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.

Seth MacFarlane

• Seth MacFarlane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This edit seems to indicate knowledge of subject's death. While this seems to be vandalism and has been reverted, I thought this was something which should be posted here immediately, no matter how inconsequential this may turn out to be. BusterD (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Sunny Lane

It says she is working as a prostitute, unreliable source. Hello, wake up! These kinds of claims are highly libellious!--Whimsical biblical (talk) 18:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Why are the sources unreliable? Looie496 (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

While none of the sites directly say she is a prostitute (both mentions in the lead, which means 5 sources altogether), she does in fact work for the Bunny Ranch, where there is legalized prostitution. I'd suggest we rewrite it to say that "she sometimes works at the Bunny Ranch". Any thoughts? Synergy 19:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't actually object, but sometimes I think we go to far. Let's be honest. Porn stars don't get jobs at the Bunny Ranch doing light house work or accounting.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for that? :O Gwen Gale (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's just say it's original research.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Truth be told, I think the cited sources support the assertion. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Her job title is unstated, but you can "book an appointment"[1] with her, so that may possibly exclude light housework or accounting, barring her having the credentials of a CPA. Quatloo (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I imagine that there are lots of guys who will now use the euphemism of "getting their taxes done" in reference to visiting the Bunny Ranch. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 05:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on. This should be removed under WP:V and WP:BLP. The Moonlight Bunny Ranch should properly be considered as a questionable source under WP:V as it does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and is promotional in nature. It should only be used as a source for the Moonlight Bunny ranch article or Dennis Hof under WP:SELFPUB. Further, sources should directly support the assertions presented. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Found a reliable source about her working at the brothel, which I will put in. [2] Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Added several other citations which supports the assertion that she worked at the Bunny Ranch.[3][4][5] Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Uhh... Well, OK, certainly the sources show that she worked there, and some strongly suggest that she would be engaging in prostitution, and it's not crazy to conclude that that's what happened... but, for the sake of argument, couldn't it also be that she was acting as a stripper at the ranch to draw new customers there with misleading promotions and that people wanting to go beyond that would have to hire someone else? That sounds like just the sort of thing that could happen at a place like that, not that a porn actress turning prostitute is too shocking either I guess. This is just the sort of claim that I think should be backed up by a source that's nonambiguous and that we very clearly spell out who said what. In this case, maybe just says she worked at the Bunny Ranch for a length of time and that she promised legal full service or whatever the full quotes were. There's no great need to outright declare she acted as a prostitute hen we can let the objective and proven facts speak for themselves. At the very least, I think that the statement is unlikely to lead to a libel lawsuit, and with her being a public figure and all her lawyers would have trouble claiming malice with statements from her implying it's true. DreamGuy (talk) 13:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Bill O'Reilly

All it is a collection of negative stuff people said about Oreilly. I dont really like him but come on, how is this neutral? Also even if it was not insanely biased how does this warrant a encyclopedia page? You can find random negative comments on any1 from someone with a apposing view. I would understand the need for this page if some of the criticism was from important sources but almost all off it is from Bill Oreilly opposites who's jobs are sort of to attack him. Every time Oreilly goes off on someone it does not necessarily deserve inclusion in an article. DRxAWESOME (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC){{|DRxAWESOME}}

In any case, this has been argued about multiple times before and the consensus is clear. You may want to read the previous discussions to get an idea what has already been said:

(this listing can be found at the top of Talk:Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the concept of this article is stupid. But it really does no harm to Mr. O'Reilly. As you pointed out it is his job to make controversial statements and it is the others' job to criticize him for them. The problem is WP editors who think the mission of an encyclopedia is to carry on political debates when it should be to give people basic facts about a topic.Borock (talk) 17:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ya but its concept is unencyclopedic, WP:NOT, wp:soap DRxAWESOME (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Please be aware that several of the editors on that article have come to agreement on a new and improved version of the article that addresses many of the concerns listed. Once a final copy-edit takes place it will replace what is there now. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a fairly obvious POV content fork, which in almost all cases is against policy. We should treat the biography of an individual as a whole, even if it takes up multiple pages, and apply the normal tests of common sense and Wikipedia policy to that whole. In this case, is there anyone even willing to argue that a criticism article longer than the vast majority of BLPs doesn't violate undue weight? Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 00:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I would caution anyone against reading the deletion history and thinking that the article had broad consensus. Several of the AfD discussions were dominated by accusations of bad faith rather than honest discussions about the article. There is a definite pattern in the talk page history that anyone opposing of is "against old consensus" or is acting in bad faith. The sourcing in the article is poor, sourced almost entirely as confirmation that the criticism occurred with no reliable sourcing to significance or interpretation (i.e. reliable secondary sources). While I agree that criticism of the subject is well worth covering, the current article is a mockery of the way a controversial subject should be handled. SDY (talk) 00:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The majority of the material appears to concern the TV show rather than the person. Perhspa the best way to handle this would be to move the article to something like "Criticism of The O'Reilly Factor".   Will Beback  talk  00:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I like this idea. Arkon (talk) 00:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

That would be an improvement. The stuff has clearly been moved out of Bill O'Reilly to prevent undue weight, without deleting it. Re-merging the material would re-create the weight problem, unless it could be shortened drastically, which seems unlikely. Renaming is better than nothing. Rd232 ^talk 01:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I and others have listed before, numerous times, why this article passes wikipedia policies, do I need to dig through my posts and post them here numerating WHY they pass wikipedia policy (something about too long on main article=allowed on fork, and others; busy writing 14 essays for school so no time to re-research policiesmuch faster knowing which to look for)? Seriously, this is why I'm against disparate treatment of BLP's, being a BLP does not shield anyone from legitimate criticism. There are TWO full archives of discussion on deletion and numerous deletion debates, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. This only detracts from the ongoing effort to improve the article which already follow WP:V, WP:NOTE, WP:RS. There is considerable debate and discussion over at talk, why delete the article when it's being worked on?! (btw, the only edits nominator have made are to try and remove the article) ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit: Specifically:

• Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism_and_praise
• WP:Content forking#Article spinouts
• Wikipedia:Content_forking#Articles_whose_subject_is_a_POV

