Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
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: Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases. For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead. Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

Benjamin Crump

This article reads like a puff piece written by a public relations consultant. It is completely non-objective and adulatory to an extreme. It should be withdrawn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.30.157 (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I have started by rewriting the lede a little and removing some of the more obvious, unduly self-serving braggadocio that was in the first section, also wholesale deletion of the totally unreffed membership's section. When it comes to the cases and the article itself, just how notable is the guy, in and of himself? Because from what I can see, the initial cases are very well-known and he just happens to be the lawyer on the case, so a lot of the sources deal with the cases and only mention him in passing. Definitely needs more condensing, I'd say. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 17:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I think your concerns about coverage of Crump is being lacking are valid. Speaking to the media is part of his job, and the real coverage is his client. To boot, victims' families are not normally represented in criminal matters. Just in the civil suit that follows. WP:INHERIT looks like a very slippery slope in this case. JFHJr (㊟) 21:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC) (Small text corrects the confusing slop. Screebo had reason to be confused! JFHJr (㊟) 00:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC))

Sorry, JF, I don't follow. What are you saying? That he has notability or not? I don't get the bit about INHERIT either, could you explain what you mean more fully? Cheers! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 13:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry! Sloppy typing. I think the article's got problems with the "substantial" coverage part of WP:42. I'm on the fence as to whether he's encyclopedically notable. Who's written about him and not just his cases? JFHJr (㊟) 00:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah that's better, much clearer, will give his general notability a look in if I get time (or you don't beat me to it ;-) CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 09:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Reduced his ad to only 4 cases -- removed his "legal brief" on the Martin case as being violative of WP:BLP (including a minor problem that parts are contradicted by the Wikipedia article thereon and by most current sources). Bluelinked to the Wikipedia article which is policy compliant AFAICT. Collect (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Good move Collect, now is the man himself independently notable from the cases he has represented? (I now get the WP:INHERIT reffered to by JFHJr above). CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 22:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

That would be better discussed at an AfD. Collect (talk) 23:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

For sure, that wasn't directly adressed at you :) CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 00:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Word of advice, mass IP revert of Collect's good work with edit summary Revert NPOV violator (which I have obviously reverted). CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 09:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• 2nd mass revert, have requested PP for a few days so we can sort this out. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 18:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• Now on 10-day pending changes protection. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 11:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Review of draft for Ping Fu

Hi everyone. As some of you here may be aware, there has been a lot of activity around Ping Fu's article in recent months, following press coverage of criticisms about her memoir. On behalf of Geomagic, the company founded by Ping Fu, I've been working on a new draft for the article based on reliable sources. A few editors who have been involved on the article have been reviewing the draft and one has suggested that I reach out to editors here who are knowledgeable about BLP issues.

Here's the link to the draft: User:16912_Rhiannon/Ping_Fu, which editors are discussing on the draft's Talk page. There is also a small discussion at WikiProject Biography that you may want to take a look at. I've described there the issues with the current article and how I've tried to address these in the draft.

As I wrote at WikiProject Biography, in addition to fixing specific issues with the current article, I've looked at how to deal with details that have been disputed and have conflicting references. My feeling is that it may be best to reduce the detail regarding Ping's early life and education as the sources conflict and some facts have recently been called into question. I've kept these details to a minimum in the draft for this reason.

I should note that after feedback on the Memoir section, I've rewritten this slightly and offered the updated version on the draft's talk page for review before I drop it into the draft. It would be fantastic if editors here could review the draft and the updated Memoir section on the Talk page and offer their thoughts. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 23:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

That is some awesome work, especially the memoir section. I know that was the main contentious issue and I think you've established a perfectly appropriate balance. High Kudos. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much, FreeRangeFrog. Can I just check, were you referring to the updated version of the Memoir section on the draft's Talk page? (I'll be dropping this into the draft once the editor who provided feedback originally has been able to review it again.)

Because I have a COI here, I'd love to get further feedback if any editors are interested. Also, if editors feel it's ready, they can move across the text from my draft to the live article, as I won't make edits to the article myself. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 14:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to ping this thread again to see if anyone else would like to take a look at the draft. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, yes. But where does your COI issue come from? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, FreeRangeFrog, I missed your reply until just now: as I mentioned above, I wrote the draft on behalf of Geomagic, the company founded by Ping Fu and received input from Fu and her team. So, that's why I have a COI with the subject. As an update, after review by editors, one editor has moved two of the sections into the live Ping Fu article: Early life and education and Memoir. I wonder if you'd mind looking at the remaining sections, as well as the introduction and the infobox to see whether those could also be moved into the article? Unlike the information about the memoir and Fu's early life, I think the remaining sections are relatively uncontroversial and I've addressed editors' requests to make small changes for clarity, so I think they're ready unless you can see any issues? Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 23:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh right, I should have read your entire message. Going over what you have I see no real problems, honestly. I'd say put them in and then the concerned parties can work off of what you've created. I see there are at least two other editors who have provided feedback to you, so I think we're good from a COI perspective. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Actually, I follow the "bright-line" rule suggested by Jimbo Wales, so I'd rather not move the sections into the article myself. If you think they look good, would you mind making the move? If you're able to do that, I can leave an update on the Ping Fu Talk page to explain and invite editors to continue work on the sections once live. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 18:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

If you can find someone else to assist with that, go ahead. I can do it but I'm a bit busy IRL at the moment, so it would be in a couple of days. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, FreeRangeFrog. I'll see if anyone is willing to move the draft sections, otherwise, I'm happy to wait for you to do so. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Lloyd Irvin (again)

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

This article has been the subject of two previous referrals: [1] [2]

Lloyd Irvin is a reasonably well-known martial arts instructor who has a Wikipedia article.

1. In 2013 two of his students were accused of rape on a third student. This is reported on wjla.com: [3] There have been various developments as a result of these charges.
2. The martial arts press uncovered what appeared to be court and newspaper records of an earlier (1989) incident involving Lloyd Irvin, in which he was accused of a sexual crime but was found not guilty.
3. Lloyd Irvin released an open letter: [4] on January 22nd which confirmed his involvement in the court case from 1989, and reasserted his successful defense from the court case that he did not have sex with anyone in the 1989 incident. He also noted that the students who had been accused of a crime on New Year's Eve had only been training with him for a few months.
4. The martial arts press reported on March 5th: "Irvin crippled by mass exodus of top students after yet another scandal", where at least ten of his top students quit en-masse following further allegations. [5]
5. On March 10th the MMA press reported that "With more and more affiliate schools cutting ties with Team Lloyd Irvin, Irvin has announced that the entire program has been terminated." [6]

Now, clearly this is a sensitive matter which is needs to be handled extremely carefully. However the allegations are clearly having a massive effect on Lloyd Irvin's life; students are leaving his school, people are breaking off ties, and he is being forced to defend himself in the press with regard to his earlier acquittal. My personal thought is that the way to approach it is to report the accusations against two of his students (number 1 above), which is a matter of record, and his response (number 3 above), only touching on the earlier accusations as much as is necessary to understand his response. Similarly it seems reasonable to briefly mention his recent statement ending his "affiliate" program (number 5 above), as reported in the martial arts press. I'm not confident on the sourcing for number 4 above.

Following a short discussion on the Talk page, given the previous history I was advised to bring it here. I'd appreciate people's thoughts. --Merlinme (talk) 17:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The last time this landed here we noted that the sources were crappy at best (no way to determine reliability), that it wasn't clear that the "event" had had any lasting effect on the man's life or career, and that the addition of the material in relation to the rest of the bio was an issue of undue weight. Has any of that changed? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I personally thought one of the most interesting policy invocations from last time was WP:NPF, so I'd be curious to see how that would be handled, or if it even needed to be. I think this is a classic case of inclusion vs exclusion; where is the line between encyclopedic and tabloid? Buddy23Lee (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time seeing reason for including any discussion of this material, per WP:NPF. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

In response to FreeRangeFrogs points: 1) sources currently include the website of WJLA-TV, i.e. channel 7, the ABC affiliated television station, and Irvin's own public written statements on the matter, as reported in secondary sources, in addition to a couple of martial arts websites. 2) it's clearly having a major effect on his life; "at least ten" of the best members of his team, i.e. his medal hopes, have just quit; three of his largest "affiliate" gyms publicly disassociated themselves this year, leading to Lloyd apparently deciding to end the affiliate program on his own terms and terminating the whole program. His own very long public statement, as issued to one of the oldest mixed martial arts magazines, suggests he is taking this extremely seriously. 3) Regarding undue weight, this may well be the thing that Lloyd Irvin will be best known for in coming years. I had not heard of him, despite his association with various top level martial artists, until the events recently reported in the martial arts press. I agree that it should not be allowed to dominate the entire article, but it seems appropriate to at least mention what will probably be regarded as the collapse of his entire business model. In the specific context of Team Lloyd Irvin, which is currently a paragraph in his article, it seems to be extremely relevant.

