Jump to content

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (talk | contribs) at 10:23, 23 May 2013 (→‎WP:MOSINTRO and contentious label on Narendra Modi: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
    Shortcuts

    This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input.

    Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.

    Search this noticeboard & archives
    Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Additional notes:

    Shin Amano

    Article Shin Amano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Someone who doesn't have a Wiki acct is repeatedly inserting a nonsensical, obviously unsourced personal opinion in the paragraph entitled "Shortage of brain rotation." I've tried to remove it, but the person keeps reverting the changes. Obviously, this violates the policy that "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced should removed immediately." Thank you. --JeanneBrice

    Since the above was posted on 11 May, two experienced editors have cleaned up the situation and there has been no further edits by the unregistered editor. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Jeff Green (politician)

    Jeff Green (politician) is the new leader of a party in the UK. Someone may wish to create an article before any fans do. Christian Party (UK) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --Canoe1967 (talk) 23:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there any indication that Green would meet our notability guidelines? The party may be (just about) notable, but I don't see any particular reason why the person leading it would merit an independent biography. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There seems to be plenty of sourcing, so I don't see why he wouldn't.  little green rosetta(talk)
    central scrutinizer          00:07, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    'Plenty of sourcing'? Would you care to link some sources here which could contribute to producing a biography? I can't see anything in the 21 results that Google provides that would be much use. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well the BBC has been covering him (and the Christian Party) since 2007 (2007 and 2010). Granted I had to search 'jeff green christian party' to find that. It can be argued that as his notability is solely for his involvement in the Christian Party its not inherited, but if it came to an AFD I suspect it would end up 'Keep'. Dont feel there is a 'need' for an article on him though. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Does not pass notability yet. Bare coverage and insufficient preponderance of reliable sources or material. Jaytwist (talk) 18:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio and the NYDN

    Is the New York Daily News a reliable source for this article? I am torn as I see it is a tabloid, but I am not very familiar with it and wonder if it is as worthless as a BLP source as the Daily Mail or The Sun which I earlier removed from the article. Thanks in advance for your help. --John (talk) 10:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not considered a straight tabloid, no. Not in the same sense as The Sun. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 01:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it a strong enough source to base contentious material on a BLP on? --John (talk) 05:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What's the material in question? A link to the article would help as well. thanks. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Odds and ends. I've linked from the title above. My instinct is to take it out as it's such a high-profile article but I don't know the US market so well. --John (talk) 16:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    New York Daily News is not a tabloid, but it is also not in the same league as the New York Times in that there is a more pronounced slant toward sensationalism and editorial bias and a lower overall standard of quality. With regard to BLPs, when in doubt, omit. If there is only one semi-reliable source, omit. Jaytwist (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Joh'Vonnie Jackson

    User:Zdawg1029 insists to add this information: [1], to Michael Jackson and Joe Jackson (manager) (incredibly s/he never included it to other Jackson's pages). According to him/her, Joe had an affair with a woman in the past and due to that Joh'Vonnie Jackson did born. Zdawg alleges this with poorly sources, like gossip cites Mirror and Hellobeautiful, or Fox News, which always uses "alleged", and s/he cites Katherine Jackson book My Family where she notes this (basically all references are basing their information after this book, but there is no real confirmation made by Joe himself). This information was removed before, but Zdawg persists to include it as people who removes it is "putting "their" own personal opinion into Wikipedia." I have explained him/her the information doesn't belong to Michael's biography and that it still being a BLP violation to Joh'Vonnie and Joe lifes, but s/he insists that I am wrong and the information is "PAINFULLY OBVIOUS"--when the only painfully is that Michael once said "Just because you read it in a magazine or see it on the TV screen don't make it factual". Can somebody inform me if I am wrong with this? Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I found this in The Telegraph regarding Joe's alleged child. I agree the three other previously posted sources were questionable at best but I think the Telegraph is considered a reliable source. I posted this on the article talk page as well. What do other editors think? (Khan, Urmee (September 14, 2009). "Michael Jackson's secret sister JohVonnie Jackson says she was 'rejected'". The Telegraph. Retrieved 12 May 2013.)Coaster92 (talk) 05:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    the telegraph is merely reporting what the mirror printed, and the mirror is merely an interview where Joh'Vonnie is asserting paternity. That is not sufficient sourcing for this type of claim.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 08:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not even asking it be included on Michael's page, but it absolutely 100% should be included on Joe's page. Denying that Joh'Vonnie is Joe's daughter is being completely and utterly blind to the truth. There are even pictures of Joe and Joh'Vonnie together. Anyone can look at her picture and come to the obvious conclusion that this is Joe's daughter. This has been stated by family members on numerous occasions. You saying that this is my opinion or that this might not be true is ludicrous. I am not sure how FOX News, a company used numerous times as a source on other pages and is one of the 4 major news networks in the US, but I'm not sure how that is a poor source. It is one thing to say it is poorly sourced, but you are trying to say that it just flat out isn't true, which is laughable. It seems every other person in this world has come to the obvious conclusion this is true. Maybe if one tabloid page said it then fine, but multiple magazines, and legitimate sources have spoken about this. Just google Joh'Vonnie Jackson, any reasonable person would see this is Joe's daughter. And to say the only way to prove this to be able to put it on Wikipedia is to have a DNA test is outrageous. I highly doubt every child listed on Wikipedia has been confirmed by DNA test. And why would Joe openly confess to the world that he was an adulterous man who produced a love-child with his mistress? Would you put that on your webpage if you were him? The truth isn't always pretty, I am sure if it was up to MJ, he wouldn't have any of the stuff about the allegations against him on his page, but it is what happened, just like it happened that Joe had this daughter, deal with it.Zdawg1029 (talk) 02:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Please read WP:BLP and WP:RS and be aware that the fact you can look at a photo and be sure two people are related is not usable in any Wikipedia article at all. Heck - even if she were his clone, it still requires a third party source making a strong claim for us to remotely consider using it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 07:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    People who do not identify as prostitutes in category Prostitutes

    We currently have several BLPs listed in subcategories of Category:Prostitutes. Most of these are people who once worked as prostitutes to make ends meet rather than people who identify as prostitutes or pursued prostitution as a long-term career (for example, Jade-Blue Eclipse or Patrícia Araújo). This seems like both a violation of the WP:BLP policy and a significant departure from how we normally categorize people. In my opinion, if the person does not identify as a prostitute, they should not be categorized as such. If a person worked for a year as a dishwasher when they were 18, we don't put them in the Dishwasher category. Kaldari (talk) 07:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree - unless the category has some rational importance to the BLP, it should be removed. All too often BLPs get categories as a form of "pointed edit exercise" by those who wish to disparage the living person, and it is well past time this stopped. Collect (talk) 08:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    A "former prostitutes" category might be the best way to deal with this. -- The Anome (talk) 12:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I note that a quick random sampling of these articles shows that at least some of these are not sourced: regardless of any other controversy about this, the category should be removed unless its explicitly mentioned, with a source, in the article.-- The Anome (talk) 12:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    ---> WP:CFD.--ukexpat (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Black Mamba (comics) is a fictional former prostitute that is in a category for fictional. Klute is a movie article and the the title character is a prostitute. Klute isn't in the fictional category. Should we reverse their inclusion?--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Without expressing a view one way or the other, I'll note that this is not exactly a BLP question... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kauffner/Restoring human dignity

    Resolved - Alison ❤ 17:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    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.

