Golden Herald Angel Award and the Chevalier Ordre des Arts et des Lettres. Lee was born in 1937 and has five children and two grandchildren. He lives in Brooklyn with his partner, actress Maude Mitchell. Forthcoming: Publications: "I Don't Want to Change Your Mind: I want to Change Your Music" and "Getting Off-Pataphysics Penyeach". Performance works in progress: Cantata (with composer Sam Butler), Antigone (with Soledad Barrio & Noche Flamenca), Eccoporco (with composer John Margolis), Warrior Ant (with Bob Telson) and Glass Guignol: The Brother and Sister Play with Maude Mitchell and Greg Mehrten.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe.stackell (talk • contribs) 22:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Jim McCrery

Should the allegations and denial about the subject's sexuality be kept in or removed from this article? --George Ho (talk) 05:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I have removed them. Anyone can say anything about anyone. There doesn't appear to be any reason to repeat uncorroborated allegations which have received no credence from mainstream, reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Concur with removing them, in spades. Such speculation has no place in a serious encyclopedia article. We're not a supermarket tabloid. Killer Chihuahua 02:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The BLP Richard Lindzen is in this excuse for an article, I gave a source on the talk page in which he states "For the most part I do not disagree with the consensus, but I am disturbed by the absence of quantitative considerations" Global Warming: Looking Beyond Kyoto pp 21-22 Given he has stated, himself, that he does not disagree with the consensus I believe his being in the list is a BLP vio, it has obviously been restored, as the list criteria, made up one day by editors, means that he goes in, regardless of his own words. Thoughts? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

There appear to be two high quality sources where the person in particular does seem to make statements criticizing the consensus view. Do you doubt the accuracy of those stories? Gaijin42 (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

LLI.e. questioning in any way the "consensus" it the same as "opposing the mainstream view"? Might there be actual possibilities that reasonable reservations are not the same as being a pseudoscientist of some sort? Collect (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

He has said in his own words he does not disagree with the consensus, other statements he makes do not matter, Wikipedia editors do not get to write that a BLP is against the consensus from something the BLP has said, that is OR and a BLP violation. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400 is entirely in his own words. "Claims that climate change is accelerating are bizarre. " " t this point there is no basis for alarm regardless of whether any relation between the observed warming and the observed increase in minor greenhouse gases can be established" "But even if the IPCC's iconic statement were correct, it still would not be cause for alarm. "The notion that the earth's climate is dominated by positive feedbacks is intuitively implausible, and the history of the earth's climate offers some guidance on this matter. " This is the grossest of "bait and switch" scams. It is only such a scam that lends importance to the machinations in the emails designed to nudge temperatures a few tenths of a degree." I don't know how much more strongly he could put himself into the skeptic bucket. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

And from the source you quoted, the VERY NEXT LINE "However I believe that people are being led astray by the suggestion that this agreement constitutes support for alarm" and "for more than twenty-five years we have based not only our worst-case scenarios but even our best case scenarios on model exaggeration". His entire article is dedicated to saying that alarmism is foolish, and that the man made soruce of any warming is washed out by natural noise. Thanks for pointing out this source, its an excellent addition to source this guys position on this article. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Alarmism is foolish, and you are carrying out OR on a BLP without a second thought. He has said, for the last time, he does not disagree with the consensus, so adding him on arbitrarily selected criteria by Wiki editors is OR and a BLP vio. And I am obviously going to have to remove it agian as you guys do not seem to get what OR and BLP is. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

He is quite specific about which consensus he is agreeing with, and it is not the IPCC. It is not OR to read the own mans statements where he repeatedly puts doubts on the process and conclusions in an article entitles "Is global warming alarm founded on fact?" and "The climate science isn't settled" Gaijin42 (talk) 18:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

It is OR, you are taking something he has said, comparing it to a criteria made up by Wiki editors, and coming to a conclusion based on that. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

His statements are not the only thing we consider. Plenty of people have stated, "I am not a [Holocaust denier|war criminal|hero|insert random position]" but reliable sources independent of the subject have a different viewpoint. We need to take into account these sources and any contradictory actions/statements the subject has made. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Traci Bingham

I have just removed the offending section that was potentially libelous and was poorly/improperly sourced & in clear violation of Wikipedia's policy concerning biographies of living people...along with an unrelated link to a paid porn site. I believe the offending poster (BeyondTheBay) will likely return to repost the potentially libelous material & thus the page may need to be monitored for a time.

Richard Lynn

There is a dispute over material which was added to the article in this edit and this edit. I and another editor undid the additions because the material seems to be cherry-picked, by selecting a few sentences out of long interviews to present him in a negative way. Other people commenting on the talk page seem to agree the material is problematic, but restored it because they believe it can be fixed. But none of them have tried to fix it, so the problematic material has stayed in the article, which doesn't seem appropriate in a living person article.

A related problem was posted about here, about the lead of the article using weasel words, and giving undue prominence to negative information in obscure and poor-quality sources. A few people objected to this material, but could not get a consensus to remove it, so it stayed in the article. I checked one of these sources that's available online for free, the one titled "Serious Scientists or Disgusting Racists", and found it does not support the material in the lead that's cited to it. This source makes the opposite point from what it's cited to say.