In response to WP:NPF, it's an interesting argument, but again, I strongly suspect this will be the incident he becomes best known for. The wording is: "include only material relevant to the person's notability". I would suggest that it's the main reason why he would be considered notable in martial arts at this point in time. In other words, this ongoing incident is bringing him to a level of notability higher than he had before, when he was only known as a respected competitor and trainer of a few significant athletes. --Merlinme (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I tip my hat to your points Merlinme and while I'd like to clarify that I'm neutral toward inclusion or otherwise, I'd also like to voice my concern in two areas in response. First, in regards to your best sources, those are predominately, if not exclusively, focused upon the alleged rape committed by his students and, other than being the figurehead for their former organization, I'm concerned that they don't have much bearing on Irvin himself in a direct personal manner. From what I could/can ever find online, I believe FreeRangeFrog is correct in that most of the sources regarding Irvin directly are MMA/BJJ blogs, and not more reputable sources. Secondly, while you might be right and your strong suspicion may be correct in that he could become more notable for this event than anything else in his entire career, I think that's probably a case for WP:CRYSTALBALL. Is it not just as probable the man could move past this event and rebuild his organization? Buddy23Lee (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Personally I think the sources which tip this into Verifiable are his own public statements on the matter; if anything they will presumably be biased towards him, not against him, yet they clearly confirm the basic facts, i.e. that some of his students were involved in an extremely nasty incident, that people in the martial arts world have raised with him recently an incident which he confirms he was put on trial (and acquitted) for in 1989, and that he has has had to recently end his affiliate program: "...there is clearly a lynch mob made up of a handful of people who will settle for NOTHING other than my head-on-a-stick or me hanging from a tree...This is to serve notice to the lynch mob members that they can stop targeting, bullying and attempting to harm my affiliates businesses because they are no longer affiliates", as reported in the mma press: [7]

If you read the public statement from former affiliate Beta-academy [8], in addition to the statements of his former students who've quit en-masse [9], I find it very hard to see how he will rebuild his business. I don't think either of those can currently go in to the article, because of problems with sourcing and possible bias in the allegations, but it's still fair to say that his reputation is currently taking a bit of a battering.

It is indeed difficult to be sure without a crystal ball what the exact outcome of all this will be, but on the other hand I find it seems to be stretching "undue weight" to breaking point to mention Team Lloyd Irvin and not mention at least the (verifiable) basics of why it seems to be collapsing. --Merlinme (talk) 21:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, ok. I guess if we can agree and accept that most of the sources will necessarily be various blog posts, that inclusion doesn’t violate WP:NPF, WP:UNDUE, or is too much a case of WP:CRYSTALBALL, and that it of course satisfies wiki's rigorous BLP policy, particularly with regards to slander, I’m for inclusion. I just mention these again to highlight why I’ve been so cautious to this point. Buddy23Lee (talk) 21:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Which out of the following sources: wjla report of initial incident: [10] official irvin statement in press [11] reporting of separate irvin statement in press: [12] do you consider problematic? --Merlinme (talk) 21:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Honestly? I've long been skeptical of the bloodyelbow blog posts regarding the issue as they stand the most to gain by sensationalizing to gain readership. Obviously the WJLA report is much more mainsteam, but as we've discussed on the talk page, I'm concerned how it and the other mainsteam sources don't even mention Irvin (the individual) once, nor really indicate what actual link he has to the incident. However, and again, as long as we have some rough consensus that the many nagging issues raised here (and before) are not considered applicable (or overly applicable) in regards to this content then I'll support it as well. You're obviously very passionate about this inclusion and that would suggest to me that for every Merlinme there must be a large number of unvoiced ip editors out there who feel the same way. 22:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• It appears that a single editor is strongly motivated to get this information into the article. I continue to think it violates WP:NPF, and WP:TOPIC as well. Can I please ask other BLPN regulars to look closely at this one. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I'll take a look. polarscribe (talk) 04:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The WJLA report says, in paragraph 3, "According to court documents, the young woman, Maldonado and Schultz all know each other from the Lloyd Irvin Martial Arts School in Camps Springs where they trained." This would appear to make it directly relevant to Team Lloyd Irvin, and to the extent that he's felt the need to publicly defend his reputation and his business (which uses his name), directly relevant to Lloyd Irvin as well. I would ask that people read the sources I've suggested before making any decision based on previous consensus. And yes, based on edits, there do seem to be a significant number of IPs who think the information should be included in some form, although that wouldn't be relevant if the information weren't both relevant to his life and verifiable. --Merlinme (talk) 06:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:COATRACK. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

That's your carefully considered opinion after reading the sources which I've provided, yes?

I'd prefer it if we kept this civil and didn't use one word policy references. --Merlinme (talk) 07:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Now just hold on there for a moment Merlinme. I don’t think the policy reference is necessarily uncivil or even entirely unwarranted. While certainly everyone, including myself, wishes to assume good faith in the purposed changes, I’d still imagine that anytime an individual editor appears and vehemently wishes to include content to a BLP article which clearly appears deleterious to the subject (and said editor remains just as stalwart in the face of all purposed policy concerns) it gives some reason to wonder what the motivations might be. I’m sure the good folks at the BLP noticeboard see more than their fair share of such. At any rate, if anyone has cause to hope things remain civil regarding this article it’s undoubtedly Irvin himself. Buddy23Lee (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to assume good faith if others are prepared to assume the same of me. I stand by my request that people read the sources I've provided and use arguments longer than one word. --Merlinme (talk) 06:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Concision. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for another considered attempt at debate.

If the question is regarding my motives, they're very simple; I saw Lloyd Irvin in the news; as is often the case when I wish to find out more information about something, I went to Wikipedia to find out more about him; in this case I discovered that Wikipedia did not even mention what is apparently the most important event in his life right now, where his comptetition team and business are being hit by defections and he has had made a long statement to try to defend himself in the most public forum imaginable for a Brazilian jiu jitsu trainer, where the incident has been on-going for several months and has been reported in multiple sources (some of them, admittedly, better than others). When I went to the talk page to discuss if this information should be added in some form, I found it full of an ongoing debate about including the information, and I was told to come here if I felt the information should be included. And here we are. --Merlinme (talk) 06:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Has anyone (Polarscribe?) had a chance to look at this?

I'm happy to discuss the exact wording if it would be helpful. I suspect a lot of the opposition to changing the article has been based on the belief that I am proposing to add reams of coat-rack text which overwhelms the article. That's not my intention. What I want to do is make the article reflect the major news items which have been affecting Lloyd Irvin's life recently. But this can be done fairly succinctly. The article currently reads:

Team Lloyd Irvin

Lloyd Irvin is the head coach of the eponymous Team Lloyd Irvin, a Brazilian Jiu Jitsu and mixed martial arts organization operating in the Mid-Atlantic States of the U.S.[4][5][6]

A number a prominent grapplers and MMA fighters have attended his school at one time, such as Mike Fowler, JT Torres, and Ryan Hall.[7]

I would like to add something like:

Rape allegations against Lloyd Irvin students

Two of Lloyd Irvin's students were charged in January 2013 with the rape of a woman they knew from Lloyd Irvin Martial Arts School in Camp Springs. [13] Lloyd Irvin issued an official statement to Graciemag, the Brazilian jiu-jitsu magazine, on January 22nd 2013, in which he made it clear that he deplored what had happened, and distanced his team from the incident, noting that the accused had only trained with his organization a few months. He also responded to online discussions regarding a 1989 incident involving himself where he was found not guilty. [14] On March 10th 2013 it was reported that Lloyd Irvin had announced on Facebook that he was terminating the Team Lloyd Irvin Affiliate Program, because of what he described as lynch mob attacks on Team Lloyd Irvin affiliate businesses. [15]

I'm happy to discuss the exact wording. I recognise this is tricky. I still think an article with some mention of what is clearly the major item in his life in 2013 is better than an article without. --Merlinme (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Just to confirm before this gets archived, is anyone going to object if I add this text? If so, could you say why (and what you think it would be appropriate to add, if anything). Thanks, --Merlinme (talk) 08:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I continue to object, per WP:TOPIC, WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK, and I don't think it's appropriate to add anything at all on the topic. The main story here is not about what Irvin did. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Can I confirm that you've read the sources I provided? I disagree that it's not relevant to the topic, as Lloyd Irvin has issued at least two public statements defending his team and business, which have clearly been affected. In particular the recent issues are directly relevant to the "Team Lloyd Irvin" section of the article. I agree the text should not overwhelm the article, but I think having something there does not in itself break undue weight. If consensus is against me that the information is not relevant to the article then I won't take it any further; if the question is more of undue weight then I'm happy to discuss what would be appropriate text.

Does anyone else have a view? Buddy23Lee? Polarscribe? --Merlinme (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I dunno Merlinme. As I’ve mentioned, I can definitely empathize with your inclusive passions, but I’m willing to concede that policy considerations, whether as a whole or only in part, are evidently superseding here. I’m not certain that it’s worth disregarding each of these policy dilemmas (or even only potential policy dilemmas) for even a major article, let alone this undisputedly very minor BLP. When this issue first arose, I myself was the one to bring the matter here (twice), knowing that it needed some type of consensus from editors experienced in exactly these types of BLP issues. Ultimately, consensus then was what it appears to be now, that it was not worthy for inclusion. At this point I think we should respect this and I would encourage you to let this matter rest. We both know there are a thousand other areas on the wiki that would benefit immensely from even a fraction of the effort you’ve put into this endeavor. :) Buddy23Lee (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, on the grounds previously discussed that I like encyclopedias to be accurate. I like to correct articles as I'm going along, and I've spent plenty of time finding sources for other minor articles. At the moment I think the article gives a misleading impression about Team Lloyd Irvin in particular. However unless something significant changes, like Irvin himself being charged with something, I'm clearly not going to win this battle, so let's leave it there. --Merlinme (talk) 08:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• As the incident has significantly impacted on him, his career/job & Team Lloyd Irvin, it should be at least mentioned. Details should be minimal on the actual arrest/charging of the students, with more detail on the impact it has had on his business. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • As I read the sources, there aren't any sources for the "impact on his business". There is one truly secondary source here; the other two contain his "open letter" and the contents of his facebook post. This really has not achieved the kind of coverage in reliable secondary sources that justifies any mention here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Well if he considers it important enough to release a personal statement to interested parties, and they consider it important enough to publish/print it, thats good enough for me. But like I said, I would have the focus on the effect its had on his business. You could condense the mention of the rape charges to half a sentence quite easily. Undue, topic and coatrack are not applicable as it certainly is relevant - given his notability is intricately linked with his career. At best, you can raise an argument its not got enough secondary sources discussing it, but last I checked, there wasnt a hard limit on how many sources something needs to be included. Also given the insular and specialised nature of the MMA community, its not likely to make 'mainstream' press anyway. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Even if Irvin were WP:WELLKNOWN, we would need "multiple" reliable secondary sources for this sort of material -- and what we have here is one such source. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
        • If person A says X, and publication B reports that person A said X, why is that not a secondary source? Anyway, a couple more sources: Graciemag reported Keenan Cornelius leaving Team Lloyd Irvin in February 2013; Cornelius said: "I can no longer be absolutely sure that this is the right environment for me under the current and enlightening circumstances." [16]. An article in more "mainstream" media, concentrating on Irvin's SEO techniques (although most of it is based on reports in the MMA press): [17]. --Merlinme (talk) 10:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
          • Yay for this continuing...honestly, it seems to me the incident with the students and the alleged rape are the only aspects of this with good sourcing and not really a BLP issue, as they belonged in the team article. Now that the team article has been merged with the BLP I would assume that all the relevant policies mentioned thus far would extend to the entire article. I guess my main point here is that I am, and always have been, more comfortable with the factual aspects of this (e.g. two former students charged with rape) than the more speculative, opinionative, and often moralistic sources (i.e. blog sites that allege things like "internet marketing trickery"). Buddy23Lee (talk) 18:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, one last try. There's clearly no consensus for Lloyd Irvin references. There's some support for Team Lloyd Irvin references. How about:

Defections from Team Lloyd Irvin

In February and March 2013 it was reported that some of Irvin's best students had left his team.[18] Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu gold medal winner Keenan Cornelius said in a statement that he could no longer be sure that it was the right environment for him.[19]

Does anyone object to that? --Merlinme (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The more we see reliable sources accrue, the more appropriate it becomes to give some space to this issue. The question here, though, is: does bloodyelbow.com meet WP:RS? I recommend raising it at RSN (having first looked for previous discussions in the archive). The answer isn't clear to me, so some feedback at RSN would surely be useful. You'll need to formulate a proposed text, so that they can consider the RS question in proper context. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've done that: WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Lloyd_Irvin_sources. I am beginning to come round to Buddy23Lee's point of view that there might be better things to do with my time; I wasn't really expecting it to take this long. However I am genuinely quite interested on the reliability ruling on public statements, so might as well see this through. --Merlinme (talk) 17:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

In this amount of time we could have independently written Irvin's biography. :) One thing I'd be curious about is whether any "defections" or any comings or goings of individual students would even be notable enough to warrant mentioning. Having composed the Keenan article I would probably assert his notablity would extend to the team article in this regard. I would also imagine that if bloodyelbow is deemed a sufficent source that mentioning the alleged "mass exodus" would necessarily become includable content as well, just hopefully in a less bombastic manner, as exemplified above. Buddy23Lee (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Is this not relevant, or credible, or reliable? Why has no one considered this article? Last time I looked, TheVerge.com was a major news outlet. Also, I find it ironic, to say the least, that the home invasion incident is supported by a Bloody Elbow article, but Bloody Elbow's credibility is being questioned in relationship to the rape incident.

http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/9/4204908/martial-arts-champ-responds-to-rape-allegations-with-internet-marketing-trickery

Todd Lieberman

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL I think Mr. Lieberman just showed up at help desk wanting to create his own article. Does someone wish to create a stub so he has a talk page to make COI requests?--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• A quick and dirty search indicates Mandeville Films is likely more notable than Todd Lieberman. I'm not convinced either one passes WP:42. Mandeville Films could probably use some reduction and/or tagging. JFHJr (㊟) 02:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Lieberman was producer for the one film that won two Oscars. The other films in the Mandeville 'list article' are all blue links. They could be trimmed maybe and just include the major award nominees and and minor winners in a table. Is Lieberman notable enough as producer of a two Oscar movie? I didn't check the notability of the other films.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I can't believe this. I think I may just walk away unless another editor wants to help fix the mess on the new page. I tried and had half my work removed.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

A cry for help indeed, more eyes please, I have hacked, slashed, tagged, warned the user about COI and puffery, twas a huge mess, I'm off to sharpen shiny things while I sleep. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 01:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I think that editor's talk page full of policy spam may clue them in. If not we may just get an admin to spank them as well. I too am about to call it a night, thanks again.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, just wikilinked the institutions and films in the "Career" section. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 10:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'm still having a hard time finding WP:GNG criteria. I'm still not seeing the coverage of Lieberman, and I think sourcing in both articles is awful. I'm not finding any better on my own... JFHJr (㊟) 18:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Some others are working on it now. Sources have improved.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Bob Khanna

a new editor User:Drosslifter have added unsourced and defamatory content on Bob Khanna. I try to undo his edit, but he is continuing to revert my edit. So now I have given up. Kindly look into the matter. --Vigyani (talk) 07:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Drosslifter (talk · contribs) is an spa, only editing the BK article

Looking into the history of the article Bob Khanna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I came across this rather interesting user

Gruntfuttock115 (talk · contribs)

who only writes (creates) articles about (living) people and companies, paid editing anyone, and most of them have been tagged as being written like an advertisement. Maybe if a few of you have some time to look through the latter user's contributions? Cheers! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed also as User:Drosslifter told on his talk page. Which again points about Drosslifter being SPA as he somehow knew or must have noticed this before creating an account. However I could not locate his sockpupeteer by checking User:Gruntfuttock115's edit history. --Vigyani (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

No Vigyani, Drosslifter wants the BK article deleted as x/he asserts here in no uncertain terms, there is no sockpuppet, but my observation was that all of Gruntfuttock's contribs are to create promotional-style articles about people or companies. And on Dross's talk page x/he asserts that Gruntfuttock is/works for Palamedes PR (although offers no proof), which sort of backs up my theory that there is a whole heap of paid editing going on. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 17:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

yes, he wants BK to be deleted ( he has written a line on talk:BK also). i do not deny ur theory. I am merely saying that Drosslifter mentioned about Grunt/paid editing on his talk page. Why I think Drosslifter is sock as you also mentioned in your previous post, since he knew about possibility of Grunt editing BK article in a way which appears promotional. Also I just went bit more carefully through Grunt's edit. He is creating promotional pages. I checked the versions of the articles he created and found those promotional. And he seems to have particular interest in SWNS. created 3 articles for companies related to them. --Vigyani (talk) 17:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

One of which is the PR company we're talking about, and Gruntfuttock115 apparently works for. 21:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)*Ok here we go, all created by Gruntfuttock115 (talk · contribs):

• • Gurpareet Bains[20], and guest blogger on their site no less
  • Wynndel Property Management [21], check text in left column: Palamedes PR gave us more coverage in a week than our previous ‘top-end’ agency did in a year. Apparently the text in the aforementioned left column updates to give different client tributes, this is the quote that I copied from the website, FYI.21:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • OnePoll[22]
  • Angus Kennedy (chocolate taster)[23]
  • Cathy Glass (author)[24]
  • and of course the company page Palamedes PR
  • and 72 Point, a sister company of Palamdes— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vigyani (talk • contribs) 23:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

So, some or all, may have the required notability, but as far as I can see this is wiki-spamming with OTT, gushing articles about the company's clients. Battleaxes ready? CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 17:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Good detective work, Captain. I'm guessing maybe there's enough here to warrant a case over at WP:AN/I? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah thanks, I put a call in to Orange Mike who is an admin and regularly deals with this kind of thing, but I would say that it's maybe ANI-worthy. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 21:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

No response from OM, so maybe this should go to AN/I, what say ye? Anyone care to do the honours (I have jam to pot!). CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 18:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Steve Yuhas

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

Folks, would someone with more time than I have at the moment please take a look at this one? There is a lot of unsourced and unencyclopedic material that needs sorting, and I am sure other issues as well. Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear God. This is one of the most atrocious BLP-violating contrivances I've ever seen. Lots of SPA-supplied phony sourcing. Have any of the "contributors" been spotted as Benjiboi socks? I've taken my machete to it, but there's more work to do. Possibly involving a wrecking ball. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the work so far, it's looking better already.--ukexpat (talk) 03:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The wrecking ball has been used. It's now a stub. Almost nothing in it was properly sourced or supported, and it was written like an opinion piece.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks folks, works for me.--ukexpat (talk) 02:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Possible BLP issue on Talk:Shirley Ardell Mason

Hello. At Talk:Shirley_Ardell_Mason#Purportedly, two individuals are engaging in what I can only describe as 'bickering' over the page subject, making several claims against each other in the process. I have hidden the text via {{divhide}} and left a note that their conduct is not appreciated, but I'm less sure about whether it might be specifically of BLP concern. Any comments or suggestions? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Mason is not a living person, so how is this a BLP issue? Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 02:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

BLP will only apply in this case if the subject is recently deceased (no more than 3 months I believe), or if the edit itself will directly affect a living person. My read is that in this case BLP does not apply, unless you have a specific concern which falls into the criteria I have stated above. I agree with Doczilla's comments both above and on the page.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I certainly wasn't clear about my concern - the arguments and criticisms of Suraci and Nathan against each other is what I am concerned about. Naturally Mason isn't living and their speculations aren't useful for changing the main page but their claims of incompetence and bias against each other may be BLP issues, I'm not sure.