Summary of rebuttals: Obviously it is longer, if it was shorter, WHY would the article exist? It's sole purpose is to satisfy the middle policy (article spinouts) which does not make it an automatic "POV FORK". As for criticism, do you believe it is possible to report criticism without having criticism in it? If we stripped everything down to be non-offensive (which would be impossible), that would be an non objective coverage of controversy, as you are in essence, saying there is no criticism/controversy. The best possible way to cover it is to be objective. BLP allows this. Quote: "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone." Wikipedia does not censor, and the article is constantly being revised again and again to try and maintain its adherence to policy, and for the reason it exists by itself, again, the second policy listed above: ARTICLE length. In fact, there has been discussion on the talk page that the article might once revised be nominated for deletion because it would be shortened so that #2 is no longer valid. If it gets there, I'm not opposed to deletion, until though, this is just rehashing previous flawed arguments to delete. This has been said through and through, and I'm only reiterating some of the many things said before. I mean, seriously, how is this much different than WP:IDONTLIKEIT? ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, it appears that this has been brought up before a lot, using that little search thing at the top I found out that this exact article has been brought up here 7 or 8 times, Im going to go through what was said in those discussions to get a better idea of the consensus on this topic. In my opinion though this article does not belong in an encyclopedia. DRxAWESOME (talk) 03:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

also who put spa by my name? DRxAWESOME (talk) 03:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This article clearly violates WP:POVFORK, specifically :

There is currently no consensus whether a "Criticism of..." article is always a POV fork, but it is a common fault of many articles. If possible, refrain from using "criticism" and instead use neutral terms such as "perception" or "reception"; if the word "criticism" must be used, make sure that such criticism considers both the merits and faults, and is not entirely negative (consider what would happen is a "Praise of..." article was created instead). (emphasis in original)

The article should be about the reception of O'Reilly as a whole, being only about the negative reception of him violates WP:NPOV. The page should be renamed "Public perception of Bill O'Reilly" or something similar and should include both positive and negative aspects. Oren0 (talk) 03:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm so glad that DRxAWESOME brought this up w/o notifying the four or five of us actually involved in a major edit of the article. It has changed significantly in content within the last week or so and I and a few others have been trying to restore a little balance to it. DRxAWESOME apparently took it upon himself to report this despite our efforts and despite the fact that we made it clear we were trying to improve the article. I also personally feel the SPA applies considering he seems to know quite a bit more than the average newb (he sees what he thinks is a problem then reports it to BLP 2 minutes later, seems to be pretty fast for someone apparently not familiar w/the system). Soxwon (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that editors who have commented here, read the current version of the article before resorting to the general disfavor of "Criticism of..." articles. The article is significantly different from the one that was reported by DRxAWESOME. If problems remain, fine, but it is still not a finished product and suggestions sort of "get rid of it" are welcome. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Um, I went through every time I could find this article brought up here (6 times by different people) and 18 separate people thought it should be deleted for blatant blp violations and 7 thought it was ok to stay. Maybe we should delete it because most people think it is against the rules. If any1 want I can go post exactly what each person said in like a graph or something. DRxAWESOME (talk) 20:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Oh and on the blp page thing it said that it should be taken down right away because it is about a living person and might make him mad or sad. DRxAWESOME (talk) 20:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you edited before as an IP? Soxwon (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Does that matter? DRxAWESOME (talk) 21:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Considering you know way too much to be a newb then yes it does. Soxwon (talk) 21:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Despite intense negative feelings for the subject, I really see this as a negative POV fork that should be deleted, or at best some of the criticism merged into the main article. Don't think it's going anywhere considering it's history at AFD. Sigh Dlohcierekim 20:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I wish to see it merged and considering it has gone from 65 KB to 29 KB in just two weeks I think that, given time, this could very well be merged back into the main article. Soxwon (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Do we need to do an AFD or is the consensus here enough? DRxAWESOME (talk) 21:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Start an AfD if you want, I still say it's premature and that the article can still be integrated into the main one. Soxwon (talk) 21:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It's amazing we have Category:Criticisms of living persons articles. It seems like as a class they should be merged into the main articles of their subjects (assuming they otherwise meet our criteria, like having sources for all negative BLP material). Full disclosure: DRxA posted a request on my talk page that I look at this and comment here; I have no love of Bill O'Reilly. LadyofShalott 01:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Did not realize this conversation was started by a SPA (DRxAWESOME). This is a nowhere conversation. This issue has been chewed to death. The last AFD was speedy closed less than two months ago. Continuing to bring the matter up here and continuing to attempt to AFD serves no purpose other than to stir up drama and waste time better spent elsewhere-- it's disruptive. Inviting people to join the drama is disruptive. And to be perfectly blunt, that DRxAWESOME is a SPA created for the sole purpose of stirring this pot strains my ability to assume good faith. Dlohcierekim 01:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, any and all with concerns are welcome to help edit it to their satisfaction. With the progress that's been made I think that it can be integrated into the main article after some careful editing. Soxwon (talk) 16:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Daniella Rush (second listing)

Resolved

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

(copy from previous listing)

I come to seek guidance. I've added information with 2 sources, which User:Morbidthoughts undid. Then I added 2 other sources (none of the total of 4 sources was a Wikipedia mirror), and he again undid. He claims of my talk page User_talk:Debresser#Daniella_Rush that all 4 sources are unreliable. What is your opinion? Debresser (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If you get no answers here, you also have the option of consulting with the reliable sources noticeboard about the reliability of each source outside the context of the Daniella Rush article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll consider that if no reactions will be forthcomming here in the next day or so. Debresser (talk) 01:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Morbidthoughts on this one. We can reasonably assume that the real name of a porn star who acts under a pseudonym is information that requires both reliable sourcing and a sound argument for inclusion. IMBD and realname.of fail the first requirement, and no argument that the real name is relevant has been made. Keep in mind that the mere existence of information isn't enough to justify inclusion. Avruch ^T 16:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

(Continuation)

Thank you for your reaction. I argumented on my talk page that her real name can be found on quite a few webpages and forums. Also, she has left the pornographic industry some years ago (due to a car accident). For these two reasons I see no reason not to include her real name.