    Kauffner has recently used his userpage to highlight the recent media attention that wikipedia has received regarding Amanda Filipacchi. The page has been blanked three times by both Alf.laylah.wa.laylah and Delicious Carbuncle citing CSD G10 attack page (which Kauffner was tagged for), BLP, and BLP a second time. Twice they were restored by people other than Kauffner, (William M. Connolley, and Launchballer) [2] [3]. Kauffner has since moved the content into a sup page and linked the subpage to his userspace. Kauffner has already discussed the matter with Delicious Carbuncle on their talkpage, where Delicious Carbuncle reitterates that this is a biography of a living person issue and that Kauffner shouldn't use his userspace as a WP:SOAPBOX. Kauffner argued that a procedure for removing the content from wikipedia hasn't been followed, and that the page was intended to be both a discussion of current wikipedia events, and that it was intended to be funny. I believe that wikipedia, even userspaces, are not the place to write satirical articles regarding WP:BLP'S and I agree with Carbuncle that this page was a violation of those policies. I am bringing it to this board because of these concerns and am hoping that I can get some feedback as to the validity of my interpretations of WP:BLP and this issue.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I consulted User:Amatulic in this matter and I followed his advise as best I could.[4] "Personal essays on topics relating to Wikipedia are welcome in your user namespace," per WP:FORUM. Kauffner (talk) 18:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If Amatulic told you that page was acceptable in your userspace, they gave you bad advice. The page has been deleted, so this can probably be closed. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Kauffner is now linking to a past version, in spite of the fact that it was speedy deleted as an attack page. I'm going to bring this one to ANI because he is circumventing the decision to delete content under CSG G10.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The theory that biting satirical criticism of a living person who has dared to criticize Wikipedia is somehow acceptable in Wikipedia userspace is bizarre to me. There are plenty of venues off Wikipedia readily available to any misguided adolescent who wants to satirize this critic of Wikipedia. Think personal websites, blogs, Twitter, Facebook and other evanescent outlets. But Wikipedia, which is about building a neutral, well-referenced encyclopedia and nothing more, is most certainly not the place for such juvenile content. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Enough is enough. The BLP violation is evident. RevDel the content out of public sight and warn Kauffner that any further attempts to exhume the deleted content will result in suspension of editing privileges.
    From Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tobias_Conradi
    6.2 While users have wide discretion to use that space as they see fit, it is the Committee's understanding of present communal "best practice" and consensus, that lists of fault-finding diffs, users described as "problem users", negative postings, and other matters of a generally uncollegial kind, should be written only if needed, kept only for a limited period, and only for imminent use in dispute resolution or other reasonable and short term dispute handling. They should not be allowed - deliberately, through passage of time, good faith, wilful allusion, or neglect - to create some kind of perennial "hall of shame" or list of "disapproved, shunned or negatively viewed users".
    In that case, ArbCom also approved the use of administrative tools to suppress inappropriate content which was being made accessible via things to older revisions, as is the case here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The relevance of the Tobias Conradi case is not obvious to me. I wrote a page about the category system and how it has been portrayed in the media. If that's too sensitive to write about, what subject isn't? I mention Filipachi only insofar as she is relevant to the controversy about categories. Material I write and put in my user space is of course my opinion and not encyclopedic. So much for "Wikipedia is not censored". Kauffner (talk) 06:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, NOTCENSORED is misused—there was no censorship. What happened is that some common sense was applied. Wikipedia is not a free website where people can write "satire" to punish a living person for having made some statements somewhere. Johnuniq (talk) 06:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    She is used an example to illustrate how the category system works. I always rewrite it without mentioning her. It might even be funnier that way. Kauffner (talk) 06:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    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.

    Alok Ranjan Jha

    Article deleted, account blocked. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 16:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    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.

    Alok Ranjan Jha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (see also Wikipedia:Help desk#Alok Ranjan Jha)

    A posting on the help desk, claiming to be from the article subject (not that it makes any difference), brought this BLP to my attention. It concerns an Indian civil servant, where most of the article was taken up with a 'controversy' section which consisted entirely of 'allegations' concerning supposed misbehaviour. As a clear violation of WP:BLP policy, I have deleted the section, and since I can see no justification for an article under WP:Notability (people) guidelines, have PROD'd the article. Could I ask that others keep an eye on the article to see that the offending material is not restored. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: the article has now been deleted entirely as a 'Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban', which simplifies things somewhat. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It was created by User:Snigdhasinghsweet, a sock of a user indeffed for persistent copyright violations and most of this article was a copyvio. January (talk) 06:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    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.

    Caprice Bourret

    Caprice Bourret (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Another edit war. Seems to be a source that one editor claims is a misprint.--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    1,500+ bytes being edit warred over. Only one source for the bytes. One editor claims the source is wrong. The other keeps adding back as 'sourced material'. Much of the material is either contentious or trivial. Can we just trim it down until we have a 2nd source to help verify? It is a matter of truth vs sources possibly.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This kind of edit warring has been ongoing on a medium-slow burn for a long time. I recall editing out a fair bit of "puffery" and the like maybe a year ago on a few occasions. Users editing the article with usernames like User:Carolinebycaprice, User:Tarasmithers, User:Janesands, User:Polly4522 etc, seeming SPAs with few edits targetted at this article pop up on an irregular basis to edit the article seemingly to the subject's benefit. Seems like a good candidate for a PC protection to me, BLP with low level disruption over a long period. Just my 2 cents. Begoon talk 11:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Alan Paul (author)

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

    Folks, concern has been expressed at OTRS that this article is not quite as encyclopedic as it should be. If anyone has time, would they please take a look at see if it needs toning down etc? Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Depuffed a tad -- amazing what folks think should be in a Wikipedia article. Collect (talk) 21:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for pitching in everyone, it looks a lot better now.--ukexpat (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Robert Clark Young

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

    No doubt most of you are aware of the Qworty/Fillapchi dustup. Regardless the talk page of this BLP has an editor expressing some animosity towards the subject so I'd be much obliged if you added this to your watchlists.  little green rosetta(talk)
    central scrutinizer          07:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Good call. Also, there's an editor there who doesn't seem to be concerned about Robert Clark Young's years-long vandalism of BLP - and is in fact doing everything she can to cover for him. She should probably be watched as well. NaymanNoland (talk) 10:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Added to my watchlist.→StaniStani  20:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Suburban Express

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

    This article has been hijacked by a small number of vocal haters, and the owner's name has been added to the article in two places. I propose that neither the article nor the mention of the owner's name in the article are consistent with Wiki standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.147.29.153 (talk) 17:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    There is nothing in Wikipedia policy that prevents an article about a company giving the name of the owner/founder, and I can see nothing in the article as it stands that has any bearing on this noticeboard. Any general concerns regarding the article should be addressed elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Anthony Torrone

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

    I am curious why this article is featured in the recorded savant figures list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.75.169 (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you be a little clearer what you mean? Both of the sources provided in the article describe him as a "savant". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Lucas Silveira

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

    His current biography contains a line that reads "Silveira was born Lilia Silveira[1] in Canada to a musical Portuguese-Canadian family." Most trans people will tell you that mentioning his birth name is highly insulting, in addition to not being relevant to the article. I thus edited it to read "Silveira was born in Canada to a musical Portuguese-Canadian family", however, it my edit seems to have been reverted to the original.Punkyboy (talk) 00:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    IMO it's relevant and appropriate to include his birth name, especially because the article discusses his transition from a man to a woman.Coaster92 (talk) 01:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Eddie Jordan (basketball)