Apologies, I should have been clearer. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Quinton Hoover

Quinton Hoover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
People have been claiming the death of Quinton Hoover all day, but no one has even tried to provide a source for this. Can anyone obtain some more information? 98.220.156.36 (talk) 23:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

All we've got so far is buzz on Twitter and Facebook, and an Examiner.com piece sourced to social media. None I saw were reliable sources. So I will remove the claim. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Nina Dobrev

Nina Dobrev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I was redirected by another editor to post here about an edit request.The request is about changing Canadian to Bulgarian-Canadian.My reliable sources and arguments are the following:

In an official interview for Sofia News Agency(www.novinite.com) Nina Dobrev says "Everyone who knows me knows I am Bulgarian and that I am proud of it!".Here is the link: http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=122426 .If Nina Dobrev herself is saying that she is Bulgarian, then I don't see a logical reason why in her wikipage should be written only Canadian?!Sofia News Agency refers to Nina Dobrev as Bulgarian-Canadian and even one of the references used in the wikipage of Nina Dobrev- NIKKI FINKE, Editor in Chief from deadline.com also refers to her as Bulgarian-Canadian http://www.deadline.com/2011/04/123303/ .If NIKKI FINKE is good enough to be used by other editors in BLP I don't see a logical reason why she wouldn't be good enough to be used by me as a reference. --Dvrt09 (talk) 23:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I just want to clarify something (I'm the editor who directed this here), regarding MOS:BIO. That guideline says that in the first sentence, we may only refer to a living person's nationality, not their ethnicity/descent. The question then becomes, when Dobrev calls herself "Bulgarian", does she mean "of Bulgarian ethnicity" or "of Bulgarian citizenship"? Similarly, is the newspaper saying "Canadian citizen of Bulgarian descent" (like the way we usually use the phrase in the U.S.) or does it mean "dual citizen of Bulgaria and Canada"? I'm not sure how we can tell. The article does currently state further down that she was born in Bulgaria; my personal inclination is always to err on the side of caution w.r.t. ethnicity/citizenship issues, but I can understand the argument that Dvrt09 is making. Outside opinions will be appreciated. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Just say "Canadian, born in Bulgaria" seems the logical move. Collect (talk) 13:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

But Nina Dobrev didn't said "I am born in Bulgaria", she said "I am Bulgarian".The term Bulgarian refers to nationality as well since there is a national state of Bulgaria and the people coming from there are called Bulgarians.Besides as far as I know wiki editors are not supposed to interpret sources but only to use them as references.The real questions here are:1.Do reliable sources refer to Nina Dobrev as Bulgarian-Canadian?Yes, they do!; 2.Does Nina Dobrev say that she is Bulgarian?Yes, she does! --Dvrt09 (talk) 14:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

If there's a reliable source where she says she is Bulgarian, then it would appear that WP:BLPCAT is satisfied. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there is! "Everyone who knows me knows I am Bulgarian and that I am proud of it!"-Nina Dobrev for Sofia News Agency(www.novinite.com): http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=122426 --Dvrt09 (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The source looks okay to me. I don't see a problem. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I could be referring to myself as American (ethnically), but if I don't have American citizenship, I am not legally an American. I think we should be cautious as per the concerns of Qwyrxian above. Nymf _{talk to me} 20:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Many people will emphatically state "I am <ethnicity>!", even if they're a third or fourth generation immigrant to another country. But I just might be willing to let this particular one go, given the variety of sources and the unsourced OR which makes it likely to be true. Just a side note: do we know that both Bulgaria and Canada allow dual citizenship? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

@Nymf I already said that wiki editors are not supposed to interpret sources and to say what they mean or what they don't mean.Besides Nina Dobrev is not "third or fourth generation immigrant", she is native to Bulgaria and born there under the name Николина Костантинова Добрева!The facts are that Nina Dobrev herself claims to be Bulgarian and the term Bulgarian refers to nationality as well since there is a national state of Bulgaria and the people coming from there are called Bulgarians-exactly the case of Nina Dobrev! --Dvrt09 (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

@Qwyrxian According to this information Canadian law permits dual or multiple citizenships: http://travel.gc.ca/travelling/publications/dual-citizenship Another source confirms that both Bulgaria and Canada recognise dual citizenship: http://www.thelaw.com/guide/immigration/dual-citizenship-countries-list/ --Dvrt09 (talk) 01:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

@Qwyrxian According to the Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria: Chapter 2, Article 25 (1):"...anyone who was born on the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria is a Bulgarian citizen" ; (3): "A Bulgarian citizen by birth may not be deprived of his Bulgarian citizenship". Here is the link : http://www.investbulgaria.com/laws/constitution.pdf --Dvrt09 (talk) 02:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Another source about the Constitution of Bulgaria: "Constitution-Making in the region of the former Soviet dominance" by Rett R Ludwikowski page 353-354 Here is the link: http://books.google.bg/books?id=qw8o0_c0m74C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Constitution-Making+in+the+region+of+the+former+Soviet+dominance&hl=en&sa=X&ei=48B0Ue_2CMPStQbNrIGgBA&redir_esc=y --Dvrt09 (talk) 04:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Nina Dobrev was born in Bulgaria and according to the Constitution of Bulgaria this makes her automatically Bulgarian citizen.Besides Nina claims herself to be Bulgarian so everything looks pretty clear to me. --Dvrt09 (talk) 04:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Saying "She was born in Bulgaria, the constitution of Bulgaria says that people born in Bulgaria are citizens, therefore she is a citizen" is prohibited WP:OR. Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

But saying "she is Bulgarian" -- using a source where she says "I am Bulgarian" -- is not prohibited WP:OR. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding @Nomoskedasticity. If Nina's own words are not important then I don't know what is?! I see double standard in wikipedia:(( "Everyone who knows me knows I am Bulgarian and that I am proud of it!"-Nina Dobrev for Sofia News Agency(www.novinite.com): http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=122426 --Dvrt09 (talk) 21:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Her own words aren't any good here because they are ambiguous--it's not clear whether she means she is a Bulgarian citizen or whether she is of Bulgarian ethnicity. Ken Arromdee (talk) 03:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

No worries, Ken -- we don't have to be any more specific than she was. We can just say "she is Bulgarian" -- consistent with the source. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

@Ken Arromdee I already said multiple times that wiki editors are not supposed to interpret sources and to say what they mean or what they don't mean, but only to use them as references!!Besides according to the law in Bulgaria she is Bulgarian citizen by birthright and saying that she is only canadian is nothing more than a lie and false information!! --Dvrt09 (talk) 04:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

So I'm seeing a consensus here that we can't be sure that she meant "Bulgarian citizen". If that is the case, then we cannot say "Bulgarian-Canadian" in the lead, but we can state somewhere later, "In an interview, Dobrev stated "I am Bulgarian"." Does that seem reasonable? Qwyrxian (talk) 10:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is. Someone has already made the point that the lead, in saying she is "a Canadian actress", implies quite strongly that Canadian is the only citizenship she holds. In that respect it is evidently misleading, a disservice to our readers and an insult to her to the extent that the Bulgarian element of her identity is important to her. On the basis of that latter point, I favor "Canadian/Bulgarian" in the lead. What gets in the way, apparently, is MOSBIO -- though there is some wiggle room in what it says about ethnicity. To the extent that MOSBIO is getting in the way here, that seems like a problem with MOSBIO. If editors are nonetheless going to insist on slavishly following it, then WP:BLP in my reading would lead to removing any mention of citizenship from the lead. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with you @Nomoskedasticity!This is the reason why there are complains about this article on the talk page of Nina Dobrev."Canadian actress" really implies the she has only one canadian citizenship without sources to prove this and at the same time it downplays her Bulgarian element which is very important for her.I hope a solution can be found on how to balance this article better. --Dvrt09 (talk) 12:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

All of this stuff -- and it appears 1. she calls hereself "Bulgarian" but does not assert she is a Bulgarian citizen. 2. She has Canadian citizenship, which no one seems to regard as a contentious claim. 3. We have no standard for saying that hyphens assert citizenship, or whether they assert national identification, or whether they assert ancestry. Ergo: It is reasonable for us to call her a Canadian citizen who is Bulgarian by birth, avoiding any possible misuse of hyphens here. It is not required or even logical that we find a source stating a negative, which means we can not assume she has dual citizenship, or, more tellingly, separate passports. Absent positive statements that she is in that category, it would by OR for Wikipedia to make that assumption. BTW, a person saying "I am Italian" in the US generally means "Italian ancestry" and not "citizenship." Collect (talk) 12:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

What do you think about "Bulgarian with Canadian citizenship"?!This looks fair enough to me. --Dvrt09 (talk) 12:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Sanad Rashed

Yesterday I PRODed Sanad Rashed as I could not find any reliable sources which supported the claims within the article, and it looked like the article itself was promotional in nature. Today I revisited the article and saw that it was previously deleted for the same concerns. I don't have access to the former article, but based on the AfD comments I suspect that the author re-created the same article with the same problems. I'm not sure what to do at this point, because I don't think another AfD is necessary, and if it is a recreation then I don't think we should have to wait a week. Please advise, Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 15:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Does Speedy G4 apply? Or do you know that it is sufficiently different that it has to go to AfD again? Rklear (talk) 18:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Honestly I have no idea. This is my first encounter with this article, and I didn't know it was formally brought up for deletion until I proded the article. However I suspect that it isn't different enough. Another editor has removed the Prod, so I will probably bring it up for deletion if no one works on it for a few hours. I like to give a bit of time for the remover to prove their case before I bring it to AFD.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Kermit Gosnell

This is way, way above my pay grade, but I sense real trouble brewing here and more experienced heads than mine will be needed. For example, there's heavy reliance (a through ax -- no kidding) on a grand jury report issued just 9 days ago, which I suspect counts as primary. And that's just ref [1]! Good luck. This tape will self-destruct in five seconds. EEng (talk) 19:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Melissa Farley

An IP editor is removing text from various articles about Melissa Farley, ostensibly because she is no longer accredited in her field (psychology). The editor put up this notice at the Fringe noticeboard:

Melissa Farley is quoted in many articles as a accredited psychologist but is no longer is no longer accredited member of APA following Ethics violations over fraudulent fabricated research and there are many editors guarding article about her pet theories that quote her. This needs sorting out before these subject become laughing stock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.208.204.151 (talk • contribs)

I have restored some cited or otherwise valid text removed by the IP, and reverted some uncited changes. The matter could use some more eyes, certainly. Binksternet (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

As you apparently have observed, the IP's contribution history shows that he/she has been removing material sourced to Farley in a few other articles, too. Per the talk page, Farley is licensed in California. Location (talk) 20:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The IP has no source saying that Farley was ejected from the APA; the only source is one listing the APA members, with no listing of Farley. Even so, Farley's research is not weakened thereby; the APA is not saying that her research is invalid. To me, this looks like a personal/scholarly vendetta. Binksternet (talk) 21:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Bernard C. Parks