What is your opinion about the other two sources I brought? Debresser (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

None of the sources you've added meet our reliable sources standards. Morbidthoughts actions are correct here. Exxolon (talk) 20:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Morbidthoughts, Exxolon, and Avruch. None of those sources are reliable to cite something as important as a name on a BLP. Sometimes porn actors use a pseudonym to maintain their privacy and do not want it included. For that reason, our sources have to be impeccable for us to include a real name. The sources you added are not reliable since there is no indication that fact checking is done like a publisher would do. That she left the industry weighs for keeping it out more than including it, I think, since she no longer works in the industry and no indication that she ever decided to use her real name for porn film work. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you . I will consider this question resolved. Debresser (talk) 21:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hakan Yalincak article issues

This was tagged by an anon for speedy deletion as an attack page with the in text comment "subject of article is editing and making changes that make disparaging comments about those allegedly involved in his own legal issues. content violates court ordered agreements." I've blanked and protected all but the lead which was cleaned up by User:DGG. SPA's-- Special:Contributions/Downeyscan, Special:Contributions/64.52.49.34, Special:Contributions/MediaTruthTracker, allegedly the subject-- Special:Contributions/Hakanyalincak. The article was stable till this series of edits-- by Hakanyalincak. Then came the three SPA's.] I'm all for deleting it in it's entirety for the sake of human dignity, but it's a long standing article with sources and he may be notable. What's your pleasure? Dlohcierekim 23:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there an event we can merge him to? The "multi-million dollar hedge fund fraud and Ponzi scheme" that the article links him to might be notable in itself. In that case as a BLP1E he should be merged in with that article. Per this source her mother also appears connected with the event. While I don't think either of them should have an article about themselves, their mention in an article about the Ponzi scheme would be appropriate if the scheme itself was notable. ThemFromSpace 23:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is there seems to have been several different frauds; and the major one (the hedge fund) was relatively low value ($7m). [6] Tricky. We could try moving/merging to Yalincak hedge fund scam or something. Rd232 ^talk 01:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I like that idea. The article before Dlohcierekim removed most of it seemed to have lots of sensitive content (about his mental health, hospitalization, etc.), and as far as I can tell the individual is not very notable anyway. Making the article be about the incident instead would satisfy notability concerns and maybe ward off people who would otherwise be putting sensitive BLP stuff in there. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that the article is outdated....it was fine the way it was and it shouldn't have been tampered with aside from inclduing updates. What is notable about the scheme was that it was for, getting the facts right, $43 million bank fraud, 8.9 million wire fraud, $30 million insurance fraud, $2.5 million credit card fraud, and about hundreds of millions of dollars in potential exposure to various banks who provided prime brokerage and lines of credit to the hedge fund. That is what makes it notable....what makes it even more notable is that 2 days after wikipedia took this action the Turkish press covered it...that is notable, the fact that Hakan Yalincak was on CNBC with Melissa Lee and she won an emmy for her piece makes him notable. However, there has been no substantive updates to his bio in more than a year, even though he has been released from prison according to the www.bop.gov website. And, the fact that the Yalincaks havent been deported, even though an immigration judge in Hartford, CT ordered them removed, makes him notable (the Second Circuit issued a stay of removal preventing their removal). And, I am a writing a book on Hakan Yalincak as he is the poster child for bank and investor overindulgence in imagination and fancy culminating in the credit crisis. Finally, all of the information that was posted is true, however, it needs to be written in a voice neutral matter. all of the sensitive information is publicly available as are the settlements. I can only think of two people that would engage in vandalism or want to take the site down, and both were defendants in a lawsuit filed by Yalincak and both of whom match the ISP registered by Wiki. To the extent wiki allows them to denigrate a profile that has been useful to everyone from the New York Post to the Turkish press to a book writer like me it would denigrate the priciples wiki stands for: sharing open information. That is a sad tragedy. Mary —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marymccully (talk • contribs) 18:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Please hide this vandalism edit and then delete my link if necessary

Please delete. JustGettingItRight (talk) 01:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but this isn't really a serious matter that needs to be oversighted, just typical immature vandalism. Now that it's been reverted, we can just ignore it and it'll be fine. In general, edits can only be hidden by oversighters, and under specific circumstances (see WP:Oversight#Policy). Unless the person mentioned in that edit specifically requests to have the edit oversighted, there's no need to do anything. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Jennifer Fitzgerald#BLP vios in history?

Please comment at this recently-kept BLP sensitive article regarding potential issues on the possible BLP violations in the historical revisions of the article. –xeno ^talk 03:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Jerry Supiran

My name is Kelly (my username is Pallor Tor) and my boyfriend is Jerry Supiran. It lists him as deceased on his wikipedia page. Since I am his girlfriend, I can tell you first hand that he is very much ALIVE.

It also lists things about him that are not true and the whole article about him is done in a way that makes him look bad.

I keep trying to change it but it keeps being changed back.

I need someone to help me as I do not know what to do at this point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pallor tor (talk • contribs) 06:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks like this has already been handled through OTRS (diff). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 10:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The article probably could be deleted since it is unsourced and mainly just a list of roles with no real information about Mr. Peterson. Best wishes to you both. :-) Borock (talk) 03:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Scott Peterson

Scott Peterson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) More eyes please. Death row inmate and his article contains quite a bit of original interpretation of the case and the facts against him. This is intolerable. There is a lot of dubious uncited information that has had a {{fact}} tag on it, sometimes for months. This stuff should be cited or gutted. Help please. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 11:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I sourced everything that had fact tags.--chaser - t 21:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing non-contentious material, IMDB, and being Canadian

An editor has been going through and removing non-contentious material from BLPs of actors that are entirely unsourced or poorly sourced (usually relying on IMDB alone). The changes I happened to notice (due to my bias) are removal of the claims people are "Canadian", such as in Rachel Wilson. Now, to me, I can see an arguement for deleting articles that are entirely unsourced or badly sourced (counting IMDB as bad). But, to me, if we choose to keep such articles (which the community has chosen), then I think it's wrong to selectively remove the least contentious statements in such articles. While it's pretty easy to find non-imdb sources in Google, most of the "easy finds" are as bad or worse in reliability, often being based on imdb, Wikipedia itself, or are promotional (non-independent) in nature. So, I'm hoping people responding to this, won't think there's a simple solution of just Googling-up sources quickly. That will work for some, and most eventually, but it won't solve the entire problem any time soon. --Rob (talk) 04:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