    Can I get some eyes on the Eddie Jordan (basketball) article? A user with a dynamic IP is consistently adding a sentence to the lead about how he doesn't have a college degree. See here for a sample diff. While it is true that Jordan does not have a degree, I don't feel this is significant enough to be in the lead of the article. He does not need a degree for his current coaching position at Rutgers, and he never specifically said he had a degree in the first place. (See [5], [6])

    The fact that Jordan came short of a degree is mentioned within the body of the article. However, it's hardly a defining aspect of his career; he's not going to lose his job over this. Zagalejo^^^ 00:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    IMO the way the lead is now written, mentioning that he does not have a college degree gives undue weight to the point. However, were the lead expanded to discuss how he got started, ie at Rutgers, including the point could be appropriate. From what I see in this article, the lead could use more info.Coaster92 (talk) 01:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The lead could certainly be expanded, but even then, I'm not sure we need to mention that specific detail. It's not uncommon for pro athletes to leave college without finishing their degrees. (Many don't even come close.) They're not notable because of their schoolwork, but because of their sports accomplishments. If Rutgers ends up firing him, and/or we find clear evidence that he misrepresented himself, then things will take up more significance. But right now, his lack of a degree doesn't seem to be making any real difference. Zagalejo^^^ 17:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    True, it does not make a difference. But in the context of a summary of the article, ie, the lead and his getting started at Rutgers being in the lead, his years there could be mentioned and mentioning that he left before graduation would not be undue in that case imo. I agree that right now, that point is not appropriate in the lead.Coaster92 (talk) 22:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Gavin McInnes

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gavin_McInnes&diff=555747970&oldid=550835179 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.239.132 (talk) 15:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for pointing that out. I've reverted the changes to the last reliable revision. De728631 (talk) 15:07, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael Arrington

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

    I am concerned that the section about the recent controversy does not follow Wikipedia policies in several important regards. Per WP:BLP "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism." Additionally, our article doesn't cover what is arguably the most important fact about this situation so far (the only court proceeding of any kind), which is his libel suit against his accuser, as reported in the New York Times. I would argue that the section should be titled according to the story as presented in non-tabloid press, i.e. instead of "Allegations of domestic violence and rape" it should be entitled "Libel suit against X" or similar.

    I have also posted at the talk page of the article.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Allegations make for poor BLPs. Where a crime is asserted, then WP:BLP weighs in heavily. Collect (talk) 21:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The coverage by the NYT might give some weight to the argument that this merits inclusion in the bio - if that's the case we'll have to find a way to word it as neutrally as possible, and as Jimbo says, giving priority to the non-tabloid(ish) sources. Past that, there will need to be ample coverage of a criminal (not civil) case before any more can be added. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Ray William Johnson

    Ray William Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    There's a WP:SPA who keeps puffing up this article with a mixture of unsourced and undue material. Some more input to the article would be helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyone is still welcome to improve the article, but the SPA has been CU-blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Dan Donnelly (singer-songwriter)

    Some minor vandalism reported by subject via OTRS; a few more eyes would be helpful. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Robert L. Jones

    This entry needs disambiguation. There are two American poets named Robert L. Jones. 216.80.135.19 (talk) 20:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Robert L. Jones (1) may not be a Living Person; I am Robert L. Jones (2).
    RLJ (1) is the author of Wild Onions and Dust and is the recipient of the cited Award. He also published in Ploughshares (which has a dead link).
    RLJ (2) is the author of Blue.
    The biographical info applies to RLJ (2).

    Trevor Graham

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

    According to the biographies of living persons policy, the information presented on the page (Trevor Graham) includes false information and is harmful to the living person. The Information on the page invades the living persons privacy and disregards the privacy of names rule included in the policy mentioned above. The page also ignores several consideration rules such as, persons accused of crime, subjects notable only for one event, public figures, privacy of personal information, and using/misuse of primary resources. The page Trevor Graham is an attack page that is used to victimize the victim with the information presented. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grichard101 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The article seems to be sourced fairly well, and unfortunately the negative aspects are what the subject has become known for, but it's not a case of WP:BLP1E at all. The negative information in question comes from secondary sources, so removing it will not make it go away. WP:AFD is your best bet now, but given the notability I doubt anyone would agree that it should be deleted. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Gulshan grover

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

    Hi there, I am writing from the office of Mr. Gulshan Grover. And we find that we are unable to edit or update the image that he has on his Wikipedia page. I have uploaded an image from his google plus page ... Which gets knocked down and links back to a group image of Mr. Grover. I wish to resolve this issue ... And need some help on how best to go ant it. gulshan grover Thanks and regards

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulshan_Grover — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prakash888 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Your first step is to upload the new image to the Wikipedia image depository - here. Do not use the same name as the existing image. Also, please make sure that you follow the licensing requirements - you must agree that image is either public domain or is licensed under a Creative Commons license. After you have done the upload successfully, you can then edit the article so that the image link is to the new image file, rather than to the old image file. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Caleb Lawrence McGillvary

    Barely-notable individual from a minor viral video, now accused of a crime, and random alleged details have been added that are alleged to have been seen on his Facebook page. I believe that this is a textbook application of WP:BLPCRIME and that we should avoid the urge to breathlessly report speculative information about an unknown person. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • The issue with removing this information is that this isn't just sourced by Facebook. This is a piece of information that most of the news stations covering McGillvary has posted screenshots of and have commented upon. Of the articles on the article that comment about the murder allegations, most mention the facebook post. ([7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]) These are just the ones on the article that were not removed by NorthBySouthBaranof. Here is the section that was removed :
    On May 14 a person alleging to be McGillvary posted a message onto Facebook stating that he had been raped and asking his Facebook followers what they would do. One follower, Terry Ratliff, mentioned that he would "beat the man with a hatchet", to which the person alleging to be McGillvary responded that he liked the idea.[20] Ratliff later stated that he believed that McGillvary's response had related to plans to remix one of McGillvary's songs and did not refer to Ratliff's earlier statement in the Facebook post. It was not specifically stated whether Galfy had been the individual that McGillvary had been assaulted by or when the attack occurred.
    I did change it to say "allegedly", but by all accounts this is known to be his facebook account. Multiple newspapers have taken screenshots of the facebook post and of the comment by Ratliff. Here are the sources I used for the section: ([13], [14], [15]) It's not like it's something that nobody is mentioning. It's one of the most commented upon aspects of the allegations so far. Adding something that multiple, multiple newspapers are commenting upon is not really speculation. It's adding important information to the article. If I were to plain out say that the attack did happen, that it was Galfy, or to say that it was anything other than an alleged attack by an unnamed person at an unspecified time, then that would be speculation. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that there is a clear and present implication in all of the coverage - that the Facebook page is tantamount to an admission of guilt. At this point, that implication is entirely speculative and per WP:BLPCRIME, we are to avoid even the implication that the article subject is guilty of any crime. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think that this is a huge leap but maybe we should wait for the court case to come out. We don't have a deadline so this can be added later as time goes on. I think this is a compromise because we are basing this on solid sources but we also give a courtesy before reporting it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • I never implied that the facebook post was an admission of guilt, just that he had posted it the day after Galfy was supposed to have been killed. It's something that happened within the timeline of the death of Galfy and McGillvary's capture. That he posted something mentioning that he had been raped (supposedly) by an unknown person is somethign that is one of the biggest things mentioned in the news stories and in some, just as much if not more so than the murder itself. I think that by not including something that is one of the biggest pieces of information that news sources are commenting on, we're doing a fairly big disservice to the article. We don't have to post everything he did, but it should be added that the day after the autopsy supposedly said that he died, McGillvary posted that he'd been raped. I just don't see where mentioning this is only speculation and not a reporting of the timeline on the article. Just because some of the papers are jumping the gun doesn't mean that it should be omitted entirely. We're not responsible for fixing what other papers have done, but we shouldn't ignore elements that have been highly reported just because someone might misconstrue it somewhere. In other words, we shouldn't remove it just because we think it might hurt someone if we neutrally commented upon it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I put this on the other page, but I have to say it: I'm slightly concerned about NorthBySouthBaranof making so many edits to the page when he was campaigning so hard to get the page deleted and to downplay the media coverage of him that's going currently. I'll ask some others to weigh in on this, but every time I add something NBSB is quick to say that it's all "titillating details" when it's something that is being mentioned in over 90% of the news reports out there in some context in relation to the murder allegations. I don't think he's deliberately sabotaging the article, but I am slightly worried that he might be seeing things through a veil of "I don't think he's notable so nothing about him is notable or should be added regardless of how often it's mentioned". I think it might be better for someone who wasn't campaigning so hard to delete and eradicate the article to help with the major editing rather than having NBSB be the sole dictator of what belongs and what doesn't. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Jaz Banga