Bernard C. Parks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has more than one son, Bernard C. Parks, Jr. He also has daughters. Felicia Parks-Mena, Lori Parks (deceased), Michelle Parks, and Trudy Parks (deceased). I know this to be true because I am his grand-daughter.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Drneal1990 (talk • contribs)

Anything added to the encyclopedia should be based on Wikpedia's version of a reliable source, which please see. Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev

The article Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev includes the names of parents, sisters and an uncle of the suspects in the Boston Marathon bombings. These people are not notable and had no involvement in the attack. Their names should not be published in accordance with WP:BLPNAME. The understanding of readers is not enhanced by knowledge of family members' names. These uninvolved people are entitled to privacy and freedom from intrusion as they get on with their lives. WWGB (talk) 06:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you complaining, in part, about family members such as a father, mother, and uncle who are giving interviews to the print and tv media?--Epeefleche (talk) 06:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

In addition the wife was clearly identified in a press release by her family, the Russels and is under investigation about the whereabouts of her husband and how did he behave, when was he home, when he was absent, did they see any signs of his intentions? Just what they knew about him. Hardly an irrelevant matter. See for example the New York Daily News article clearly identifying Mrs. Katherine Russell. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/wife-family-alleged-boston-bomber-express-shock-death-article-1.1322882 Or legitimate questions about her involvement. "Tamerlan Tsarnaev's Wife: Who Is She?" type of concerns in http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2311809/Tamerlan-Tsarnaev-Boston-bomber-married-Katherine-Russell-converted-Islam-marry-him.html Her presence for 4 years with him, her testimony about his whereabouts, when did he travel to Russia, what were the contact with his family etc) will give clear leads to the investigation and our understanding of the case. Hardly an outsider that had nothing to do with all this. As for parents being identified, why did the father apply for US asylum. It's not that the culprits came to America themselves. What happened that he returned to Russia leaving the kids alone in the States? These are very relevant to the case for parents to be identified The concerns are so valid and crucial cited WP:BLPNAME "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed...", does not apply at all in this case. werldwayd (talk) 06:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 07:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there's a problem with using the names of family members, given that they are reported in a number of reliable sources.

However, I certainly have a problem with anything that implies that anyone other than the two brothers were involved in the attack. Mere speculation is not enough to connect anyone to the attacks. We might say that investigators want to talk with Tsarnaev's wife to find out about his activities, but we certainly cannot suggest that she was involved in any way, shape or form with the attacks.

The Daily Mail is a tabloid well-known for sensationalistic speculation and is not a good source for contentious claims about people. polarscribe (talk) 07:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Our objection was the derogatory manner in which his wife was being mentioned. Our Wikipedia entry sadly read: "He married a woman from North Kingstown, Rhode Island, who reportedly converted to Islam after meeting him and was 24 years old at the time of the bombing". I was incensed by the wording considering this as derogatory. He didn't marry some "woman". He married an individual. There was a year when they got married. Her age at the time of bombing is a senseless reference. It has nothing to do with her being 24 or 26 when he bombed the event. I considered our way of presenting his family life as an attempt to dehumanize and demonize him and objectifying his wife and his family as some secondary worthless matter. I also found objectionable the way our references were made about his very public parents. Our Wikipedia article said: Their father is a Muslim Chechen and their mother is a Muslim Dagestani. Further down it says: "Born in Kyrgyzstan (to whom?), Dzhokhar "Jahar" Tsarnaev was given the same first name, "Dzhokhar," as the first president of Chechnya, Dzhokhar Dudayev (by whom?). Conclusion: He was just given a name by a Chechen man and a Dagestani woman apparently? This is flimsy awkward reporting not an encyclopedic article. My alternative wording was: "Tamerlan was born in Dagestan, North Caucasus, Russia, in 1986, and Dzhokhar was born in Kyrgyzstan in 1993. Their father Anzor Tsarnaev is a Muslim Chechen and their mother Zubeidat is a Muslim Dagestani. The Tsarnaevs also have two daughters Amina and Bella. Their father was a traditional Muslim who reportedly shunned religious extremism. As children, Tamerlan and Dzokhar lived in Tokmok in Kyrgyzstan. In 2001, the family moved to Makhachkala, Dagestan in Russia. The entire Tsarnaev family immigrated in 2002 to the United States" adding many references. Thus we were factual and respectful to his family. werldwayd (talk) 07:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The above comments risk going off topic. Let's get back to the issue first raised above, and see WWGB's thoughts and those of others. (Anyway, for the record, a) she is a woman, which I don't read as derogatory and which more accurately describes her than saying she is "an individual" ... and, of course, these days ...; and b) the media at least in the early days was only identifying her age at the date of the bombing or date of the writing and were not identifying their year of marriage with particularity -- but these are normal editing issues that are not the focus of the question up above).--Epeefleche (talk) 07:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Here are very public media outlets naming his wife Katherine Russell by name: New York Daily News, The Globe and Mail, ABC News werldwayd (talk) 21:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Feiz Mohammad

I have removed material from Feiz Mohammad's page that attempts to link him to the Boston Marathon bombings in the flimsiest possible way. In a section labeled "Controversy," which contains a number of reports of Mohammad's actions and speeches that have been offensive, hostile and generally make him not a very nice person, a sub-section was added that reported that... one of his YouTube videos was linked in the channel of the suspected bomber.

This is right out and an incredibly thin attempt at guilt by association. It is not suggested that Mohammad had any contact with the bombers. It is not suggested that Mohammad encouraged the bombers to attack Boston. It is not suggested that Mohammad had anything to do with the attacks whatsoever - and he had absolutely no control over who might have linked his videos on YouTube. This is like suggesting that because Timothy McVeigh distributed gun-rights literature, that we should have a paragraph in every article for the gun-rights organizations he supported mentioning that they were part of McVeigh's terrorist attack.

Whatever other vile things Mohammad may have done in his life, there is absolutely no evidence that he had anything to do with the attacks and linking him to the attacks smacks of "find someone to smear." polarscribe (talk) 07:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• This should be addressed with all due sensitivity to BLP issues, relating to a public person. For sure. But there is already widespread coverage in RSs, including ones such as the New York Times[25], of this person and the bombing. Of course it is not an issue of him having anything to do with the bombings, and his comments in this regard to the public are worthy of noting (I think he either condemned it and/or said he had nothing to do with it), as well as any other RS-covered material that is proper to reflect for a public BLP. It should be done carefully, accurately, and reflect his statement.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • So you're suggesting it would be proper to have a section in the National Rifle Association mentioning that Timothy McVeigh was a member? That's documented in a number of reliable sources. But it's not known to have anything to do with the attacks and linking the two would be guilt by association. So we don't do it. If one of the suspects comes out and says "Yeah, I watched Feiz Mohammad's video and that's why I blew up the marathon" or if the law enforcement investigation concludes that there are specific links between his videos and the bombings, then it would be proper to discuss them in this context. But the mere fact that the suspects *watched* some of this guy's videos is of absolutely no probative value. They probably watched Gangnam Style, too. polarscribe (talk) 07:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• What? The Attorney General of Australia has commented on their posting of Gangam Style?--Epeefleche (talk) 07:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It was entirely proper to remove it, especially with that section heading. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Section headings, etc., can be addressed with normal editing. As can other issues with that para, in accord with our BLP rules for public persons. But here, looking at it, we have deletion of Feiz Mohammad having denounced the bombings. We have deletion of him having volunteered to NSW police that he had no connection with the suspects. And we have the Attorney General of Australia Mark Dreyfus supporting him. The para was not written properly, of course, but failing to cover this seems like the wrong approach. Simply edit the title, fix the text, and cover it properly.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • We could certainly mention that he denounced the bombings. There's no reason to mention that the suspects watched his videos, unless there is specific evidence that the videos influenced the attacks. Which doesn't exist right now. Maybe it will, and if that comes out, then we should revisit the issue.
  • Almost all of these problems arise from trying to do too much too fast. Wikipedia does not have a deadline and does not have to be first. The investigation into these attacks is in its very earliest days and much of what is being speculated in the media may well be wrong - as it was first when everyone jumped on the Saudi guy, then when everyone jumped on that missing student that Reddit internet-detectived. We can, should and must wait for conclusions to be drawn before we connect people with a terrible, despicable and inhuman act. polarscribe (talk) 07:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• We're halfway there now. And it certainly should not say the videos influenced the attackers. I'm sure if we follow the RSs, and what the Attorney General says, and what he himself says publicly, we'll be in the right place. Of course, the entire reason its even an issue is because, as Joe Lieberman and others have suggested, he has been noted for seeking to inspire people to take certain actions -- which is what made him notable in the first place, in part. But yes, we certainly have no evidence that there was such inspiration here. But hiding what he says, what the Attorney General says, and what the RSs say is not the way to go, IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• We can afford to wait. If the investigation concludes that the videos were a key part of the motivation of the attackers, then it should certainly be included. If not, then it is nothing more than an unencyclopedic footnote. polarscribe (talk) 08:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• No need to wait, though. It's pretty simple. In response to x, he said y, the country's attorney general said z. I would guess that most of the people who have ever read the article are reading it in these few days. They may as well see what is encyclopedic and is his response and the AG's comment. It's pretty easy to do that within our guidelines for BLPs of public figures.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Review request

Please, take a look at the Vanilla DeVille article. It appears to be a BLP nightmare, almost enterely made of unreliable sources and of claims made by herself. Cavarrone (talk) 09:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Including really non-notable "nominations" etc. I depuffed that part - but it really needs major plastic surgery. Collect (talk) 19:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Abouzar Noghani

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

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please remove article "Abouzar Noghani". I've been abused, as the article has been changed by someone who added some wrong information and tried to character assassination.