I shouldn't have to hesitate to remove poorly-sourced negative material in a biography of a living person, but I can see there is a lot of opposition to removing this material among long-term editors involved in the article. Therefore, I request help from other editors to bring this article up to the standard expected for a BLP. --Prmct (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

As time goes on, I have more and more trouble understanding why some editors want to try to "protect" BLP subjects from the ideas they embrace. Lynn has said these things; he clearly embraces them. They are therefore not negative to him. I suggest that you stop trying to impose your own values on people who clearly don't share them. That sounds like a violation of BLP. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Did you read the discussion on the talk page? The problem is not that these ideas are presented at all, but that Lynn is selectively quoted in a way that does not accurately represent what the sources say. See the comments here and here. I don't think there is much disagreement on the talk page that these sources are being misused. The problem is that some editors don't want the material to be removed because they think it can be fixed, but also don't want to fix it. --Prmct (talk) 13:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The main thing I get from the talk page is reinforcement for my initial impression that you're a sock. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The view of a civilized society is that racist individuals such as Lynn deserve no protection in academia, and likewise they deserve no protection at Wikipedia. By objecting to how sources are used in his article you are becoming someone who defends a racist, so I suggest you stop. Lynn is 83 years old. Before you find another person at Wikipedia who believes your concerns matter, the article will no longer be a BLP. --88.202.124.121 (talk) 13:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Tomin Thachankary

I'm not about much, but this was on my watchlist for some reason, and reading it over it is obviously problematic and not acceptable. It seems to have survived an AFD, but certainly needs re-written if it isn't to be burned with fire. Thanks.--Scott Mac 15:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I burned out on this one following various accusations of edit-warring, forum shopping, and outright lying from the author. Relevant history can be found in the BLPN archives, the article talk page, and the author's talk page. I wish the best of luck to whomever attempts to uphold BLP policy in this article.--Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 19:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

My staring point is that the article, as it stands, is obviously unacceptable. You can't speak of "allegations" without attributing them to someone - or indicating their significance or what the outcome was - otherwise the article is prejudicial. It's been in that state for some time and I can't see how to fix it. Probably it could be fixed, but the fact it could be fixed and I just can't see how does not make the current form acceptable for the time being. So, I have deleted it using admin discretion. If someone can see a better way forward, I'll defer - but many months of the status-quo isn't acceptable.--Scott Mac 21:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Good call, Doc, and nice to see you somewhat around. I've added the article to my watchlist. If it's recreated in similar form, I reckon it's scorched earth time. Bishonen | talk 22:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC).

Craig Hodges

Recently an IP editor inserted a paragraph of text to Craig Hodges describing an incident that occurred over twenty years ago. I believe that including a play-by-play of the event is unnecessary and, given that two of the individuals involved were minors at the time and are likely private individuals, the extra details should not be included under WP:BLP, specifically "...it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." I trimmed the paragraph to include a sentence in the personal life section which neutrally noted the event and removed mention of the children and the name of the not-independently notable spouse while maintaining the sources. The IP reverted my edits with an edit summary noting "Your editorial decision is Recentism". My opinion is unchanged that the extra details are just sensationalistic and there is no need to include them. The event would have been horrendous enough for the children, do we really need to rehash the specific details on Wikipedia? Is it necessary to include how many matches were struck, for example? --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 17:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Assuming the event was well publicized, I don't see a problem with the ip's edits. As for the children, well they are adults by now. In any case, I'll watch the article.Two kinds of pork (talk) 18:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Even absent BLP concerns adding vivid details of a violent attack that is not directly part of the notability of the article's subject sensationalist, unencyclopedic, and of undue weight. He's famous for being a basketball player, not for being lit on fire. That would be a matter for page editors to handle at their own discretion. The BLP angle makes the concern more urgent, and I would say the material should be removed immediately pending discussion, and the foreseeable outcome of the discussion is to keep it out. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Needless to say I agree with Wikidemon. Two kinds of pork, I am not arguing that the event should not be mentioned whatsoever, I just don't believe it needs to include excessive details that add a sensationlised aspect to the event and that has the potential to continue to victimize the private individuals involved. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 19:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I just don't see it as a BLP violation. Whether it is necessary to the article is a judgment call. Is "two matches" necessary? Probably not. The entire event deserves mention. One thing that I didn't walk away from on my initial glance was I wasn't sure if the 2nd match worked (hopefully not)Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

There's a whole section in BLP about avoiding victimization by reporting unnecessary details of crimes. The exception for public figures only comes in if it's noteworthy and relevant. The fact that his ex attempted to murder him is perhaps relevant enough to his life story to be included in a biography. The narrative of how she tried to light the matches after dousing him with gasoline in front of his children is not. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Rakesh Jhaveri

This figure is very controversial and has a lot of controversy around him. I do not believe that this page should actually be here on Wiki. One of two (50%) of the sources cited is highly biased, this is obvious as it comes from an article entitled 'The Messiah in White'. Rakesh Jhaveri is not 'The Messiah'. It does not have a Neutral Point of View (NPOV) 82.27.212.149 (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Jason Deutchman

The bolded portions lack citations:

Jason Deutchman (born September 27, 1987) is a Filipino-American basketball player who plays for the Petron Blaze Boosters in the Philippine Basketball Association. He was selected 10th overall in the 2012 PBA Draft by the GlobalPort Batang Pier.[1]

In 1998, when he was still 11 years old, he invented "Hands and Feet Magic", a dance performed while the song "Boom Boom Boom Boom" is being played. This song was later called "The Deutchman Dance". He was sent to the juvenile hall shortly after The Deutchman Dance became famous because many people died trying to attempt the Deutchman Dance. He was released in 2005. Before PBA, he took up engineering. He was very ravenous in his Graphics class, they called him Dutch Ravenous. Midway through his rookie season, Deutchman was traded from the Batang Pier to the Petron Blaze Boosters as part of a three team trade that also sent Japeth Aguilar to Barangay Ginebra as well as sending Jay Washington and Yousef Taha to GlobalPort.[2] He died on July 16, 2025. After that, he became The Flying Dutchman.

--Samuel Dennis R. Borlongan (talk) 05:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Obvious vandalism. I've removed it, along with other unsourced material. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Yogendra Yadav

1. Yogendra Yadav is a National Executive member of Aam Adami Party(AAP) in India.
2. Aam Adami Party(AAP) is a new political part in India.
3. Point of focus of AAP is to remove corruption from India.
4. The main purpose of biography is to connect Yogendra Yadav with Rahul Gandhi(Vice president of Indian National Congress). The citation given are not credible enough.
5. The wikipedia biography is been used to tarnish the image of Yogendra Yadav. Links to the biography are circulated using Whatsapp linking him to Rahul Gandhi.
6. The biography should be suspended till credible citation are sourced.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthbharat (talk • contribs) 19:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Roy Campbell, Jr.‎

Yesterday there were reports that Roy Campbell, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) had died, but nothing in a reliable source. Subsequently the Wikipedia article had been edited to reflect that he'd died. I've received an email with this news, from a source I'd otherwise trust (also seen this on Facebook), but a few weeks ago the same thing happened with another jazz musician, Horace Silver, who in fact had not died. Since then someone has cited a French website, Quboz, but it does not mention anything that one would expect to find in a death notice: how, where, according to whom, survived by whom, etc. Now JazzTimes is reporting it as well, but all they could provide was "according to multiple reports on social media sites." In other words, exactly what happened with Horace Silver. "The cause and place of death were not reported." Forgive me if this is the wrong forum for this, but until we see a source that tells how, where, according to whom, survived by whom, etc. then I think this article needs some extra eyes watching it. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Lacking positive, unambiguous confirmation that the subject has passed, we default to consider that they are alive. We've "killed" too many people around here over the years, only for their angry friends or family members to write or complain about it. And rightly so. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

That's what I figured. I'm strongly inclined to think the news is true (based on an unpublished source), but it wasn't something that I could or would cite on Wikipedia. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Also wanted to make sure I'm not running afoul of WP:3RR and confirm this falls under BLP exceptions. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I would say that this falls up the BLP exemption. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion this is a good example of where that exception applies, but when the issue is not extremely urgent I always prefer to just file a case at ANI for BLP violations if applicable, request page protection, etc. I've never tested the exception except in very blatant cases of potential libel or grossly inappropriate edits, so I can't assure you that an admin won't block you for 3RR in this case. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Death has now been reported on The New Yorker's website, but the date is only specified as "this week." Should we wait until there is a more-precise death date to update the article? --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest waiting until we have a source with more specific info. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Having said that, it's already been cited in the article (Old revision of Roy_Campbell,_Jr.). I guess this is OK, for now, pending a more specific report. I presume Bynum (the author) intended this piece more as a tribute than an actual death notice. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Riek Machar

There is potentially libelous material in the last paragraph of the sub-section "early career" in the article Riek Machar.

I'm not saying it's wrong, merely libelous :)

I apologise if I have not done this correctly, I am not particularly acquainted with this technology.

cheerio! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.37.63 (talk) 05:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

You did fine, thanks. It's regular old vandalism and I reverted it. Thanks for pointing this out. Drmies (talk) 05:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Leslie Cornfeld

Draft:Leslie Cornfeld

An article about this lady existed in a fairly basic form from 2006 until the beginning of December 2013, when an SPA account and several SPA IPs began to expand it considerably, giving it a promotional tone and making it increasingly like a resume. Eventually that drew attention, it was nominated for deletion, and I closed a thinly-attended WP:Articles for deletion/Leslie Cornfeld as delete. The subject of the article then posted on my talk page in some distress at User talk:JohnCD#URGENT - Deletion Error. I replied on User talk:SHurowtiz explaining the background, said that I was not prepared to reverse my close of the AfD, that she should go to Deletion review, and would stand a better chance there with an improved article. I therefore restored the article to the Draft namespace at Draft:Leslie Cornfeld, reverted it to the last version before the COI expansion, and advised her to list on the article talk page any inaccuracies and any suggestions for additions.