    The article on Jaz Banga reads like a PR piece, and the citations referenced are general and don't actually mention him by name in most if not all cases JZimmerman (WMF) (talk) 06:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    bit more info, looks like the user who did most of the writing as well as created the page is in fact the PR person employed by Jaz Banga's company <removed>

    The two primary editors are also likely sockpuppets http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/TrinaMark&dir=prev&target=TrinaMark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/KatMark

    JZimmerman (WMF) (talk) 07:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Probably a silly question, but where is the BLP issue? Its quite puffy - I hate using 'SOFIXIT' (its not the most helpful reply) but the note at the top does say the BLP noticeboard is not really for issues that can be fixed by regular editing. And while it is heavily frowned upon for subjects of biographies (or their representatives) to edit their own page, its not (by policy) forbidden. The sourcing is, well weak - lots of trade and industry jounals. But that is about what I would expect given his career. His company is probably more notable than him personally.
    As for the sockpuppet accusation - where is the abusive sockpuppetry? Merely having multiple accounts is also not prohibited by policy. Although its also heavily frowned upon to use multiple accounts to edit the same page, its still not strictly forbidden. See Sock puppetry. Sockpuppet accusations need to go to SPI however you will need some actual evidence of 'improper' use of multiple accounts. Or you could ask the editors. Its entirely possible they dont know about the sockpuppetry policy or that multiple user accounts should be linked on the user page. It would be quite silly to edit the same page with nefarious intent with two usernames with such similarities. What I *do* see is the article creator requesting feedback.
    Lastly - commenting/posting/linking to an editors real identity is not allowed per WP:Outing. Some discussion is allowed at Conflict of Interest Noticeboard but most info will end up redacted. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Right - as it says above, this noticeboard is generally for "cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period". Puffery is unfortunate, but it's not a priority for removal the way WP:BLP violations are. (The article gets all of a half-dozen pageviews per day, another reason to argue that fixing it isn't a priority.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Digvijaya Singh (politician)

    There are controversial contents under "Debates, disputes, and controversies "

    1. Views on RSS

    2. Stand on Anna Hazare and Arvind Kejriwal

    3. Stand on Narendra Modi

    4. Thackeray family controversy

    Views expressed by person are his political opinion and defamatory to the targeted person/ organization. the contents and references mentioned in the section are just political allegation, not based on facts and meant to tarnish others image. this falls under WP:SELFPUB, WP:CONTROVERSY and WP:DISPUTED. on other hand this does not put the person in right light and put a tagging as disputed personality.

    I'm not editing the content to stay away from allegation implied by some of the editors, involved in "edit warring". even after several warnings they are involved in counter attack.

    Udbhav2504 (talk) 08:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The above has also been posted at the talk page for the article, and discussion is underway there. WP:CONTROVERSY is an essay, basically saying "be careful what is put into a Wikipedia article". WP:DISPUTED is a step-by-step process to deal with disputed content. WP:SELFPUB says that certain sources are of very limited (or no) use as references/citations because they are self-published (best to not use at all). None of these require WP:BLP intervention, in my opinion.
    I also note that the article seems very properly sourced (with the exception of posting excerpts from the article subject's blog, then citing the blog as a source; since the editor is selecting what he/she thinks is important and what is not, this seems "original research" to me). I also note that WP:SELFPUB absolutely does not apply to statements made by the subject to, and reported by, a newspaper or other news source, provided that it's clear in the Wikipedia article that the statements are not of fact but of opinion. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Savo Štrbac

    Was tagged as a negatively sourced BLP, but did not seem to fit the usual hallmarks of an attack page. Tagged for PRODBLP. Would appreciate an experienced BLP editor to give it the once over, and retag for speedy if necessary. Stephen! Coming... 12:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I've nominated the page for speedy deletion under the G10 criterion (attack page). While it is not a typical attack page, I feel that it definitely is "an article about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced, where there is no neutral version in the history to revert to", as specified in the {{Db-g10}} template, and consequently that it meets the speedy deletion criterion. GregorB (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed two of the most problematic unsourced statements from the article. What remains is the article's somewhat non-NPOV general tone, but that is OK in the sense that I don't feel there is a BLP problem now. GregorB (talk) 13:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, doesn't see to be a BLP issue now, though unfortunately the article is stubby. (Also, no longer proposed for any type of deletion, with which I also agree.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Ted Nugent

    Ted Nugent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Someone keeps adding contentious material from scopes. Scopes does claim sources but I don't know if we can find those anywhere. I have given up edit warring over it so someone else may wish to. I may email Mr. Nugent and if he doesn't care about it then neither will I.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    A good page to have semi-protected at least (and I see it has been for increasing periods), so at least that is done so everyone's edits can be attributed to established accounts and discussed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Now semi-protected until May 2014. Regarding Snopes.com (and the underlying issue - Nugent's military deferments during the Vietnam War), I've provided an alternative source (and wording in the article based on that source), as well as posting a note about my article update on the relevant talk page. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Orji_Uzor_Kalu

    Complete write up is very subjective - like a political campaign : Orji Uzor Kalu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angrybirdnut (talk • contribs) 23:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: An experienced editor (not me) has trimmed out about 3/4 of the article. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Sylvia Striplin