If someone disagreed with the material and removes it, does that not make it contentious? Kevin (talk) 05:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Better not to have material than to have poorly sourced material on a BLP (at least until we can source it). If someone removes material as poorly sourced, you are entitled to replace it if you can source it. That's it.--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Far better to not have articles getting undiffused back into unsorted parent categories, such as Category:Television actors, Category:Film actors and Category:Voice actors, which have an explicit rule requiring articles to be diffused out of them and into subcategories instead. We do not want those categories filling back up again because somebody made a concerted effort to remove references to actors' nationalities just because of where they were referenced to, when the nationality isn't actually in dispute. The undifferentiated parent categories need to be empty. If IMDb is really that inadmissible as a source for a simple, uncontroversial piece of information whose chances of being misrepresented on imdb are virtually nil anyway, then we're better off deleting articles sourced only to IMDb than we are creating a whole class of articles that can't have the standard and normal and correct categorization rules applied to them. Bearcat (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

"Contentious" means that there's an actual dispute about the material. The fact that somebody took information out of an article solely because it was sourced to a reference site they dislike doesn't make the information "contentious" if there's no actual evidence of another source that explicitly disputes or contradicts the original information. Frankly, if IMDb is really such an unreliable source that it doesn't support describing and categorizing an actor as Canadian on Wikipedia, then it isn't a reliable enough source to support describing or categorizing them as an actor, either. Bearcat (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Just coming back on the idea of alternative sources being dismissed as "promotional". Promotional sources are permissible as references to the subject itself if they do not contradict independent sources. What they cannot do is to establish notability. Agathoclea (talk) 15:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Scott, I'm not arguing against removal per se. I'm arguing against the removal of the least contentious parts of an article, while keeping all the rest. If you or the editor doing this, wish to nominate the content for deletion, or blank it, that's fine with me. I make no objections. But, if you remove a central defining piece of information, and hide it in a top-level category, then that's where the problem is. Being harder to find, they'll be less likely to be fixed. If you can't say a Canadian is a Canadian, you shouldn't say anything about them at all. I appreciate the standard you want to set, but that can only be achieved if you actually require BLPs to be sourced, or be deleted, but the community hasn't accepted that. Agathoclea, I don't understand your point, since imdb, with all it's flaws, is still better than a typical promo profile, which has no fact checking or review system at all, and has a clear motive to lie in some cases. --Rob (talk) 15:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

true, but a) it can be used to collaborate the imdb profile and b) it can't be BLP violation (which is the issue at hand here) when the subject of the articles claims something about himself. Apart from that wikipedia is not about truth(tm) but about sourcing. Agathoclea (talk) 15:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of whether WP:BLP comes into play, IMDB fails WP:RS. It's an acceptable external link but it shouldn't be used as a reference. Durova^Charge! 16:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Then nominate articles that are sourced only to IMDb for deletion. Using it to undermine WP:SUBCAT, even if only as an accidental side-effect rather than by design, is not acceptable or appropriate. Bearcat (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Bearcat: Good idea - just to light a fire under the toes of the people who wrote those articles. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually that's not a bad idea, Bearcat. I've been removing IMDB citations for nearly a year. But of course an editor of your experience knows that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't a viable argument. Durova^Charge! 16:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Would you agree that whenever you remove a bad source, without providing a better one, you must always remove all the content dependent on that source? I don't see anybody really defending imdb. The issue seems to be how your remove content. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is fair to a point. We can delete some crap, despite the fact other crap exists elsewhere. But, when you delete certain crap, you need to delete whole chunks of crap, because if you don't, the leftover pieces may stink worse than what you started with. An article with no sources, worse promotional sources, or an article without basic contextual information is worse than an article based on imdb. Delete the whole thing, or not at all (if it's already down to it's bare bones). But, let's not make something worse. --Rob (talk) 20:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Common sense has to play a role. About a month ago we had a disruptive sockpuppeteer who was trying to damage the Mae West biography by tagging virtually every uncited line in it with fact tags, then appealing on the talk page to delete the information. This included really obvious things that were uncontroversial. When I found the article the entire thing was flagged for lack of citations even though it actually had over 100 inline citations to reliable sources. If information is dubious then take it out, but if it's noteworthy and verifiable then that doesn't justify using an unreliable source in the attempt to verify it. Durova^Charge! 20:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

IMdB is a poor source, not a bad source. If there is no controversy over nationality, I would consider it sufficient, just as we would accept the nationality stated in someone's CV. There's no point in removing such sources and material because there is better, when it is possible to replace the sources and keep the material. There are many matters that need serious attention, and this sort of matter is not among them. DGG (talk) 01:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

One of the issues is that nationality is often a controversial thing. The absence of evidence of a controversy is not evidence that there is no controversy particularly when there are so few sources anyway. Is it really a good idea for us to be relying on a poor, non reliable source for something that could easily be controversial? Nil Einne (talk) 11:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

List of people from Santa Monica, California - Totally unreferenced

List of people from Santa Monica, California is totally unreferenced. Please add references. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Contentious information about an NPF on Troy High School (California)

• Troy High School (California) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a section in this article that describes a 2005 controversy with the school newspaper. I have been in an edit war with a couple of other editors over the inclusion of an assistant principal's name, specifically that the named assistant principal initiated disciplinary action against a student. The article gives 3 RS citing the incident, but none of those three, or the five additional sources that I identified on the talk page, explicitly identifies that assistant principal as the one who initiated the disciplinary action—only that the student claimed or said that he did so. I do not believe inclusion of his name enhances the explanation of the incident, and I have been firm that the claim that the assistant principal initiated the disciplinary action—even though I'm 99% sure it's true—is hearsay. I have cited WP:NPF and WP:GRAPEVINE, but others disagree with me and insist on including the name.

Frankly, I wouldn't mind if the whole section went away, but there seems to be a legitimate enough argument to keep it.