The purpose of this note is to ask for some eyes on the draft article, and for volunteers to help in improving it for Deletion review. JohnCD (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Some references would help.--ukexpat (talk) 14:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I work for Rubenstein Communications and on behalf of Leslie Cornfeld, I propose using the references provided below. To mitigate conflict of interest issues, I will refrain from editing the draft directly unless specifically invited to do so. NinaSpezz (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Career:

Bloomberg's Interagency Task Force, where Cornfeld was Chair: [17]
Cornfeld is quoted in this Washington Post editorial from September 2013: [18]
Cornfeld spoke at Advertising Week social media week 2012: [19]
Cornfeld is speaking at National Mentoring Summit on January 30, 2014: [20]
Cornfeld is quoted in this article about New York Cityschools: [21]
Cornfeld’s feature in PBS/WNET: [22]

Board memberships:

Children Defense Fund: [23]
Hospital for Special Surgery: [24]
Advisory Board at Massachusetts General Hospital Center for Law, Brain and Behavior: [25]

Peter Maneos

This is clearly a vanity page created by the subject of the page. The pseudonym "Adonis123" is very similar to his previous online name "AdonisPete". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lockamy (talk • contribs) 22:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree. "He first gained notoriety within popular culture in 2001 with his appearance in the famed Abercrombie and Fitch Quarterly" doesn't really cut it, no matter it uses words like "notoriety" (which means ill repute, but that probably wasn't intended) and "famed". And the mention of his poetry being compared to Pablo Neruda, Algernon Charles Swinburne, and Lord Byron (no citation) is kind of funny. It's not really something for this noticeboard, nor for speedy deletion, so I suggest you PROD the article, Lockamy. Bishonen | talk 01:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC).

I have PRODDed the article.[26] Thank you for drawing attention to this, User:Lockamy. Bishonen | talk 19:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC).

bobolinda don't have sing stirb nicht cor mir, and is not this cristiane, it's afake. Fuckiing stealer!

It's not that singer that sing with rammstein. It's a fake. THe singer was to young to register with her true name 'cause she was to young (and had'nt the permission of her parents.),you have no prooves to say who sing with them. THere is no voice prints. you just had lies. More over they don't have the same voice, you can hear it by songs of white house.

This doesn't make any sense. -- John Reaves 01:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

This editor believes that the backup vocals for the song "Stirb nicht vor mir" on the album Rosenrot by Rammstein are incorrectly attributed to Christiane Herbold (stagename: Bobo). But the credits on the album state Backing vocals on "Stirb nicht vor mir" by Bobo. We would need better sources before calling someone a "stealer" per BLP. It looks like Bobo was the backup singer only on the english version, but was not the backup singer on the German version. That's probably from where the confusion stems. __ E L A Q U E A T E 11:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Elaqueate, that's impressive. Drmies (talk) 15:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Peter Nijkamp

Here's an odd one: check out my work. I just updated this article: it's a huge stink (just look at this Google overview) and I want to make sure that we get it right. Frankly, I'm surprised his article hasn't been edited yet; perhaps some eyes will be handy in the coming days and weeks as well to prevent abuse. Anyway, please have a look at the section I just introduced and the one sentence I added to the lead. The line between character assassination and objectively representing the facts is a thin one. Oh, before you ask, as far as I know Nijkamp himself has not responded publicly to the accusations (which, by the way, are well past the "accusation" stage in the ordinary sense). Drmies (talk) 05:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Jan 2014? Has the dust started to settle on this? I see no problem with your additions.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. No, no dust yet, not even pixie dust. They're trying to figure out to which extent self-plagiarism equals plagiarism. The outcry is humongous, as you may have seen (it's only the most recent of a couple of Dutch plagiarism/academic dishonesty scandals). For the record, the VU is my alma mater, and I really don't enjoy this but it has to be done. I have little doubt that he will lose his job over this scandal and that the VU's reputation is seriously harmed. Thanks again. Drmies (talk) 05:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Since he may lose his job over this, is there a remote possibility that this addition will exacerbate it? Thats the only reason I could see not adding this now. Probably a resounding "no", but dot your i's Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I made a few tweaks, primarily restating the accusations in the voice of the newspapers. I also commented out the section about his student - as written, it's unclear how the actions of Nijkamp's student relate to Nijkamp, and I can't read Dutch. If you think it belongs (and it may very well belong), please rewrite to better explain - are they viewing Nijkamp as complicit or responsible for his student's plagiarism? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, nice work, Drmies, and I also agree with NorthBySouth's fixes. I was just going to dampen down the intro sentence, when I found NBS had already done it.

About the student: the thing is apparently that Nijkamp, her supervisor, was credited as co-author of the criticized piece(s). Indeed the first reference states outright that she wrote her text "samen met" (=together with) Nijkamp. (Speaking as an academic, the credit to the supervisor as co-author may or may not have been a mere formality, but by taking the credit, he would certainly in any case share the responsibility.) I agree with NBS that this connection wasn't clear in the article. I'll leave it to Drmies to make it so, since I can only read the Dutch sources when I'm half-seas over. Bishonen | talk 12:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC).