    According to SisterDeb (talk · contribs), who identifies as Sylvia's sister[16], Sylvia died on February 4, in New York. According to BLP "People are presumed to be living unless there is reason to believe otherwise.", but there are not online references about this, I've searched and I found nothing. Does this qualify as a BLP violation? and in case Deb is her sister and this is factually correct (and as there aren't online references) is it possible this can be verified through OTRS? Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Don't care if it's the Lord Himself come down from above to edit an article, if there is no source to verify that the subject passed away then we must continue to assume she is alive. I certainly did not find a source for it. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In the absence of a source, could I suggest an unconventional compromise? Change "is" to "was" in the lede. This makes the wording ambiguous (does it mean she's no longer alive, or just that she no longer performs?) but it's compatible with both positions, which would otherwise be very difficult to reconcile. If there's anywhere that we need a hard line on WP:V, it's this noticeboard, but we need a pragmatic and compassionate side too. bobrayner (talk) 00:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, 'was' or 'is' in a lede is implicitly tied to whether or not the person is living, not to their status in their field or careers. I categorized it under Category:Possibly living people as a compromise, but I still have been unable to find a news story or obituary about this which is weird to say the least. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 16:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I ran into the same problem with a subject over a year ago. Someone emailed me that he had died. I phoned his local paper to confirm and they hadn't heard the news. It was over a month before I found a source from the same paper. We aren't in a hurry so sources should show up. It was a shame that the Edmonton Journal did a huge piece on his life weeks(?) after he died which really helped to expand the article. It would be nice to provide decent sized articles while they are still alive so that when they die then readers can see them. I think this happens with many that are notable but not 'mainstream' notable.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Rob Ford -Inclusion of non-available video indications that the mayor smoked crack cocaine. The "news" about this only came out 5 days ago.

    Editors are including references to a 90 second section of a video which allegedly shows the Mayor of Toronto, Rob Ford, smoking crack. The mayor has denied that the event happened and the event is clearly contentious. The existence of the video was first reported by Gawker. The video is not available to be verified and may never be avaiolable. This seems to me to be at this point well below standards for inclusion in a BLP as I interpret the BLP policy. The "news" just came out about this video 5 days ago so our policy about not being in a rush to include salacious news items, but the main thing is, the video itself is not available righht now to any reliable source and never has been. I have removed the sections of the BLP related to this juicy news item but other Editors keep reinserting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by May122013 (talk • contribs)

    The video is a primary source, and if editors here wanted to use it as a source then many people would object on grounds of WP:BLPPRIMARY. What matters are the quality of the secondary sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 03:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Last I looked, the material is being left in the article while it is being discussed. This is very wrong. Remove the material and then discuss inclusion on the talk page.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Lock the article at the same time.  little green rosetta(talk)
    central scrutinizer          04:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No need to lock it. I will keep removing it and claiming 3RR exemption until consenus is reached. They shouldn't be able to make the same claim for inclusion.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You haven't commented as to why this is 'very wrong'. And why are you not discussing it on the talk page? This process seems to be aimed at suppressing the inclusion of the information on this event without a -good explanation- as to why. Please quote policy. Simply suppressing a section without any basis in policy - in other words - without a citation/shortcut to policy - seems very un-Wikipedia like.Alaney2k (talk) 17:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The video itself, which, at this point, remains at large, is a primary source. Three reporters, from two different publications, have reported on the video -- their reports are secondary sources. One of the surprising things about the third party reporting on the video is that the story has been picked up around the world.
    The third party reporting is quite varied, and ties Ford's gaffes to other issues. The third party reporting is remarkable because, as many of the commentators point out, very few events in Canada make world-wide news. My favourite is this article from Slate magazine, the corrupt and incompetent mayor of The Simpsons Springfield.
    As I write this all coverage of the reporting on the cocaine video has been removed from the article.
    I added a paragraph to the Quimby article, summarizing the Slate article's comparison of the gaffes of the fictional Quimby and the real-life Ford.
    With regard to BLP and the references for the world-wide coverage of the controversy -- is someone really asserting the references are examples references likely to be challenged?
    The BLP section on avoiding gossip says "...whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." I suggest that when obituaries of Ford are published this controversy will have a very prominent place -- possibly in the lead paragraph.
    Do WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, require all articles to present their subjects in a positive light? Fair and accurate reporting on some individuals can appear to be negative and unfair, at first glance, when one hasn't looked into the references in sufficient detail to recognize the individual's genuine record. Some commentators have suggested the article doen's cover Ford's successes in sufficient detail. During his term as mayor Ford has failed to acheive most of the planks on his platform.
    The BLP section on privacy and public figures says: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative..."
    The BLP section on protecting the privacy of those accused of crimes -- it seems to me the suggestion allegations of crimes not be reported only applies to individuals who aren't public figures. Geo Swan (talk) 07:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Using the video itself as a source to a statement that 'ford smokes crack' would be using a primary source. Including info from secondary sources (Gawker etc) that there is a video of him (alledgedly) smoking crack would be fine if it passes Undue and the secondary sources are reliable. As it is, its now been reported in multiple places by organisations that would easily pass at RSN. Only in death does duty end (talk) 06:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this discussion was already taking place on the Talk page. This is the second time an editor has taken it upon themselves to remove the item based on their own opinion. But if you look at the discussion, I believe consensus there was for the content to stay. We should take that into account here. What -was- in the article was the reporting of a serious of events. Whether the video exists or not, we have the unprecedented step of crowd funding for a news item. Two news organizations reported being shopped the video. This is not some trivial "he said, she said" dispute. This is a notable event of a sitting mayor having to deal with serious allegations. The history of the mayor has led many to believe that it is possible/likely that the mayor has in fact, smoked crack. But we are not the justice system. We include the previous history and the current to allow the reader to judge. Is it possible in this case? Yes. A reasonable reader can discern from all of the content on that page. I've worked to carefully write the item in question to stay with the facts only. It's a non-trivial allegation and it is notable. Leaving it out is a dis-service to readers. We do have articles on current events. I worked on one extensively, the Yaroslavl plane crash. You stay with the reports and leave out conjecture. You can include reports that are not verified if you make it clear it is only a report. Everything becomes 100% clear finally, but until then, we should be inclusive, but careful. I think we should stay with that course. And I believe we were doing so. Alaney2k (talk) 15:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Yaroslav plane crash is not a BLP ; this is 1 of the problems with the inclusion of the crack cocaine news at this time, imo; some of the dedicated editors at Rob Ford are not treating the article as a BLP but rather as if it is a regular, non BLP, article. At least that's the way it appears to me. May122013 (talk) 12:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The allegation has become gigantic and in itself not a BLP issue as it has not only been covered and reported by reliable sources, but it has become a gigantic international story that has garnered more attention than anything in Ford's life. Reporting the allegation that has been already been heavily reported is in no matter libel. Nobody is going to be suing Wikipedia for reporting this controversy in this biography. When John Stewart devotes 10 minutes to the Ford crack controversy, the libel issue is totally non-existent. --Oakshade (talk) 19:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Not commenting on the instant case, but a libel is still a libel no matter how many sources repeat it.--ukexpat (talk) 19:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • a video made by junkies who are trying to sell it for huge sums of money which has been seen by 4 people who say in their opinion the man on the video looks like RF and looks like he is doing something illegal. if that doesnt raise enough red flags to say that per WP:BLP we should err on the conservative side and not say anything at this point, then you probably should not be editing articles about living people. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I find this a very disturbing characterization of the issues here.
    No one is arguing that a video made by drug dealers is notable. As everyone here agrees the original video is a primary source. This is a straw argument.
    If gawker and the star had reported on the story, and no other reliable sources had picked up on it, it would be harder to argue that coverage of the gawker/TorStar merited space in the article. If a wire service, like AP, had written a story on it, and it was widely republished -- as-is, even if it were republished in dozens or hundreds of newspapers, it might be harder to argue it merited space.
    But, what we have is many of the very most reliable sources, like the BBC, the NYTimes, having their own staff write brand new articles, with their own, brand new interpretations -- based on the gawker and TorStar reporting. In my opinion that makes discluding reporting on what all these very highly reliable sources have to say frankly indefensible.
    I added a couple of sentences to the paragraph on Ford's "orientals ... work like dogs" comment. Twelve minutes later another contributor excised with those sentences the edit summary "Undid revision 556319228 by Geo Swan (talk) per BLPN and talk" -- but they made no attempt I can see to explain this excision.
    I made an effort to explain why I thought BLP did not imply we shouldn't have neutral coverage of what Gawker and TorStar reported about the video here and here. Reverter not only hasn't explained their position, I am extremely disappointed they did not make the effort to offer counter-arguments to my arguments.
    If you think some portion of BLP prohibits neutral reference coverage of the extensive commentary on the Gawker/TorStar reporting, then please explain that here. Please refer to the particular sections you think apply. Please explain why you think they apply. And I repeat I would appreciate you offering counter-arguments to my points -- if you have any. Geo Swan (talk) 21:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No matter that it is in a million papers, the content of what is in the million papers is tissue thin: Repetition of stories that a video shot by junkies and being shopped around to the highest bidder has been looked at by two very very small groups of individuals who say "we think the person in the video looks like X" and "we think what we saw in the video looks like an illegal act." Until there is something more solid than that, we should not be including allegations or jokes about those allegations in an article about a living person. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The number of "witnesses" is totally irrelevant in reporting a controversy. If someone commits a crime and there was only one witness, that criminal can be convicted in a court of law provided that witness is credible. Having a neutral reporting of a controversy, even if later the controversy was based on fraud, it is still acceptable to include that information per BLP. In this case, the allegations controversy in itself has been heavily reported and there's nothing in BLP that prohibits the reporting that controversy which has now arguably become the most reported part of this person's life.--Oakshade (talk) 23:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Red Pen, you assert "the content of what is in the million papers is tissue thin". If, by this assertion, you mean that they can't "definitively confirm" whether the Toronto Star reporters identification that the video depicted Ford was correct, you are correct. If you mean those articles have nothing new to add I have to ask, did you bother to read those articles? Right above, I cited the Slate magazine article that started talking about the Gawker/TorStar reports of the video to compare Ford to Diamond Joe Quimby. You haven't said why you don't acknowledge that this article adds something new and notable to our coverage of Ford. Geo Swan (talk) 12:35 pm, Today (UTC+12)