Full disclosure: I went to Troy High School, but graduated before the assistant principal in question assumed that role, and before the student involved became a student. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The ACLU reports properly emphasize that it was the acts of the school administration as a body that is significant. We should do it that way too. DGG (talk) 01:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree and I've taken the name which was readded out. Nil Einne (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• update: User Roylucier insist to include the name of the assistant principal and admits that "I hate the guy adn love the idea of using WIKI to make a strike against the SOB" [7]. --J^mundo 02:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I've given Roylucier a final warning. If they continue to add this information I think it's acceptable to ask for them to be blocked. This sort of malicious editing, regardless of the merits of what's being added is simply not acceptable. They are of course still welcome to discuss the matter as I also explained Nil Einne (talk) 11:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Page has been fully protected until May 9. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Roylucier (talk · contribs) has been indef blocked by Toddst1 (talk · contribs) for defamation. KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Mary Devins

Mary Devins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This is an article on an Irish District Court Judge.

Background

The Judge in question has presided over a lot of cases involving Shell to Sea protesters. This is a protest group who are opposed to the building of a gas refinery. See also Corrib gas controversy & Corrib gas project.

Problems with Article

• This contents of the page are almost exclusively to do with Judge Devins involvement with the Shell to Sea campaign and is WP:UNDUE. I've tried to find some other information to expand the article into other subject areas with almost no luck. I've introduced info from another article but its just to do with a protester she sentenced:- Maura Harrington.
• There are no references or citations to back up the article. I'm pretty familiar with the situation and its probably fair to say that most of it is accurate, however as it stands it comes across as original research.

Info worth noting

• The creator and majority editor of this article has a self declared conflict of interest.
• A RFM has been opened on articles relating to the Corrib Gas subject: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Corrib Gas. Unfortunately, this is a MASSIVE dispute and this is one of the smallest least affected articles. The case was opened almost a fortnight ago and there has been no sign of a start to mediation. As I've said, I've been trying to expand the article but have spent a few weeks now searching for info but with no success. Myself and the user have been working towards concensus on some of the articles involved but its been very slow and difficult. As regards this one, I have no idea where to start and the rate mediation seems to be progressing it could be months before any issues are addressed, If at all.
• Disclosure: I originally started editing on some of the Shell to Sea articles as a joke as username Mustycrusty. When I started to take the issue more seriously I changed my username to greenlightgo but was unaware of the rules on sockpuppets. I've rebooted using correct protocol on this account and declared my history. I'm not sure if this is relevant but I don't want my motives called into questioned or the issues here tainted.

GainLine ♠♥ 20:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

at this point , there does not seem clear evidence that the judge was notable; judges at this level usually are not. The place to decide the point would be AfD. DGG (talk) 01:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely - AFD. Rd232 ^talk 01:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys, I'm relatively inexperienced here, Whats the procedure? GainLine ^♠_♥ 08:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Procedure is detailed at WP:AFD. KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Cheers! Do you see any problems with the fact the article is listed for mediation? GainLine ^♠_♥ 13:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

no; there are 21 articles listed for mediation and there is no reason to wait to resolve this WP:BLP issue. Rd232 ^talk 23:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Gainline, I find it more than a little hypocritical of you to complain that the "contents of the page are almost exclusively to do with Judge Devins involvement with the Shell to Sea campaign" when you were the first to give it that skew: [8]. Previously the article only had as much S2S info as it did about her trouble with police honesty. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

This was information from the article on Maura Harrington & was originally introduced by you into her article [9]. This was originally part of my attempts to expand the article which failed as I couldn't find anything of note anywhere. Why would you have info on someone in one persons article but not in their own? You obviously deemed it worthy of keeping as you added to the point [10]. GainLine ^♠_♥ 15:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Gary Husband

Gary Husband seems to have become an autobiography. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Blimey, what a mess. I don't know where to start... – ukexpat (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I've started by blocking User:Gary Husband as a sockpuppet of User:Levelub44h. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I've also reverted all the edits made by socks of the indef blocked user. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, much better! – ukexpat (talk) 22:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Phillip Markoff

Although it seems to be calm at this exact moment, there's been recent trouble at the Philip Markoff article. Up till a couple days ago, there was a stable, although imperfect article. Then 63.215.27.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) showed up and began to make significant edits to the article. (Later editing as Theo789 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Not all of his edits have been bad. But it seems that for every edit that makes the article more NPOV, there's another that's original research, scrubbing out inconvenient information, or trying to add dispariging info about the victims. I'm not asking for specific action, but it seems that only a couple of us are watching the article. I was hoping for a couple more experienced editors to keep an eye on the article. Help watch the edits on both sides. And hopefully help educate the newcomer on proper policy.

Aside from the article history, (note the edit summaries), background can be found on the IP's talkpage as well as Talk:Philip_Markoff#Commentary & Talk:Philip_Markoff#Edits_by_Tvoz. Thanks in advance.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The IP address that is referenced is a shared IP. The talk page for that IP likely involves many users.