"Half-seas over": you mean "drunk on the ferry playing the slot machines with a pram full of butter"? :) I'll have a look to see about a rewrite. It's the student's dissertation that got the ball rolling. Note I didn't use her name. As for Two kinds of pork's "remote possibility", I'd say not likely, since his employers are all Dutch and presumably read any of the major newspapers. It's the biggest Dutch academic story I've seen, and this little Wikipedia article pales in comparison. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

All goodTwo kinds of pork (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Drmies, that's uncanny, my mother has the weirdest story about a pram full of butter. (It features girlscouts, hot weather and a collapsible pram, and telling it makes my mother laugh so hard she never gets as far as the punchline, if any.) Is it a, uh, Dutch saying? Note that I didn't use the student's name either, not actually being drunk or buttered today. Bishonen | talk 18:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC).

The I Inside-Writer Michael Cooney

"The I Inside" Film Writer Michael Cooney - Name and Bio Error: The current link from the Writer of "The I Inside" film's screenplay: Writer Michael Cooney, erroneously links to the folk singer-songwriter Michael Cooney and not to the Screenwriter Michael Cooney. The linked information about the songwriter Michael Cooney is correct about the songwriter, but the songwriter and the screenwriter Michael Cooney are two different people.

Correction Source: Page Title: "Ray Cooney Plays" [27] Even though it is titled "Ray Cooney Plays" it lists all of Michael Cooney's stage and screenplay titles with their synopses, including "The I Inside". Article:: <The I Inside is a 2003 psychological thriller directed by Roland Suso Richter. It was written by Michael Cooney based on his own play "Point of Death". This film has no connection with the science-fiction novel The I Inside, by Alan Dean Foster. > “The I Inside" link from Writer-Michael Cooney erroneously links to the wrong person, a folk singer- songwriter also named Michael Cooney. Content:The link labeled Writer-Michael Cooney links to correct information about the folk singer-songwriter Michael Cooney. <Michael Cooney (born 1943 in Carmel, California) is an American musician known for his performances in the 1960s folk revival. He is known for his blues performances as well as in performing at and organizing many folk festivals, notably the National Folk Festival in Washington, DC, for six years.> <However, "The I Inside" screenwriter Michael Cooney, born in England, is a different person than the American born folk singer (noted by both their different photographs and by their different bios.)Michael Cooney, the screenwriter's bio is at at:[28])> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kabecio (talk • contribs) 09:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Corrected The I Inside.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Jasmine Waltz

This new article on a minor actress consisted almost entirely of negative material and gossip cited to sub-tabloid sources, and contains precisely zero evidence that she meets Wikipedia notability guidelines. Indeed, the source cited for what little non-gossip/negativity the article included actually asserts in so many words that this person lacks notability: "When Jasmine Waltz strutted into the 'Celebrity Big Brother' house this year everyone (including us) asked, 'who she?'" [29] I shall of course be nominating the article for deletion (the creator having contested the prod - though without anything more than a statement to that effect in an edit summary [30]) but meanwhile, can I ask that experienced eyes are kept on the article.Though User:TheRedPenOfDoom has removed the worst of the offending material for now, it may well attract vandalism and/or more badly-sourced gossip. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Splendid example of "not a real BLP" writing, alas. And the sourcing for claims is worse than marginal. Collect (talk) 13:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Mike Adams, (head editor)

New article created, looks amateurish and unsourced. Needs eyes from those who are familiar with the process to see if this should be deleted. Yobol (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

That's a clear A7 and someone tagged it as such already. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 15:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Almost exclusively unsourced BS and trivia. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Done, deleted as per A7. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

James Delingpole

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

Can someone remove this BLP violation please, despite both its wide acceptance in the scientific community, and having no scientific qualifications himself to make this accusation. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. I suggest other editors add this article to their watchlist just in case this finds its way back into the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

How is this compatible with WP:FRINGE? Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

What does fringe have to do with an editor persistently adding unsourced contentious statements to a BLP? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Barney, since he apparently has (only) a BA in English, the statement is apparently true. But it has to be sourced. And, to avoid WP:OR, don't include the word "despite". But again the main thing is to have a source for the statement. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Correct. It's an unsourced contentious statement about a living person. Even with a source, it's probably WP:UNDUE to include this in the lede. The body would be more appropriate. And I'd also say that the wording would may need to be tweaked as "despite" may run afoul of WP:EDITORIALIZING. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses. There are subtleties where WP:BLP and WP:FRINGE interact but the two shouldn't be incompatible. It seems that we should (1) structuring the article roughly chronologically, include a statement as to his education, but not directly include those facts in the sentence within a paragraph next to any other topic. We should also then not include any criticism based on this reverse appeal to authority,unless it is specific criticism from a well-known mainstream scientist or scientists and prominently published. (I don't have any sources, but commentary in The Guardian by a scientists would be the sort of level that we're talking about). Finally however, we can and probably should include mention of the fact that his views are contrary to scientific consensus, thus giving proper WP:FRINGE impersonal context. Is that fair and accurate? Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The article has been locked due to edit-warring.[31] There is now a discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Kaj_Taj_Mahal regarding this. The lock will expire in 3 days. Can we get a few more editors to add this to their watchlists? Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

James Delingpole‎ (2)

WP:BLP says, "Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively" As such is a section in a BLP titled "Anthropogenic climate change denial" suitable? Given the BLP in question has said, he believes in global warming. Please comment here if you wish. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Look up the word "Anthropogenic" in a dictionary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

(ec)No need to, thanks. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Global warming and anthropogenic climate change are different. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