    Correction on the Curtis Axel article

    This is not about a violation; I just wanted to correct a mistake and could not find where to do so. Curtis Axel's article has him born in 1975 and "died on May 30, 2013". This is incorrect on a couple of levels. First, he is not dead; he is very much alive as I am typing this while watching him on WWE's Monday Night Raw, on which he performed on Monday, May 20, 2013. Second, since the date of this typing is Monday, May 20, 2013, of course, May 30, 2013 has not occured yet.

    For what it's worth, the article where I saw this mistake is in reference to a man who is known as Curtis Axel in the ring, as his real name is Joseph Curtis Hennig, son of the late "Mr. Perfect" Curt Hennig and grandson of Larry "The Axe" Hennig.

    I just thought I would bring this information to your attention. Take care and God bless.

    Sincerely, Keith A. Long — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.129.189 (talk) 06:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    troublesome mass addition of cats

    I dont have time, can someone take a look at the mass additions of Category:Indian fraudsters by User:Murrallli. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Fan POV - This is no mass addition, think before you write, I have added only one category (think before u abuse fellow editors, I will take this to admin attention, stop vandalising the page) and you are disrespecting the three revert rule, may be u have a personal problem, is he your relative??? Murrallli (talk) 13:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I am assuming that the article in question is A. Raja. If so, I would like to make it clear that adding the category 'Indian fraudsters' to a biography of a person who has not been convicted for such an offence is as gross violation of WP:BLP policy, and if it happens again I will have no hesitation in reporting the matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    We have a category "Indian fraudsters"? That sounds like a great idea. That's never going to get abused, is it? I hope we're not moving the women into "Female Indian fraudsters" - they might get upset. Begoon talk 14:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears that TheRedPenOfDoom may be right, and Murrallli has been inappropriately adding this category to other articles - see [17]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe the category needs renaming - Category:Indian people convicted of fraud or similar? That would give no excuse for future BLP confusion. GiantSnowman 14:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It appears the editor confuses "allegations" (which, IMHO, may be removable from some of these) and "convictions" which means those without a conviction were improperly added to the category under WP:BLP. Collect (talk) 14:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Given that Murrallli has posted what might be seen as a (somewhat farcical) legal threat on my talk page, I have raised the matter at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Murrallli and WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed one articles from the category, as a BLP violation. The remaining five articles involve (at least per the text of the articles) individuals who were either convicted of or admitted to fraud. (I'm not defending the existence of the category, simply noting what seems to fit it.) See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of politicians in India charged with corruption; this list article was deleted on August 31, 2012. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Don Gerard

    A bad faith nomination for AfD was created on extremely notable and talented mayor who is actively being courted for Congress and higher office. He has spoken around the nation and is touted as a model of mayors around the world. The AfD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Gerard. This is being used by opponents of the mayor, many of whom either have unfounded legal disputes or are actively being investigated by the city for criminal conduct. Request level headed editors to weigh in on AfD so it can be closed with the clear consensus of keep. The mayor has done tons of good for the community and just like the haters attacked the prophets for doing good, these modern day Pharisees are using Wikipedia for a high-tech crucifixion of the mayor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.251.0.245 (talk) 15:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see WP:CANVASS. And FWIW the "delete" and "keep" !votes appear to be even at the moment.--ukexpat (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely not a WP:BLP issue. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Alex Prud'homme bio

    Dear Administrators - I write you in a state of frustration: someone keeps posting untrue, harmful material about me on my Wikipedia bio [[18]], and I'd like to put a stop to it.

    Two years ago I was unjustly accused of plagiarism. My accuser spread rumors about me on the Internet, Amazon book page, etc. This attack was apparently motivated by personal antipathy and jealousy (as my accuser admitted in print). The attack was posted by a small online journal, as no established publication would publish it; there was a short-lived feedback loop, largely due to my affiliation with a celebrity, Julia Child (who had nothing to do with the accusations). AtlanticWired wrote a story about the non-controversy, absolving me. End of story, or so I thought.

    A year ago someone posted a note about this "scandal" on my Wikipedia page. I didn't know it had been posted, and as a result I was embarrassed and lost freelance work; I deleted it. Now someone has reposted it, and I have again deleted it. This is a recurring problem with real consequences. My family, readers and employers read Wikipedia. It is irresponsible to recycle such untrue and irrelevant nonsense. I did not choose to have a Wikipedia page, but since it exists please ensure that it is not used to attack my integrity.

    This posting violates Wikipedia's policies:

    From the Biographies of Living Persons page: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. ... 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.

    From Avoid gossip and feedback loops: Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources. Also beware of feedback loops, in which material in a Wikipedia article gets picked up by a source, which is later cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original edit.