Kind Regards,

Abouzar Noghani. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.208.13 (talk) 11:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

PRODed. It will be deleted in about seven days, as the subject does not seem to meet the notability guidelines for inclusion. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Mariano Rajoy and Hitler comparisons

Can I ask for more eyes on this page? A user(s) keeps adding this poorly sourced material consisting mostly of original research, comparing the Spanish Prime Minister to Hitler. Valenciano (talk) 14:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Watched. polarscribe (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Travis Walker

Travis Walker Crude content, libelous. Incorrect information, non-existent boxing weight classifications. Inappropriate and non-factual nickname. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.17.157 (talk) 17:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I've reverted some vandalism, and added some PC1 protection. Perhaps you could check it again in case there's anything I missed. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Chris Bascombe

Please delete this page. It falls into the category of 'Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose.'

The history of this page is littered with edits aimed to disparage. Although attempts have been made to offer a fairer biography, the vandalism continues. It is a selective biography set up by someone with a motive not to be informative, but intimidating. The subject is also not notable enough to warrant wikipedia entry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.216.144.186 (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Being discussed here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Bascombe (2nd nomination).--ukexpat (talk) 01:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Frank Stitt

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

Attributing a chefs work to the growth of the "local food movement" is offensive. A chef is the one profiteering off this food not the farmer. The farmer sells the food for dirt cheap because if they didn't that chef wouldn't buy it. Then the chef turns that produce into 300% profit. Maybe if we made food more expensive, cut out the restaurants, and everyone made their own food that would be a locally grown food movement. But this is just good public relations for an already wealthy man. Also referring to grape harvesting as a "menial job" is double offensive to the people growing the food in this country. I would say editing Wikipedia is a menial job in comparison. Arflat (talk) 20:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not permitted to decide the things you are saying. If you can find a source claiming that he's profiteering (and such a view is common enough that adding it isn't undue weight), feel free to add it.

Furthermore, no definition of "locally grown food" defines it by how much profit is made, and there's no reason that someone who makes a lot of profit can't contribute to the movement as well.

But I suspect he's not actually making the profit you claim he is. The restaurant pays for more than just the cost of the food; they need to pay for rent, cashiers, advertising, business paperwork costs, etc. Just because they take in 300% of the cost of the food doesn't mean they make 300% profit.

And grape harvesting is a menial job because it is a low skill operation that involves physical work. Ken Arromdee (talk) 03:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I notice that Arflat's only contribution to Wikipedia is this harsh criticism of Frank Stitt. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

K. P. Yohannan

K. P. Yohannan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have concerns with the content on this page. Please check my User Talk page to see my discussion with the original editor. I have posted this here because there is unverified and potentially libelous information on this Biography. I believe the content should be removed and discussed in talk pages before being restored. My comments will be in italics below.

The missionary organisation has been surrounded by controversies events such as Kerala Government filing petition aganist K P Yohannan in High Court[7], - This source only states an allegation and the text here is misleading because it doesn't give any details in an effort to alter NPOV. This text clearly shows bias.

Kerala home minister had requested the help of central investigating agenies in tracking the money trail of Rs 1048 crores received by Gospel Of Asia[8], - this is hardly a "controversy" and looks like a routine audit according to the source. Also, how is this relevant to KP Yohannan. He may be the President, but I don't see how this should be in his biography section.

being accused of land grab [9], - it would be better to actually include details rather than saying something which means nothing

having a submission in the Kerala's High Court that the home department is investigating the functioning of Gospel For Asia[10], - once again, irrelevant in a biography on KP Yohannan

K P Yohannan is not a traditionaly ordained priest. He was paster and it was never occured in the history of any Christian organizations that a pastor was directly declared as a Bishop[11], - Reference doesn't state this

crores collected for charity and rehabilitation of Orphans used to purchace 2800 acres of land in Kerala. [12] - reference doesn't make this statement

On a case filed by the Government Of Kerala the High Court Of Kerala had ordered not to sell the land held by him or create any liability. [15] - hardly a reliable source of information for a Biography

LoveYourNeighbor1 (talk) 03:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I've dealt with some editorialising issues and am looking at some of the other points. I may not get them all. --Dweller (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The English is so mangled and the controversy section so poorly put together, I don't have the head for it, I'm afraid. I've made a start, but I'll let someone else sort this out. --Dweller (talk) 12:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• Could use assistance from experienced editors who may be able to reach a nuanced solution for fair coverage. :) I'm not able to help there, since I'm involved as an admin, but there's an RFC on the talk page now that is almost entirely populated by single-purpose editors - at least 12 as of this writing. (The other two are debatable, so I didn't flag them.) It seems quite likely that there is some external struggle being fought-out here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Johanna Dejager et al

Since joining wikipedia last year, Female bodybuilder enthusiast (talk · contribs) has created quite a few articles about, female bodybuilders. For example Johanna Dejager. Almost all of these articles have inadequate sourcing. While none of the ones I've reviewed have any defamatory content the notability seems thin in addition to the paucity of RS. I'd appreciate it if someone can examine this article (I already nominated Shelia Bleck for deletion, but am now having 2nd thoughts. Thanks.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I would support site ban for Female bodybuilder enthusiast, if someone wants to propose it.--В и к и T 08:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Steady on, that's a little extreme. Has anyone tried to discuss with them?--ukexpat (talk) 13:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Sure, Johanna Dejager seems to be written entirely from http://fibofoto.de/profiles/international/dejager/index.html which isn't the best source, but that doesn't make User:Female bodybuilder enthusiast a vandal, it merely makes them overenthusiastic. We can describe our article sourcing requirements, and have a good chance of having a fine, productive contributor. Meanwhile for the article itself - yes, I'm afraid I would support it being deleted for insufficient sourcing (essentially Wikipedia:Notability). --GRuban (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Someone who creates Death by horse cock is probably not the type of editor we need around here. I'm starting to think that the body builder articles might be a False flag. If these shenanigans continue, I've an ANI post ready to submit.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I tried to draw attention to these bodybuilder BLPs some time ago, but with no success and I had too many other things going on to deal with it later. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I think creations by both this user and another likely related user, Fbb fan (talk · contribs), are rather alarming. None appear to be well-written or well-sourced. Nearly everything should go for lack of sourcing in the article and lack of coverage otherwise AFAICT. JFHJr (㊟) 14:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Sanjeev Nanda‎

Need some additional eyes on this. A guy who almost got away with using money and power to influence the legal system, but someone(s) still think that that wasnt enough and that the wikipedia article needs to carry on the crusade for the victims. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

This needs to be moved to something else, since it's not a bio. And then reworded, and sourced properly. Do we even know if this meets WP:GNG? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Is the Barak Missle section even relevant? Most of the text doesn't even mention him. The sources only give passing mention. WP:COAT much? JFHJr (㊟) 13:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Chris Cutrone

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

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

this person is not notable in any way — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.15.14.59 (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

We're only interested in if he's notable in the Wikipedia way. If you believe he's not, you'll probably need to start at WP:BEFORE. In the meantime, I've added two templates to the article indicating the current issues with it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Now at AfD. JFHJr (㊟) 13:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Tucker Reed

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

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

Material is being repeatedly inserted about a sexual assault accusation. The sources are all social media websites such as personal blogs or magazine opinion blogs. Wikipedia is being used to promote external websites which detail this unfounded allegation of sexual assault. MisTemPest (talk) 22:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I removed the link to the subject's article, and the reference to the magazine. The first one because it's a primary source. The second one, because extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, and a rape accusation is indeed an extraordinary claim. Unless there are multiple, reliable sources that have covered this, we can include the coverage, but not the direct accusation by the subject. WP:BLP applies to all people mentioned directly or indirectly on Wikipedia articles, and that includes the person Mrs. Reed is accusing of having assaulted her. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources are cited. Other contributor attempting to preclude information regarding current contentious factual situation. Biased trolls IP address needs to be noted and blocked by Admin from further revisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.155.173.245 (talk) 05:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

MisTemPest is a biased user and is relentlessly trying to erase links to reliable websites that contain information regarding an important fact about Ms. Reed's life. To delete it would be to withhold information from wikipedia's encyclopedic community -- Ms. Magazine is credited as a source in many wikipedia pages. This information adhere's to wikipedias core content policies; it is neutral in tone, verifiably coming from a sound source, and is not an original research allegation. _______________________

FreeRangeFrog, the material you wish to delete from Reed's article (the "Challenged Material") is an extended reference to Miss Reed's body of work -- her writings. Since it merely identifies Reed's work, it certainly does not need any citation support beyond the fact of the writings themselves. It states as follows:

A self-identified sexual assault survivor, Reed authors the blog "Covered In Band-Aids," a collection of essays exploring "the assaulted woman’s life before, during and after her assault." Initially anonymous, Reed identified herself and her alleged attacker in a post on February 23, 2013.[4] This decision—and Reed's subsequent efforts to raise awareness for sexual assault victims at the University of Southern California—was profiled in a Ms. magazine article on April 10, 2013.[5]

All of this merely identifies the corpus of Reed's work. It is no less factual than identifying Reed's trilogy for young adults. You should further note that the Challenged Material makes no reference to a specific person -- does not identify a rapist -- and is not offered for this purpose. Indeed, the references to Reed's work accurately uses the phrase "alleged rapist", which fairly indicates that the man was not (yet) convicted of a crime. Instead, the Challenged Material has been offered to show how Reed is using her voice and writing skills. It is as if you are trying to delete the title of a book she wrote because the content of the book contains material objectionable to, say, a religious extremist. Your censoring of Reed's bio at the behest of this man furthers his efforts to silence Reed, and it is ill-founded and not in accordance with the standards promulgated by Wiki.