The issue in the Philip Markoff article is that it was being prepared in a very one sided manner--meaning only negative information was being allowed. When info was added that softened some of the accusations, it was deleted repeatedly. Things are a little better now, but still a problem. This man is a living person. The article has included accusations that he has sent nude photos of himself to transsexuals, speculation that he sought to victimize transexuals, collected panties of women he victimized, engaged in criminal activity, ect. This information, if not true, is libelous. I have objected on the basis that much of what is being reported in the press is based on anonymous sources leaking information. I feel that Wikipedia should not be posting information of such a serious nature about a living person based on anonymous sources, even if the media is doing that. There is no way to verify information put forth by anonymous sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theo789 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, the article is better sourced than many of our BLPs - there are reliable sources for each allegation and every report of pieces of evidence discovered by the police, throughout the article. We use well-vetted reliable sources, such as ABC News, The New York Times, The Boston Globe, and many others, often having more than one citation for a statement, and we characterize allegations as such. We never say that anything is a proven fact, only that police investigators allege, or that there are reports of various things. We have bent over backwards to explain basic policies like WP:V, but this editor continues to introduce his own standards for acceptable content that are outside of Wikipedia policy. As for "anonymous sources", we aren't the journalists - we don't conduct our own investigations and interview and identify sources. We rely on published accounts by reliable sources as per policy. The editor also ignores MOS guidelines as he sees fit, even when they have been corrected and so indicated on Talk or in edit summaries, insisting, for example, on referring to Markoff's attorney as "Attorney Salsberg" every time he's mentioned in a one paragraph section devoted to him, after that has been corrected. We'd appreciate some BLP folks to come over and help explain how we write biographies and how we work on Wikipedia in general, and to keep an eye on the article. Tvoz/talk 04:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The article is based to a significant extent on anonymous sources who are speaking without authorization from their employers. They are likely leaking information in violation of the rules and policies of their employers. While a newspaper needs to make money and so will publish such claims, such information is far from reliable. There is no way to verify claims by anonymous sources. These accusations by anonymous sources may be totally false. Yet the accusations are very serious and are likely defamatory if untrue or stated maliciously. An article based on such information does not seem to comply with the standards for biographies. This issue has probably come up before in other biographies and I would like to determine how those situations have been handled. I note that the topic below on this page raises the same or similar issue in terms of another accused individual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theo789 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Woodward and Bernstein's Watergate articles were based on the anonymous source known as Deep Throat. They knew who he was, but they did not reveal it and they published Pulitzer Prize winning pieces without revealing their sources. Surely we would have had no problem viewing their Washington Post articles as reliable sources that we could use as citations, despite the "anonymous" nature of their sources - why? Because we view the Post as a venue that has editorial oversight, good fact-checking, high journalistic standards, and we believed that they wouldn't have published rumors. We are not investigative reporters. We don't verify the truth of the statements made in our source articles. We hope, of course, that those sources are providing truthful information, and strive to find credible information that is backed by more than one reliable source if it is contentious, but verifiability is our standard. As for the specific case of Markoff, how does Theo789 know that the anonymous sources that reliable publications have quoted were speaking without authorization from their employers? No source articles that I have read say that. Is he privy to information about this case that the general public is not privy to? The many articles I have read, that we use as our sources, indicate that although in some cases they are not revealing their names, their sources are from police investigators, and we assume that the reporters used high journalistic standards and verified their information before going to press. And at least some of the evidence quoted in our article comes from the (named) District Attorney of Suffolk County. So despite Theo789's insistence that it's all anonymous rumor, and despite his refusal to acknowledge the need for consensus and his twisting of our core principles to say they mean something they don't mean, the facts about our article are that it all was well-sourced. Are there negative things alleged about the subject of the article? Absolutely. Are those negative things sourced by reliable sources? Yes, all of them, as of my last major edit at least - I haven't checked the sources of anything added after that yet. The only way that we could really satisfy Theo789's concerns would be to either write a piece that talked only about how highly his former neighbors, friends and family think of him, or to wait until such a time as he is convicted - if that were to happen - and then write the piece. But then we might be expected to wait for the inevitable appeals - because Theo789 would say that he and his attorney still say he is innocent. Are we going to make a policy that says that people accused of crimes cannot have articles talking about those accusations unless all sources are named? Our reliable sources are not infallible, and regrettably they certainly sometimes publish material that ends up being untrue - but we've staked out a policy that allows us to use them judiciously, and to seek out countervailing information in other reliable sources if they exist, and include that as well. That's one of the things we mean by "neutral". Tvoz/talk 09:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned that Theo789 states "The IP address that is referenced is a shared IP." when it is pretty clear that they are the same person. 63.215.27.57 (talk · contribs) has edited only on this article. Their first batch of edits started April 29th, ended 18:56, 30 April 2009 and Theo789 makes his first edit 13 minutes later. The IP has shown up again this evening, editing until 17:36 with Theo789 starting at 17:40 and then a bit of one and a bit of the other. It isn't even worth asking for a CU it's so obvious from content and timing of the edits. Dougweller (talk) 20:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

John Floyd Thomas, Jr.

John Floyd Thomas, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The guy had been arrested on DNA evidence, which links him to two murders, however the lead says:

"John Floyd Thomas, Jr. (born 26 July 1936) has been named by police and media as the "Westside Rapist," and he may have been responsible for two strings of serial killings in the Los Angeles area during the 1970s and 1980s[1]"

Along with another quote:

"When all is said and done, Mr. Thomas stands to be Los Angeles' most prolific serial killer," Bengston told the Los Angeles Times.[5]"

I think an eye needs to be kept on this article, to avoid statements like this unless he is convicted of the crimes.Martin451 (talk) 21:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I have similar concerns as noted above in the Philip Markoff article. The issue is the propriety of posting an article on Wikipedia on the basis of ACCUSATIONS against someone who has not been convicted of any crime. I think it is bad policy and potentially libelous to do an article based just on accusations against someone not yet convicted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theo789 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

That's absurd. We should wait till after conviction to have an article? Unbelievable! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC))

Category:Armenian Genocide deniers

This category is used to classify scholars who are skeptical that the Armenian Genocide is in fact a genocide. Unlike the Holocaust, the facts of the Armenian Genocide are still to be established, and many reputable academics have announced that they are in the skeptical camp--these include Princeton's Bernard Lewis, perhaps the foremost American authority on Middle Eastern history. Using the phrase Armenian Genocide deniers to label these academics is an obvious attempt to smear them, by association with Holocaust deniers. I have proposed a renaming of the category to Armenian Genocide skeptics. If you wish to participate in the discussion, it may be found here.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 14:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

This should clearly be renamed. The debate at CfD is clearly worrying. Seems people like this title precisely because it mirrors "holocaust denier" and fits into category "denialism". Not suitable for BLPs.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Jon & Kate Plus 8

Jon Gosselin was recently reported in Us Weekly (a gossip, tabloid-style magazine) to have been promiscuous in his relationship and that his relationship with Kate is so bad that they are considering divorce. This information has not been reported in any source outside of this (exclusing gossip sites, blogs, and forums) and it certainly has not been reported in anything that would be considered reliable or that would pass the requirements in WP:BIO.

Several users have been trying to get this information in, but they usually quit after it has been reverted by another user. Occasionally they'll take it to the talk page, but they tend not to fight it. However, User:Pink-thunderbolt seems to be dead set to get this information in the article. They reverted my revert (albeit, I didn't phrase my edit summary well), rephrased it to make it even more controversial, and then started ranting about it on the talk page (old section in which they added new messages).