    Thank you for your attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asp624 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The addition included your rebuttal to the claims, and the coverage is sufficient enough, by reliable sources. This isn't a BLP problem - it's not gossip, and it's not poorly sourced. Granted, we can find better ways to word that, but I don't see that its addition was violating any part of BLP other than maybe WP:UNDUE. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Note For reference, this article covers the issue fairly well from both sides. It even includes sources at the bottom. I will let other editors weigh in. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I added the following note to the user talk page:
    I've revised the article to give less prominence to the material you object to. But I - and other editors - don't see any reason to remove it entirely. WP:BLP requires that contentious material be properly sourced, which is the case here, and that any material not be given undue weight. Wikipedia does not, however, remove material simply because it causes problems to an individual, nor because of the motivation of the person(s) adding the material to Wikipedia articles.
    -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BLPCRIME should apply in this case since the individual concerned is relatively unknown. Moreover, the source "Los Angeles Review of Books" page linked to, is a commentary by the person making the accusations and cannot be considered a reliable, secondary source. The other source is the "Spatwatch" section of the Atlantic Wire that is merely repeating and quoting the accusations made, and the rebuttals that the subject of the article has purportedly made. The "Spatwatch" section is a questionable source at best, which is simply reiterating what the accuser said in a public forum without any due diligence or fact-checking. I have removed the paragraph in question and would recommend that this be discussed thoroughly on BLPN prior to re-introduction, if there is consensus for it. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 12:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Josh Urbiztondo

    Poorly sourced puff piece that has long been owned by COI accounts, presumably the subject's father. More eyes welcome. 99.149.85.229 (talk) 19:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The article has been sharply reduced in size (by another editor), and I've added a bit of information to it (properly sourced). The COI editor (yes, appears to be the subject's father) has been blocked temporarily (again, by another editor), and I've put a note on his (I assume) user talk page regarding the rules that only acceptable sources can be the basis for text in the article. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Nicely done. I'd asked for the assistance of the admin who'd issued a COI warning to the father's account a few years ago. It looks like he's also editing as an IP [19], though my take is that it's not intentional socking. Nonetheless, given the article's edit history it's probably best that a few editors keep an eye on it. Thanks again, 99.149.85.229 (talk) 00:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Dominique Venner

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

    A French far-right historian who killed himself in the Notre-Dame cathedral earlier today: [20]. The article will be attracting a lot of edits, and needs eyes on it to preserve NPOV etc. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Noted - also being careful to "observe the niceties" of allegations about the recently dead. Collect (talk) 22:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Victor C. Strasburger

    The article has been edited several times by its subject, including to remove critical material that is not obviously defamatory. I do not know what the appropriate action to take is.

    The subject hasn't edited the article in a long time, and the content removal, which didn't appear controversial, was discussed at the article's talk page. I have tagged the article for lack of sources--a list of the subject's publications isn't sufficient. 99.149.85.229 (talk) 00:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added a note, at the talk page of the editor believed to be the subject of the article, pointing to WP:COI and WP:AUTO restrictions. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Mick Cutajar

    Mick Cutajar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I think that the current Wikipedia profile on Mick Cutajar is fine. Someone put in a noticed for "proposed deleation". The bio has already been re-written a number of times. There are many sources of material on Mick Cutajar, from news articles in papers, official website for Mick Cutajar, media agent website, IJF website. If you do a Google search on "Mick Cutajar" dozens of various sources will appear. Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtingle1 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It's the responsibility of the article creator (that's you) to provide acceptable sources to support the contents of the article. And it's your responsibility to show notability - Wikipedia policy is that only a limited number of people qualify for biographies here.
    Please note that the official website for Mick Cutajar and the media agent website are not acceptable sources (they are "self-published"), and the IJF website is of very limited usefulness. If in fact there are news articles, then please add them to the Wikipedia article. Ideally you will do this as in-line citations (see WP:FOOT, and take a look at how this is done in other Wikipedia articles), but the format matters less than that you add them. (The news articles do not have to be available online, though presumably most are.) If you do not add such news articles, there is no guarantee that this biography will remain on Wikipedia. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have pruned the link farm and pasted the links to the article's talk page in case they can be used as references.--ukexpat (talk) 15:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: four newspaper articles were added; I think that does establish some notability. The "prod" template is gone. The article still needs a lot of work: the articles (now listed on the talk page, per the decision of another editor) should be made into in-line citations, for example. In short, at the moment this is just another relatively poor Wikipedia article, but its not a WP:BLP issue. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Daniel Barwick

    I am concerned that ALL significant content for this subject was written by the subject. Medicineball is a thinly veiled alias for Daniel Barwick. Shouldn't at least most of an article be written by a secondary source? Also Barwick heads an academic institution, I find it problematic that he edits his institutions Wikipedia page also. Thank you.--97.96.107.252 (talk) 04:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the report. I'm moving this comment to the conflict of interest noticeboard since that seems more appropriate. Hot Stop 04:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OUTING Applies if they haven't self Identified. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Purported birth name of porn actor and allegation of felony in foreign language source whose reliability is not obvious

    IP editor posts material in question: [21] I revert: [22] I explain on talk page [23] IP reposts material in question as external link: [24] IP posts to talk page: [25]

    What next? David in DC (talk) 17:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    A bit about cz:iDNES.cz. May generally be an RS, but I have no idea if we're looking at an associated blog, etc. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    At least based on a quick look and Google Translate, it doesn't appear to be a blog - appears to be a sourced report published by the news organization. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If as the IP says "there are many articles in English" then let them provide one, from a reliable source. For something like this I'd be weary of relying on a Czech source. Also, even if there is an English source, that's WP:UNDUE by far, considering the size of the article. Plus we sure as heck don't put it in the lede. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreeRangeFrog (talk • contribs)
    Why would you be wary of a Czech source? The reliable sources policy doesn't require that sources be in English. I would agree it wouldn't belong in the lede unless he's convicted but the allegations are probably noteworthy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't be if it was being used to claim how tall the guy is, but we're talking about a serious allegation. Do we know how significant the event is? Did it receive wide coverage in national media over there? Did it affect his career? We're not writing a tabloid here. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    We're not writing a tabloid, but we don't ignore verifiable convictions for serious crimes, either. If that doesn't belong in his biography, then I would suggest that he really should not have a biography here at all, because there isn't anything verifiable about him, is there? Also, it's pretty much relevant to his career because... it's gonna end his career for the next 5-10 years. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Who is We? --Onorem (talk) 19:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Good question - ask FreeRangeFrog, he's the one used the royal we. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There are a number of sources in English documenting Van Damme/Kovarik's arrest and extradition. The only two that got through the spamfilter (warning, may be NSFW):
    Adult Video News - which is as close to a reliable source as we might get in this genre.'
    Adult FYI - another sort-of-reliable source.
    Also a bunch were blocked by the spamfilter.
    It does appear to be verifiable that he was convicted, and the iDNES report is a reliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for finding those. But I note that the IP's allegations concerned theft, while the stories you have are related to domestic violence, assault and immigration issues. We cannot assume that he was convicted of theft in the Czech Republic because he was deported from the US on assault charges. So we still need a reliable source for the IPs claims - preferably an English one. I can read and make judgements about sources and claims in various languages, but Czech is not one of them. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There are more recent sources directly addressing the theft conviction, but they're blocked by the spamfilter. You'd have to Google them yourself, but preferably not at work... cuz, yeah, porno everywhere. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that they are blocked by the spam filter is a pretty good indication that they are not reliably published sources with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy that would deem them appropriate to verify a controversial claim about a living person. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I generally agree, but when you're dealing with someone who is famous primarily for being a star of pornographic films, pretty much all the coverage that's anywhere near "reliable" is going to be from porn-news sites that often end up blacklisted because people try to spam them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly, I would delete the entire article as unverifiable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Pavel Vozenilek, a longstanding, registered editor from the Czech Republic has inserted a couple more references to a second Czech-language newspaper from the city of Prostejov, including an article which refers to this person as one of the area's 10 most-wanted criminals. I have no opinion on the editorial issues of prominence and whatnot, but I believe the conviction is sufficiently verified to not be a BLP issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Antonia Juhasz