Please tell me exactly what in the Challenged Material requires citation support, when the mere fact of its existence is all that is being referenced. I believe your support of MisTemPest is ill-founded and misguided, and based on an emotional response to the content of Reed's blog, not the content of her biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.155.173.245 (talk) 08:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Social media websites such as personal blogs or magazine opinion blogs (such as, Ms. magazine blog) are NOT reliable sources. "Ms. Magazine blog" is not subject to the same standards as "Ms. Magazine", and the blog even has the disclaimer that all blog content is the opinion of the writer not the editors. The writer of the Ms. Magazine blog article is a student at the same university as the subject of the article. MisTemPest (talk) 15:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME applies to accusations as well as to outright statements that someone has committed a crime. "For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." Just because the source uses the phrase "alleged rapist" rather than "rapist" to describe a person doesn't make it permissible. Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

You are missing the point. These statements in Reed's biography identify no one and accuse no one -- they merely make clear that Reed's body of work focuses on the fact of her believing herself raped and reacting to that belief.

You are exhibiting a knee-jerk reaction that SILENCES this woman and IGNORES the writings/work that she most identifies with, by censoring out all references to her work EVEN THOUGH THESE REFERENCES DO NOT IDENTIFY OR LIBEL ANYONE.

The individual in question has the right to sue Reed for libel and in fact has (though he will have an uphill battle persuading a jury to ignore his four taped confessions to the crime). All of that is beside the point. Reed self-identifies as a feminist writer particularly focused on the topic of rape. You should not erase this central and critical facet of her work. You have no justification for doing so, and the cited language certainly does not provide such justification, since no one -- neither Reed nor anyone else -- is identified as "accused of a crime." Would you likewise edit Oprah Winfrey's biography to hide her report that she was incestuously raped as a child?

Reed's rapist is trying to rape her again, by silencing her. And you are colluding. 140.211.172.23 (talk) 21:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the individual can or cannot sue Reed, Wikipedia cannot be the conduit for allegations about anything. The subject's blog specifically named the alleged attacker, and it even included photographs. Beyond that, if the subject is not notable, then it becomes an issue of the article being merely promotional, and that's why it is now at WP:AFD. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for your multiple submissions [26][27][28], but your walls of text are excessive. Here is some general advice that applies to this situation:

1. Text should be supported by citations to secondary sources, avoiding excessive reliance on primary sources. See also specific rules regarding self-publications and claims made by the subject regarding the subject.

2. Linking to Amazon is discouraged because it is a sales site and contains user-generated content. Very little is actually reliable, notability-wise.

3. If you think there are reliable third-party publications giving significant coverage to this subject, then add them to the article. So far, I haven't found any.

4. If you think this person is notable in Wikipedia terms according to those sources, please have a read at basic notability criteria for living persons, as well as special criteria at WP:AUTHOR. Then, comment at the deletion discussion.

5. If you think the book is notable, then vote for a redirect or rename at the deletion discussion.

Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 01:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Charlayne Hunter-Gault

The article oCharlayne Hunter-Gault is a mess, with lots of conflicting information (parents' and children's names are different in different places, chronology is confused, etc.), and someone has inserted comments about this into the text of the article instead of fixing the data. I don't have the information to fix it, but I thought someone should know about it. (There's no "This article needs to be cleaned up" notice at the top of the page.)Lisapaloma (talk) 05:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

A tag has now been placed over there, and the above message has been copied to the talk page. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Boston Marathon bombings (again)

Could I ask those familiar with policy, particularly WP:BLPCRIME to keep an eye on the Boston Marathon bombings article, as we have at least one contributor arguing that policy (specifically "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law") does not apply if we have a reliable source that says that third parties (in this case, unnamed "U.S. officials") have witnessed a confession by the accused - see Talk:Boston Marathon bombings#Confession & Acknowledgement of Brother's Role. As uncomfortable as it may seem to some, we clearly have an obligation to refer to the alleged perpetrator as just that - or as a suspect - until a court determines otherwise. Wikipedia is not a court of law. We do not determine innocence or guilt. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• When looking at this, it is important to be clear about an important distinction. On the one hand, we have someone admitted to committing an act (a bombing). The act, in and of itself, is not a crime, and therefore that admission is not an admission to a crime, and blpcrime does not apply.

On the other hand, we have a specific criminal charge. That does fall under blpcrime. And an admission to comitting the act is not tantamount to a guilty plea. That is all discussed in greater detail at the above link that Andy provided.Epeefleche (talk) 07:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Complete and utter bollocks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:50, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

You may kill me. That would be an act. But it would not be a crime per se.

Why? Because you would have various defenses, including self-defense and insanity.

If you admit to killing me, you have not admitted to a crime. You are still innocent of a crime until proven guilty. But you have killed me.

Under our policy, you could properly (as you admitted) be reflected as having killed me. But it would not be proper to say you have murdered me. You would be an alleged murderer, still.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Nope. You don't get to Wikilawyer round policy just because you don't like it. We cannot state that the alleged bomber carried out criminal acts. Only that he is alleged to, or suspected of carrying out such acts. That is policy. It isn't open to negotiation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

You do not understand. The person has not committed a crime if they have committed the act, but have a viable defense. This is an elementary aspect of criminal law.

If you say you killed someone, that act is not criminal. In and of itself. You may be innocent of any crime, due to any of a number of defenses. As I already pointed out to you. Twice.

It is not wikilawyering to actually read the policy. And follow it. BLP:crime says:

"A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law.... .... BLPCRIME applies to low-profile individuals and not to well-known individuals, in whose cases WP:WELLKNOWN is the appropriate policy to follow."

And WP:WELLKNOWN says:

"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.... 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."

Epeefleche (talk) 08:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you trying to be intentionally obtuse? Of course we can say that the alleged bomber is an 'alleged bomber'. What is being argued is that we can drop the 'alleged' bit, and say that he did it. That is a clear violation of policy. And no, it doesn't just apply to 'low-profile individuals', no matter how much you try to misrepresent it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Note. If there is any suggestion that we should assume that WP:BLPCRIME policy is not sufficient to ensure that Wikipedia articles adhere to the presumption of innocence standards implied by the first sentence (i.e. "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law"), I shall have no hesitation in contacting the WMF, given the possible legal ramifications. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how many times I have to say this before you get it. But I will try again. Perhaps I've been unclear.

Crimes have elements, quite often. See Element (criminal law). The act itself is only one of the elements. Such is the case here. If you commit the act (killing, hitting, bombing) you have not necessarily committed a crime. If you admit to committing the act, you have not admitted committing the crime. You are still innocent of the crime. If you admit the act and we reflect it, we have not stated that you committed a crime.

In contrast, murder and rape and battery, for example, are crimes. Not just acts. Crimes. To report that you are a murderer, or rapist, or committed battery, we need (in those cases where blpcrime applies) for you to have been convicted of such (if you are alive).

Is that clearer? Really, this is crim law 101. Just look at the page murder and read the section on mitigating circumstances if I am still not clarifying for you the difference between the act (killing) and being guilty of the crime.

Also, please confirm for me your understanding of what I quoted to you above, from blpcrime, to the effect that the appropriate policy here is wp:wellknown, in any event.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not the slightest bit interested in your fatuous Wikilawyering WP:OR irrelevances. If you violate WP:BLP policy by stating that the individuals concerned committed criminal acts, I will revert you. If you persist, I will report you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I've quoted the policy to you. I've sought to explain. I've shared links to help you understand what I am saying. You seem to be conflating an element of crime with the crime itself. You seem not to be reading the policy, and not to be reading the footnote I quoted to you. I'm following wp policy to the letter. You, in response, are spewing works like "bollacks," and not engaging in any thoughtful analytical response to the policy quoted or examples and explanation given. I don't seem to have been able to communicate in a manner that you understand. And for that, I apologize. Nobody is saying that alleged murderers should be called murderers without having been convicted of murder. But you seem not to understand what I've sought to communicate. If you wish to involve the WMF, as you suggested, perhaps they can better communicate with you.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Your 'examples' are irrelevant, and seem designed to confuse the issue. The specific question was whether we should continue to refer to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev as 'a suspect' or 'the accused', based on claimed confessions. This seems simple enough, without inventing fancy hypothetical scenarios involving other circumstances entirely. As for WMF involvement, if we are going to ignore the presumption of innocence as required in WP:BLPCRIME on the basis that "someone is notable so it doesn't apply", as you seem to be suggesting, I'm sure they will have to step in soon enough. Hopefully though, we can get a little input from people less keen on filling this page with irrelevances, and sticking to the point. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• In spite of the fact that there has been some spirited discussions regarding this article, Most of the editors are extremely well behaved with regard to their editing of the article. I doubt if there is an editor at all who has not seen at least one of there own edits reverted or removed. Yet there hasn't been anything remotely close to an edit war; just some spirited discussion, at times. I have high confidence that the article's integrity will be upheld to a high standard and remain in accordance with all relevant policy, pillar, and guideline. My76Strat (talk) 09:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I also draw a distinction between admission of taking an criminal act and pleading guilty to a specific charge. The "suspect" has now told the carjack vic and law enforcement that they did the bombings and killed the MIT officer. His wounding and capture in the manhunt is 110% proof he was in the police shootout. He even has stated reasons for the bombing (reasons much like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faisal_Shahzad). If someone claims responsibility for an act and that comes from RS we no longer need to dance around words like Suspect or Alleged or Accused as they apply to the acts. We only might need these words in relation to the actual criminal charge.

There is overwhelming evidence these guys did the bombing and the live brother admits it and says why he did it. We do not need to wait for a conviction before accepting him at his word that he is the bomber and just saying that he is the bomber.

There is also the suggestion we can't rely on what the Washington Post and Boston Globe say that law enforcement told them. If we toss out every RS just because we don't like the report, and yet we can't do OR like going to the hospital and asking him ourselves, how are we supposed to write anything?

Now for the dead brother - we can and should say he is the bomber based on his admissions to the carjack guy and the other evidence. There is no way he is protected by "presumed innocent until convicted" because he is dead and will never be charged or convicted. Here are a couple high profile examples of people who did not confess, but died in the act like the older brother, and what Wikipedia says right now:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Atta "was an Egyptian hijacker and one of the ringleaders of the September 11 attacks who served as the hijacker-pilot" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waleed_al-Shehri was one of five hijackers...