I just wanted to bring it here and see if I could get advice on this. Am I dealing with this incorrectly? Should this information be included? Or is reverting the edits the correct action here? Where should we go from here? Thanks so much for any help! --13² 22:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

A gossip, tabloid magazine is not a reliable source, and thus you were right to revert the information. I'll keep an eye on the page as well. Until the information is reliably reported, it is not appropriate for the article. Thanks for flagging, PeterSymonds (talk) 22:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I just watched a video about this on CNN.com, which I'd say is a pretty reliable source. VegaDark (talk) 01:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

CNN is reporting using Us Weekly as their only source and are discussing the topic based on that source and only that source, which is gossip. How is this any different than what the editors trying to add it are doing? I understand that it's coming from CNN, which is typically considered reliable, but, considering they're using less than reliable sources to report this...I guess I'm just confused. --13² 01:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:BLP: "Be wary of "feedback loops" in which an unsourced and speculative contention in a Wikipedia article gets picked up, with or without attribution, in an otherwise-reliable newspaper or other media story, and that story is then cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original speculative contention." In this case, I feel that this particular CNN source falls under this. --13² 02:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I've linked to some reliable sources on the JKP8 talk page. That being said, I would strongly disagree with you about discounting CNN's report because they were reporting it from Us Weekly, and the portion you cite about making sure an article isn't simply taking stuff from a Wikipedia page in the first place isn't applicable at all. Our job is to report reliable sources. CNN is unquestionably a reliable source. Even if the assertion that Us Weekly is an unreliable source is true (which I'd imagine would be contested), that is irrelevant now that CNN reported that they reported it. We have a reliable source stating that Us Weekly reported this, which is how we can phrase it in the article and be 100% accurate. VegaDark (talk) 02:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless, you found far better sources than this CNN video, which I still wouldn't consider reliable, that aren't gossip followed by more gossip. I've replied to that stuff over on the J&K talk page. --13² 02:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Fresh eyes please!

Some input from BLP-minded, knowledgeable editors on the best course of action on Talk:Syed Ahmed (entrepreneur) would really help, if anyone can spare time to take a look.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't say that I have any problems with what has been written so far (prior to the admin reversions). It's been referenced from a reliable source, it's certainly noteworthy that he was arrested, whether or not he was charged is immaterial so long as the article makes it clear that this is the case, and so far the new additions do just that. This gentleman has made a deliberate attempt to come into the public eye and with that comes a certain amount of acceptance that shit happens (whether he likes it or not), and when it does it's going to be written about. When the Old Bill comes-a-knocking on your door for something like money laundering then that is not something that wriggles out of an article using the WP:WEIGHT get out of jail free card. If it was something minor like enjoying the odd joint or not paying parking tickets then that's one thing, and I'm pretty bloody sure that if I was arrested for that same offence then I'd tick the box that says "yes I think I'll remember that for the rest of my life". So all in all given that this is adequately referenced and neutrally worded then I !vote that it should stay. (NB I've also written this on the article's talk page) --WebHamster 01:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Radhanath Swami

• Radhanath Swami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - largely unsourced article, possibly needs some WP:RS or to be a stub? Could not find RS -- please help. // Wikid^as© 09:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Gavin Menzies

This article is about an author of a theory and corresponding book rejected by nearly all professional historians. But that part seems to be covered and sourced okay in the article. More concerning is it relies on primary sources for other claims about the author. One of them (about his involvement in the HMS Rorqual collision) I was able to source to one of the interviews used about the controversy. The other one though, the claim he is a vexatious litigant is not sourced to anything but a UK government site. Of great concern, a third claim that of his birthname/full name, is not sourced at all and unless that is really his full name we could even have the wrong person. I have attempted to find a reliable secondary source for his name and/or being a vexatious litigant but disconcertingly I was unable to partially because of the large number of mirrors etc of an earlier version that was removed [11]. I've removed these claims but given that they've come back before I would appreciate further watchers. Nil Einne (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't find any evidence for the existence of anyone of the name of Rowan Gavin Paton Menzies except for that vexatious litigant case. I've got no reason to think the edit wasn't a GF edit, since Menzies has threatened to sue people and tried to get them fired (he admits this) - [12]. But I agree that unless we can find evidence connecting him to the legal case, that definitely does not belong in the article. Dougweller (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, unless there are two Rowan Gavin Paton Menzies', this is our Gavin Menzies, I've seen a copy of the Navy List from Spring 1969. the information is also in the personnel records at the Submarine Museum. Dougweller (talk) 21:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I've replaced his full name, referencing The Navy List, which by the way can be searched for a small yearly fee here [13]. We should have a list of who has access to databases like this, I'm sure someone does. Dougweller (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Is this sort of detail acceptable?

An IP added a lot of information about living people to our article Eltz. I reverted it, in part I admit because I don't see that it belongs in the article, but also because there were no citations at all. Another IP has replaced it [14] with a refimprove tag (their only edit, presumably an experienced editor not logged in or something), but I'm not convinced this is satisfactory. Especially since referencing all that detail is almost an impossible task. Dougweller (talk) 21:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

No, unacceptable. Information including stuff like "Bonaventura, known as Boni, who died in a car crash at 19..." cannot stay, even with a refimprove tag. It must be sourced explicitly or removed. Cheers, PeterSymonds (talk) 21:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. An IP reverted both of us, another IP added some information, and then Nicky eltz (talk · contribs) appeared and added a bit more. This is also interesting, an attempt at publicity? [15]Dougweller (talk) 05:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Heh, interesting. Possibly an attempt at publicity. Certainly worth keeping an eye on. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 11:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

David Burrowes

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

Could someone please look at the two reverting IP's (one of which is the subject), identify which material should be kept and which should be removed from either version, and edit the article accordingly?

Thanks in advance.