And you have a source in which he denies AGW? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The source you've just cited, for a start: 'The Warmists lost the battle over "the science" long ago; that's why the best they can do now is resort to the kind of risible semantic ruse like this deliberate conflation of "global warming" with "man made global warming"' AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Andy, nowhere in that article does he deny AGW. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Note that this is a continuation of the discussion above.[32] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding whether we should use the term "skeptic" or "denier", we should follow what reliable sources say about the matter. If the consensus of reliable sources calls Delingpole a "denier", we should use that term. If the consensus of reliable sources calls Delingpole a "skeptic", we should use that term. If there is no consensus, we'll have to figure out how best to handle this. Usually, when reliable sources disagree, we don't take sides, we simply document the disagreement. Alternatively, we can default to "skeptic" since this term is less pejorative and this is a WP:BLP. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Which is why I had requested it be changed to "Views on climate change", that is neutral and BLP compliant. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Section titles should never be judgemental about living persons - they exist to indicate the topic of the section and not the conclusion any source makes. Collect (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Darkness Shines: I think your suggestion makes sense. Also, the word "denier" is a violation of WP:LABEL. But I have no problem with adding "Anthropogenic" per @Nomoskedasticity:'s suggestion on the article talk page. Combining both wordings, that gives us "Views on anthropogenic climate change". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

True, "denier" is a bit stuff and might fall foul of LABEL. But "views" is mushy. I suggest changing the section heading to "climate change denial" or something along those lines -- that certainly doesn't fall foul of LABEL. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh wait -- that's what it is. Why are people moaning about "denier"? Red herring… Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

He does not deny the climate changes. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

But he appears to deny that climate change is caused by human activity. That's why we need (and have) the word anthropogenic. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Citation for his denying humans have an effect on the climate please. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Because what he actually says is "Pretty much everyone – probably more than 97 per cent, even – agrees that there is a degree of anthropogenic input, even it's just the barely measurable contribution of beef cattle farts or the heat produced by cities."[33] So he does not deny that there is some "anthropogenic input" Darkness Shines (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The source you linked first "The case for AGW theory has been getting weaker by the minute, as Marc Morano notes in this characteristically feisty summary of the current state of play"
http://jamesdelingpole.com/wordpress/about/ "Dislikes : The global warming myth"
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100068044/you-saw-through-the-eu-boris-when-are-you-going-to-see-through-agw/ "how come you're so willing to swallow the big lie of "Anthropogenic Global Warming"?" "in AGW's case it's the now thoroughly discredited hypothesis that the relatively small amounts of CO2 released as a result of human activity are capable of radically altering the climate in a dangerous way."

He seems pretty blatant about being a AGW skeptic. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

(ec)Being sceptical is not denial. We have NPOV for a reason, and LABEL as AQFK pointed out. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Saying "Pretty much everyone agrees..." isn't saying he agrees. And he clearly doesn't, as, in the very next sentence he asserts there is no demonstration or evidence for the claim that there is "anthropogenic input". This is the opposite of what you say he's saying. In that sentence he is characterizing the mainstream position before offering arguments in an attempt to debunk it. He has said that "GW" occurs but not that "AGW" occurs. In his book, Watermelons, he stated that anyone who thinks AGW is a near-certainty are "liars, cheats, and frauds." You are providing your own citations that he doesn't believe there is evidence for anthropogenic causes. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

No, in the link he says "But the dangerous bit? No one has come even close to demonstrating it, there is no reliable evidence for it, and very few scientists – certainly far, far fewer than 97 per cent of them – would ever stake their reputations on such a tendentious claim." That is about the catastrophic part of AGW he is being sceptical of. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The "it" in that sentence is "anthropogenic input". He is saying that no one has demonstrated evidence of "anthropogenic input". His argument is that 97% believe in a degree of anthropogenic input, but he says no one has ever shown any evidence of it. He does not explicitly place himself in the 97% who believe in something he says there is no evidence for. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

No, he is arguing over the "dangerous bit" Nowhere in that paragraph does he say "anthropogenic" Anyone who writes "Pretty much everyone agrees" is obviously including themselves, he does not say "Pretty much everyone agrees, but I do not" Darkness Shines (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll leave it for other people to read and decide. Your interpretation is not convincing to me:

Pretty much everyone – probably more than 97 per cent, even – agrees that there is a degree of anthropogenic input, even it's just the barely measurable contribution of beef cattle farts or the heat produced by cities. But the dangerous bit? No one has come even close to demonstrating it, there is no reliable evidence for it, and very few scientists – certainly far, far fewer than 97 per cent of them – would ever stake their reputations on such a tendentious claim. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

DS, you keep saying "LABEL". There is no problem with LABEL, because we're not calling him a "denier". Your repeated attempts to spike the discussion in this regard are getting disruptive, in my view. It surely doesn't help your efforts to convince people that you're not likely to misuse BLP policy in connection with articles related to climate change. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity: I'm confused as to why say that there isn't a problem with WP:LABEL. It seems pretty clear that this runs afoul of WP:WTA. Can you please explain your thought process here? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