Legacypac (talk) 09:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a court of law. It isn't for us to decide what is 'overwhelming evidence'. I can see that this is going to need admin attention. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

You can't really use the 911 hijackers or even Lee Harvey Oswald because of the Warren Commission and the 9/11 Commission. See if you can find an example that didn't result in a congressional commission to determine their guilt. Perhaps there will be one for this event. Otherwise it is simply best to just state the facts. My76Strat (talk) 10:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: I have raised this matter at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• I hate all this "the media reports this, the media reports that" nonsense. This is not a news site; we should simply report what is, and is not, the case. At this point he hasn't stood trial or been convicted of anything. He hasn't even pleaded guilty in a court. Until those things happen he's still a suspect, and that's what we should say. It's not unheard of for people to confess to a crime out of court and ultimately be found not guilty (he could be insane and have imagined the whole thing for example). I'm not saying that this is likely, but as an encyclopaedia we should be documenting hard facts, and "media says this, tabloid says that" is not hard facts. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 10:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Saying that someone committed a bombing is, by any common sense standards, saying that they committed a crime. It is true that technically, that is not saying they committed a crime, because it is possible to commit a bombing and be not guilty of an actual crime for various reasons, but if you're going to interpret the policy that way, it would be meaningless. We wouldn't have to worry about saying that any person killed any other person, because after all, there are circumstances where killing someone isn't a crime so we're not accusing them of a crime. Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Reporting that someone committed a bombing is certainly not saying that they committed a crime. They are not guilty of a crime for having done so. They may have defenses -- for example, duress or entrapment (which is a common defense for bombings). Anyone who says "because he admitted committing the bombing, he committed a crime" would be flatly incorrect. So, just because someone admits committing an act, while we can report it, we have to be very careful not to report that they committed a crime.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I personally think the argument that people sometimes confess to things they didn't do is overwhelming. If Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who has explicitly not been read his Miranda rights and is lying in a hospital bed, confesses to anything at all... this means nothing other than that he confessed under duress. There are many, many cases of people under duress confessing to things they didn't do. Heck, there are many, many cases of people confessing to things they didn't do, not under duress, just because they wanted some attention. Just because he was there at the same time as his brother is not a conviction. Unless and until he is convicted, Dzokhar remains a suspect. --Merlinme (talk) 23:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• This is a straightforward issue: Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has not been found guilty in a court of law, and is therefore a suspect. Wikipedia does not lose anything or distort the truth in stating as much, and does not convict people in place of courts. One could argue many points in addition: that for obvious reasons he is the principle suspect; that reliable sources have heard from Federal officials that he confessed; that he was for a time semi-conscious and cannot speak; that he wasn't initially read his miranda rights or offered counsel. But as far as "suspect" is concerned, our course is clear here. -Darouet (talk) 02:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Paul Kevin Curtis

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.

---

I do believe there is an element of BLP in violation regarding Paul Kevin Curtis. The redirect should be deleted, and serious consideration should be given to removing his name entirely from in the 2013 ricin letters article. It is just as encyclopedic to say "a man was arrested, but the charges were dropped" as it is to name the person who is otherwise not known and entitled to privacy, in my opinion. My76Strat (talk) 08:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I've made some appropriate corrections, hopefully they will not be reverted. I'll be looking to replace references where I can maintain the articles verifiability without using the ones that gratuitously plaster this man's name across their headlines or throughout their context. Help is welcome. My76Strat (talk) 08:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Per consensus reached at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 April 23#Paul Kevin Curtis, the redirect page has been deleted and SALTed.--ukexpat (talk) 19:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I concur with the good faith handling of this. I'd add that at least one diff was revdeleted to remove the persons name. I am not against that, nor would I be if it was done here. My76Strat (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2013 (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.

Naomi (pornographic actress)

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.

---

Please review this diff and, if appropriate "unhide" the material I've hidden. I do not know when we can rely on a twitter feed that is verified to belong to the subject. I know there IS a rule, but I don't know what it is. David in DC (talk) 11:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Verified by Twitter have a blue checkmark like: https://twitter.com/TheRealDaphne --Canoe1967 (talk) 11:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

We have to be very careful about using selfpublished sources for content in articles - usually it's a no, but there are exceptions - but in this case it's not being used as a source, per se; more like an external link. I don't know of any formalised enwiki process on deciding whether a twitter feed is "official". If an account's been verified at Twitter's end, that's good enough for me, but this one doesn't seem to be. Her twitter feed looks plausible to me, but I'm not an expert on identifying pornstars. If anybody else can bring some other convincing reason to believe that it's real, we should be open to that... bobrayner (talk) 11:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not her. She has long exited the business. That account is probably run by the same person that operates naomirussellxxx.com, which is not her "official" site. One good way to ascertain whether a twitter is legitimate for porn stars is to look for posts of current photos of their day to day lives. That account has none. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, everybody. The specific issue is resolved, and I've got food for thought about the more generic issue, both as to porn actors specifically and for twitter in general. Here's another thing I don't know how to do: seal this box up as resolved. If someone else will do that, I'll take the BLP/N notice off the talk page thereafter. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2013 (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.

Brinda Somaya

This article is an advertisement with a single reference to a commercial website belonging to the person. Article must be deleted to meet Wikipedia standards of non-commercial and neutral articles written with verifiable sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brinda_Somaya — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.51.195 (talk) 04:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

You are free to request deletion at articles for deletion, following the outlined procedure. Lectonar (talk) 12:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Judith Miller

Judging from comments on the talk page, it appears that the article on American journalist Judith Miller contains a signifiant amount of controversial and potentially libelous material. Unfortunately I myself am not available to edit it at this time, but something ought to be done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidhof (talk • contribs) 10:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Raymond Ibrahim

The "hate-mongering" section, which keeps creeping in, totally violates Wikipedia's policy for biographies of living persons: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous."

In fact, the whole section itself is hate-mongering against Mr. Ibrahim, a living person,and very libelous. I never see such biased texts on Wikipedia's other biographies.

Moreover, many of these hate-filled assertions are in fact "unsourced or poorly sourced":

ONE: Ibrahim's August, 2012 report for The American Thinker that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt had publicly crucified opponents of President Morsi in front of the presidential palace prompted the Thinker's blog editor, Rick Moran, to qualify the report as "at best, an exaggeration, and at worst, a hoax." [9]

This does not take into account Ibrahim's own response, which can be read here http://www.meforum.org/3330/egypt-crucifixions and which documents that Sky News itself admits to publishing a story about the Brotherhood crucifying people, but then took it down after he translated to English and disseminated it. Moreover, lots of other sources, especially Arabic ones, still have the story on the Net.

TWO: In July, 2012, a report by Ibrahim that a Muslim cleric proscribed sodomy as permissible if done to expand the anus, allowing the insertion of a suicide bomb, was demonstrated to be a hoax. [10][11]

Again, nothing was demonstrated as being a hoax. Ibrahim fully rebutted the hoax charges here : http://frontpagemag.com/2012/raymond-ibrahim/islamic-sodomy-or-%E2%80%98islamophobic-hoax%E2%80%99/ A video of an Arabic reporter saying exactly what Ibrahim translated about Islamic sodomy exists on the Internet, and was picked up by other reputable news organizations, including MEMRI, here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ik5GZap_-_A

THREE: In May of 2012, Ibrahim propagated a video of a beheading in Syria deceptively mislabeled “Graphic Video: Muslims Behead Christian Convert in ‘Moderate’ Tunisia.” [12]

Wrong. Ibrahim linked to an Arabic news commentary video where the host who aired the clip clearly states it was in Tunisia here: http://schnellmann.org/beheading-tunesianconvert-to-quran.html Conversely, the sources saying it was in Syria do not have the same level of documentation.

FOUR: In his November, 2011 essay "Why Does the Crucifix ‘Provoke’ Muslims?",[13] Ibrahim propagated a report that falsely claimed Muslim students were party to a suit filed by a George Washington University Law Professor, John Banzhaf, aimed to provide relief to alleged religious discrimination by The Catholic University of America. No students, Muslim or otherwise, were actually party to the suit.

Fox News is the one to report that Muslims were involved -- and that report, and those charges are still up! According to Fox: "Banzhaf said some Muslim students were particularly offended because they had to meditate in the school’s chapels “and at the cathedral that looms over the entire campus – the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception.” http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/muslims-want-catholic-school-to-provide-room-without-crosses.html

FIVE: To a 2007 essay accusing Ibrahim of capitalizing on "Islamophobia", he is reported to have responded: ...after this Islamist op-ed was published, I received much heat from my supervisors at the Library of Congress, partially culminating in my recent resignation from that American bibliotech — another institution that goes out of its way to appease, especially where Saudi money and princes are concerned.[14]

This goes to the hate smearing sit Loon Watch, and their link to Ibrahim's supposed comment doesn't even open!

SIX: In a March 29, 2013 essay on David Horowitz's webzine frontpagemag.com, Ibrahim's article "The Threat of Islamic Betrayal" argued that all politically outspoken Muslim Americans should be feared and suspected of planning to act on hidden bellicose agendas, writing: Indeed, the true “lesson” is best captured by the following question: If some Muslims, including women, are willing to go to such lengths to eliminate the already ostracized and downtrodden non-Muslim minorities in their midst—attending churches and becoming like “family members” to those infidels they intend to kill—how much deceit and betrayal must some of the smiling Muslim activists of America, especially those in positions of power and influence, be engaging in to subvert and eliminate the most dangerous of all infidels, the original Great Satan?[8]

Very sloppy accusation, and proof that mavigogon is on a smear campaign and violating Wikipedia's terms. Note he says that Ibrahim says "all" Muslims, when Ibrahim's quote clearly states "some." Moreover, the quote is the very last paragraph of Ibrahim's article, which has about a thousand words above it setting up the context of why he made that conclusion.

I hope Wikipedia administrators watch the Ibrahim page carefully, as it is clear there are some who are trying to distort it -- not to mention violate Wikipedia's policies for biographies of living persons, which prohibits libelous and slanderous text

Thank you.