    According to the edit history, the main part of the current version of Antonia Juhasz is written by Antonia Juhasz (talk · contribs). The added/replaced text has no references. Although these edits were made at last year and earlier, it come into attention only recently. The article was tagged with {{BLP sources}} and certain facts such as being on the national advisory committee of Iraq Veterans Against the War, being Investigative Journalism Fellow at the Investigative Reporting Program at Berkeley, or working as a legislative assistant for two U.S. members of Congress, were marked with {{citation needed}} tags. These tags were reverted by edit summaries "removing drive-by tagging of successive paragraphs of non-controversial information. Two reasons: first we have a "BLP references" tag a the top of the article, so its redundant; secondly, tags inappropriate as prompted by a BP rep at Talk:BP", "per WP:OVERTAGGING and the fact that the catalyst was a BP corporate rep at Talk:BP", and "There is no good reason for all these tags--please see my note on talk page". The main argument at the talk page was that this is "non-controversial" and "routine information" and therefore exempted from tagging. In addition, an editor expressed a view that "We are all here because of completely unnecessary, gratuitous reference to this article by an employee of BP in Talk:BP. We need to bend over backwards not to allow corporations from influencing BLPs of their critics in this manner." However, as I explained above, facts about working for "Iraq Veterans Against the War" or members of Congress are that kind of facts which by my understanding need sources and therefore tags were addded. In addition, although the text seems non-controversial, it was added by the subject of the article (at least, it may be said so by the editor's user name and edit pattern) without vetting by independent editors. Therefore, attribution of the text with reliable sources is the best way to eliminate any doubts that there are COI issues with the article. In addition, as the issue is about implementing WP:COI, WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:RS, it is irrelevant who mentioned first the fact that the subject of this article has edited it herself. This issue has been discussed at the article's talk page but unfortunately without any consensus. Therefore guidelines regarding references are needed. Beagel (talk) 18:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure this situation really warrants listing here, as this noticeboard is generally for "cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period." That's not happening here; but to the extent there is a BLP issue, it is Beagel adding "citation needed" tags at the end of nearly every paragraph [26], containing not puffery or wild claims but routine biographical information. This overtagging is disruptive and unnecessary, as there is a tag at the top indicating that more references are needed for verification. BP's involvement - a BP employee made a gratuitous, hostile reference to this article on the BP talk page [27] - is a troubling side issue. It bothers me that a corporation involved in an RL dispute with this person has sparked this overtagging. Coretheapple (talk) 18:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Seconded that this is not really a BLPN issue. The article is overwritten, undersourced and has some sections that need to be "depuffed," so to speak - they read too much like a press kit - but there are no negative, defamatory statements on the page that demand immediate removal and time should be allowed for sources to be found and for the writing to be improved. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with NBSB, the article does need some work, but there was no reason to put ten citation needed tags throughout the article in addition to the tag at the top and a talk page note. It is not my impression that this bio was meant to pull a fast one on WP readers with stuff Antonia Juhasz just made up, but rather a lack of her understanding of how things work around here. To smack ten warnings into the article does give a reader the impression that something fishy must be going on here, when it was most likely just an honest mistake by a new editor about how to go about tending one's own WP article. Gandydancer (talk) 18:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm also concerned about this recent edit to the talk page:[28]. The notice makes sense for the first user, who has the same name as the subject of the article, but I don't think it should name the other two without an admission of connection or a sockpuppet investigation. I've removed the second and third users. Coretheapple (talk) 19:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been reverted re the "connected contributors."[29] I'd like other editors to take a look at that. This kind of "mark of Cain" appearing at the top of a BLP's talk page does raise BLP issues, as in this case it insinuates sockpuppeting by the subject of the article. I'll admit that the contribs do point to a connection with the subject. However, I'm not sure that we can make that determination ourselves just on the basis of contributions. Coretheapple (talk) 19:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    2013 Woolwich beheading

    2013 Woolwich beheading (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Needs eyes on it, will probably be sent to AfD soon, but could survive.Martin451 (talk) 19:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It will definitely survive, this is like the 7/7 attacks all over again. GiantSnowman 20:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry but I don't see the relevance of this article on the Biography of Living Persons noticeboard. Am I missing something? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Initial reporting of the suspects on wikipedia violated BLP.Martin451 (talk) 21:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup. And see also WP:BDP. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Wade Robson

    May 7th,Wade Robson came out and stated that Michael Jackson had molested him, reversing what he said in court as a defense witness, and is now suing his estate for damages. As you can imagine, the article has attracted a lot of angry drive-by vandals. I was surprised and sad to see that although people were willing to remove the bad edits, no one reported the article for page protection during all this time. I finally found the RFPP page and reported it. Now I see the link on the talk page for this board. Is this the best we have for fast alerts? I was hoping for a big red emergency button to push for instant notification and instant results. Ultra Venia (talk) 22:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Charlie Crist

    Charlie Crist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) once again has the allegations that he is gay being added -- this time with a claim that BLP/N consensus supports the inclusion of the material [30], [31] making claims as to "consensus" here supporting such allegations in articles. I demur that BLP/N has a consensus or has ever had a consensus that allegations of sexuality belong in BLPs (the last blowup was at Shepard Smith on this noticeboard). Voices welcome. Collect (talk) 01:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Watched. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO multiple reliable sources are needed before the mention/allegation could be included. And they are not provided here. Here's what I found at WP:BLP:

    WP:WELLKNOWN: In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.

    •Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is this important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out, or stick to the facts: "John Doe and Jane Doe were divorced."

    •Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that he actually did.

    Coaster92 (talk) 06:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:MOSINTRO and contentious label on Narendra Modi

    There is an ongoing dispute on the discussion page of the biographical article on Narendra Modi. The term "controversial" is under discussion and I am seeking third-party opinion on this issue. The individuals supporting the inclusion of the term have quoted several reliable and secondary sources that use this term to describe the individual and assert that this establishes wide usage and justifies the inclusion of the term in the lead section. On the other hand, some other users and I have stated that including a contentious label such as "controversial" goes against WP:MOSINTRO which specifically advises against the use of "peacock terms" and by extension contentious labels as well. I have quoted several examples of high quality articles such as Bill Clinton (GA), Margaret Thatcher (GA) and Gough Whitlam (2010 FA) as examples where specific controversies are described rather than the individual themselves or their actions being labelled as "controversial" in the lead section. Another user has quoted examples such as Yasser Arafat (2007 FA), Neville Chamberlain (2009 FA) and George W. Bush (GA) which have used the term to describe the actions of the individuals or the individuals themselves in the lead section. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 10:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=556406820"