"Denial" is not a label. "Denier" is a label -- but the article does not contain the word denier. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity: So, you're saying that all anyone has to do to circumvent WP:LABEL is to simply change the tense (or whatever it's called) of the word and that makes it OK? I don't think that was the intent of WP:WTA. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

A label is a label. If someone wants to make an argument here invoking a policy, it's best to be precise. The article does not use a label for Delingpole. There would be a big problem if we lacked sources regarding his repudiation of scientific consensus on climate change -- but the sources have been provided here and I do not agree with the contention that we are doing him an injustice. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Except we do lack sources, and arguing that "denier" is a completely different word than "denial" is WikiLawyering, no offense. I don't think we can simply change the tense of a word to bypass core Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and I'm shocked that anyone would even suggest such a thing. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not trying to bypass anything. It's plain as day -- we are not labelling this guy. And if you think we don't have sources, you're not clicking on what has been provided to you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

You're arguing that simply changing the tense of the same word makes it acceptable. That's nonsense. And no, nobody has provided any evidence that this is the consensus of reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

"the big lie of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'" -- in his own words. That's a repudiation of scientific consensus, by someone with no scientific credentials. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

<sigh> What exactly are you arguing? Are you arguing that Delingpole‎ is a denier, but that it's OK, because technically speaking the word "deniar" is not the same exact word as "denial"? It's hard to tell. Or are you arguing that saying "the big lie of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'" -- in his own words" means the same thing as something else? If so, that's WP:OR. Honestly, I'm having trouble understanding your arguments. They seem to be all over the place without any sort of logical organization. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm arguing that WP:LABEL does not prevent us from using "denial", because it's not a label. Following your logic, we would have to refrain from using the words "deny", "denies", and "denied". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

OK. So, you are apparently arguing that simply changing the tense of a word allows us to bypass WP:LABEL since it's a label. Just know that most editors take WP:BLP seriously, and if you violate WP:BLP, you may be sanctioned. You have been notified and warned. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

It's inappropriate to imply that an editor is risking potential sanctions for stating an interpretation of policy on a noticeboard. A "warning" under those sanctions would come from an uninvolved administrator, and would be specific in nature. It's fine that you want to give a personal reminder between editors, but be careful that you don't sound like you're attempting to impersonate an administrator in any way. That could be interpreted as actions beyond the normal course of editing and would take you away from finding consensus here. If they applied here, discretionary sanctions would also suggest we pay closer attention to WP:EQ and avoid any unjustified failures to assume good faith about other editor's goals. I'm sure everyone here recognizes that BLP policy is serious. In the interests of keeping things civil, I would suggest you avoid sounding like you were giving formal or official warnings in the future. __ E L A Q U E A T E 03:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Per a query on my UT page, this discussion ensued:

MOS states A title should be recognizable (as a name or description of the topic), natural, sufficiently precise, concise, and consistent with the titles of related articles

Main page is WP:Article titles

Which states the ideal article title resembles titles for similar articles, precisely identifies the subject, and is short, natural, and recognizable.

Conflicts often arise over whether an article title complies with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy

Which states:

In some cases, the choice of name used for a topic can give an appearance of bias. While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity.

Descriptive titles should be worded neutrally, so as not to suggest a viewpoint for or against a topic, or to confine the content of the article to views on a particular side of an issue (for example, an article titled "Criticisms of X" might be better renamed "Societal views on X"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing.

So yes -- multiple Wikipedia policies impact on this - and clarity and neutrality are key issues per policy. Collect (talk) 23:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The result of which statements of policy would seem to indicate that a clear and neutral section title is required. I suggest Views on anthropogenic global warming as being clear, concise, and neutral here. Collect (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Totally irrelevant -- all that is about article titles. What you need is WP:MOSHEAD. C'mon, do it right. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

That which is true for article titles should also work for section titles -- would you want section titles not to be clear and neutral, for God's sake? Really??? Collect (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree that we are being unclear and non-neutral. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Specifically we have The provisions in Article titles (above) generally apply to section headings as well

Which I think clearly states that "the provisions in Article titles generally apply to section headings as well"

Or did I misread what the words actually state? Is this clear enough for you since I cite the exact words stating that the rules for article titles also apply to section headings????? Collect (talk) 00:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Did you even bother to look at the "above" on that page? Obviously not. So yes, you misread. Anyway, it hardly matters -- again, I don't agree that we are being unclear and non-neutral. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I quoted from that page. And from the page it gives as the main page on the topic. How dare you say that I did not bother to look at it! Wikipedia:Section_headings#Article_titles is "above" Wikipedia:Section_headings#Section_headings and links directly to Wikipedia:Article_titles] each of which I not only read and cited, but actually endeavor to follow as policy)

That is not only non-collegial, it is palpably false and inapt. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

He has self identified as as someone who denies the factualness: "the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth"-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Update: Kaj Taj Mahal has now been given a 6-month topic ban for violations of WP:BLP [34] and I've reverted most of their changes. I tried, as best I could, to explain the reason for each edit in the edit-summary and referenced the applicable policies and talkpage discussions. However, this entire experience has been extremely unpleasant for me and I think it's best for my own mental health for me to walk away from this. So, I'm removing this article from my watchlist. I don't find it remotely acceptable to turn a BLP into a WP:ATTACK page, but whatever, that's somebody else's problem now. I'm done. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

IPA issue

I don't think you sufficiently explained why this particular pronunciation is controversial or the reasons you think it should be challenged. Looking back, it seems the consensus was that IPAs needed sourcing if there was "a reasonable challenge" to them not that they all needed sourcing from the start. Maybe there's a consensus I'm not aware of, but it looks like you just said it was "controversial" in an edit summary without trying to talk it out on the talk page at all. If there is a "pronounciation rule" as stated, is it written down somewhere I could see? __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how we source IPAs (do we?), but the editor seems to be correct in this case, based on my (admittedly slight) knowledge of French. I found this video where the narrator uses the full name at the beginning and the last name repeatedly after that. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I now see that you sent some messages to the editor's talk page as well; I have to say that it doesn't seem to include much support that the pronunciation is "controversial". In the future, it might be better to talk it out a bit more? __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, that's not so much an "issue" as an edit-war - you appear to have three reverts within 24 hours. Why is there no discussion on the talkpage of the article? Anyway, for what it is worth, I believe that you are right to challenge the IPA and that it should be [etjɛn kapu] not [etjɛnne kapu]. If the double n were to be pronounced, the final e would I think at most be sounded as a schwa. But please note that I am not a native speaker of French; it should be easy enough to find someone who is. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 02:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

No, is very much is an issue, it is the repeated addition of unsourced information about a BLP - and it wasn't edit warring, please see WP:3RRNO. The information was challenged (by me) because I have no idea how the name is pronounced - and I'm saying this as someone whose own surname is mis-pronounced all the time. There is, of course, also a wider BLP issue with IPAs being added to articles with no source. Giant Snowman 11:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

It isn't an issue at all. Unlike english language, french is very regular as for pronounciation and I see no controversial matter. Usually pronunciations according to the IPA are added without source and nobody protests. To my eyes GSM is attempting to impose his own point of view without the support of any policy, without consensus and against the the routine procedure. --Ebdòmero (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

As you say, French is very regular. One possible source of controversy might thus be the pronunciation you gave for Étienne Capoue, [etjɛnne kapu], which would ordinarily be the pronunciation of "Étienné Capoue", which is not the gentleman's name (compare with henné [hɛnne]). I suggest that the correct pronunciation is [etjɛn kapu]; compare with penne [pɛn], benne [bɛn], senne [sɛn], etc. (pronunciations sourced from The Concise Oxford French Dictionary, 1968 printing; not the best source, but probably adequate for this). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Right, so we now have two different possible pronunciations? I thought this was not an issue/straightforward/regular etc. etc.?! Giant Snowman 12:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Rachel Elior

This article is unnecessarily negative. Biographical articles normally give the subjects positive achievements, but this one resembles a hatchet job. It lists one failure after another for a subject who is a leader in her field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HowGoldman (talk • contribs) 05:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Every quotation is from someone who disapproves, criticisms are included before the introduction or explanations of what is being criticized. This needs some work. __ E L A Q U E A T E 18:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

David Dreier

Should this article mention rumored allegations about him? --George Ho (talk) 11:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The article should not assert that he is gay -- that is a matter of self-identification. To the extent that there are good sources for the assertion that he has had a sexual relationship with another man, then yes, that can stay in the article. (Has he denied it?) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm seeing references to a Hustler article on Drier in late 2004/early 2005 -- but it doesn't look like this is on-line. Anyone have any leads on it? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Nope. This is a splendid example of possibly harming a person by using Wikipedia to promote rumours about sexuality of a living person. Rumours are not biographical fact. "Hustler" and the like are not reliable sources for such rumours. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

In general, no article should mention "rumored allegations" about a living person. "Rumored allegations" by their very nature fail all three of the core content policies for BLP: Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability (V), and No original research (NOR). No matter how tempting it sometimes is to "expose" presumed double standards. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Nino Firetto

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

Following on from this discussion ^[1], I still haven't had an answer to the questions I posed regarding this subject. I am currently under a subject ban for stating factual, relevant information that was sourced correctly and that didn't break Wikipedia's BLP policy. The points I raised are as follows: 'I don't understand why the block was in place in the first place as I had sourced the information, which was in the public domain, and it is of public interest (as it was published in a newspaper, like all other bankruptcy notices). Other notable people have this included on their biographical pages on Wikipedia (such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerry_Katona and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shane_Filan), why should the person mentioned above be an exception?' Could someone explain why this BLP is an exception to the rule? And to why I received a topic ban? Whoisthisalfonso (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the diffs but not being familiar with the dispute, I'd say you used two unreliable and one primary source. Sometimes an event in a subject's life is not notable enough to mention, perhaps evidenced by the fact that you probably can't find a lot of secondary sources about the bankruptcy. Including that material can be also considered undue weight. In any case, you are under a topic ban, so I'd refrain from pursuing this further. Wikipedia is not the best place to pursue the desire to document negative information about people. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Oscar Dowdell-Underwood

Oscar Dowdell-Underwood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Another bio that is on the hagiography fast track. Any attention is appreciated. 2601:188:0:ABE6:B41B:4FC1:242D:5468 (talk) 22:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive190#Nino_Firetto

[discussion-1] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive190#Nino_Firetto

[1]