Regards,
Daniel (talk) 23:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. I removed some quotes which I couldn't source from the latest version, and sourced a percentage. There was nothing much worth keeping in the old version—an external link that wasn't reliable and a heap of unsourced claims. Even if the subject wrote some of those claims, I can't find sources for them, so they weren't appropriate for the article. Cheers, PeterSymonds (talk) 23:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

"Article" in user space with BLP issues

User:Grundle2600/My own personal article about Barack Obama has issues which some editors tried to address a few days ago. They were reverted because this was in user space. My concern is that these are BLP issues, as the NPOV/WEIGHT discussion on the talk page suggest. Is there a policy on BLP violations in user space? NJGW (talk) 02:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I would think this, WP:SOAP apply. Soxwon (talk) 02:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• I went ahead ant took it to WP:MFD, we'll see what happens there. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:UP#OWN as well. Soxwon (talk) 02:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Quickly deleted. I do think that maybe we need to have a speedy catalogue for this. What concerns me is that stuff in userspace shows up on Google, often on the first page. Dougweller (talk) 05:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a way to prevent Google indexing userspace pages? Rd232 ^talk 05:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

{{NOINDEX}} or robots.txt. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It should be done for all Wikipedia user space, I don't see how we can just add it individually. Dougweller (talk) 10:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed a lot before, see Wikipedia:NOINDEX particularly Wikipedia:Search engine indexing sadly as the pages indicate it's one of the areas we're very, very far from consensus in most areas and personally I doubt it will ever be achieved. However if I'm understanding the articles right user pages are already supposed to be not indexed but user talk pages may be although a quick test confirms it appears to be the opposite. One possibility is rather then trying to come up with a wikipedia wide policy for ever space, concentrate on user and user talk for now and see if we can reach consensus there Nil Einne (talk) 11:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Here's a user page that comes in number 3 on a Google search [16] - I'm sure there are plenty of others. Dougweller (talk) 11:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Jay Bybee talk page dispute

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jay_Bybee&action=edit&section=12

Several editors contend that the recommendation by two U.S. Senators of a candidate for a lifetime job as a federal appeals judge is not "notable" and ought not be included in the article.

I contend that this is relevant, based on the requirement in the U.S. Constitution that a president obtain the advice and consent of the senate for such appointments. I ask that other editors look at the link above and weigh in. I am not familiar with appealing reverts of factual information such as this. However, in reading WP:BLP it appears this is the correct forum to refer this matter. Thanks for considering this dispute. Skywriter (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Isn't as simple as this: if there is a reliable source for the statement that he has received such a recommendation then it is certainly notable enough for a mention in the article (being mindful of WP:UNDUE), but if there is no such source, it is unverifiable and has no place in the article? – ukexpat (talk) 18:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the article talk page link, you will see four reliable sources

[17] [18] [19] given plus a link to the congressional record. The question is "Is that sufficient?"Skywriter (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Given its status as "the official record of the proceedings and debates of the United States Congress", I think the Congressional Record alone would be sufficient, so my answer to your question is in the affirmative. – ukexpat (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the link to the congressional record that was reverted for not being "notable."

The newspaper articles point out that Nevada Senator Ensign recommended Bybee to President Bush and that Senate Minority Leader Reid supported the nomination. Since Bybee is from Nevada, the recommendation and support for the nomination are both relevant and part of the constitutional process leading to the appointment of federal judges. I do not understand the insistence on skipping a step in the process. Those who contend that the recommendations of home state senators should not be mentioned contend that inclusion is somehow "untoward" and derogatory," despite these facts being supported by primary and secondary sources. Those who contend otherwise claim that its inclusion in the congressional record is not "notable" and that its inclusion in at least three newspaper articles still does not make the facts "notable."Skywriter (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Noone is contending that the remark wasn't made, just wether or not it should be included in the article. It's already mentioned that he was confirmed by a 70 - 19 margin. Singling out the votes of two particular senators gives it undue weight. CarbonX (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It should be mentioned (of course) that Bybee was confirmed by the Senate by a vote of 70-19. However, using primary sources to single out 2 specific supporters seems like inappropriate synthesis and undue weight, unless a reliable secondary source has similarly focused on these particular votes among the 70. MastCell ^Talk 19:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It was undue weight concerns that prompted my reversion. The phrasing and weight of the mention made it appear that there was something abnormal about the support when in fact it seems quite routine.—Kww(talk) 20:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The home state newspaper thought it important enough to mention. [20] The Reno Gazette Journal says the junior senator says this appeals court judge should not be impeached and the other (the Senate Majority Leader) says he hasn't made up his mind about whether to impeach Bybee. How much more notable does this matter get? Without the support for his nomination of both of his home state senators, Bybee would not hold a lifetime seat on one of the highest courts in the United States. Now one of those two senators, the most powerful U.S. senator, is weighing whether the nominee he supported should be impeached. I do not understand the thinking of those who say this is not "noteworthy."Skywriter (talk) 19:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

This dispute regarding the inclusion of non-controversial information is better suited for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies, is it not? I think the noticeboard should be used for flagrant or suspected violations of the BLP policy rather than editing disputes. This is neither. --Bastique ^demandez 19:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

On that I agree with you 100%. CarbonX (talk) 19:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Two editors, including CarbonX, contend on the Jay Bybee talk page that addition of this information is "derogatory" and "untoward". That is why this dispute is here and the central focus of the controversy. Skywriter (talk) 20:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I stated that the way you presented the informatation made something quite routine appear to be untoward. That's a significant distinction.—Kww(talk) 00:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a BLP problem, but the support of home state senators is a routine element of the Senate confirmation process (as is the report of such support and the nomination in home town newspapers). As a matter of fact, if Ensign or Reid had opposed the nomination it would not have proceeded to a vote (under the home state hold privilege given to senators). Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 20:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Reference to home state senator tradition: [21]. For a paper reference, see The American Political Process (2004), by Alan R. Grant, page 136. Quatloo (talk) 02:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Paul Strauss

• Paul Strauss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - an account solely directed at Strauss and the office he holds modifies content until it's no longer supported by the citations and removes sourced material without discussion (see talk page for earlier try for talk by another user). Changes back to the original page are reverted. Hekerui (talk) 23:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted about half the page, lenghty discussions about the roles and responsbilities of a shadow senator belong on a page about that position not in the BLP. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Unrelenting Anti-Oprah, Anti-Dr. Phil POV pushing, combined with libelous edits & invasions of privacy

I stumbled upon a user named User:Wikeye who seems to have an extremely unhealthy single-minded interest in articles about Oprah and her spin-off Dr. Phil. The vast majority of his edits are related to these individuals, and range from negative POV pushing to libelous and dangerous.

An anti-Oprah bias is revealed in the following quote where he calls Oprah a black person in white face, and urges people to move on from watching her[22] Instead of a white person in blackface making fun of black people, Oprah is a black person in whiteface paying tribute to white people and acting like an intelligent, wealthy white woman. Hence her mostly white, "upscale" female audience and notable lack of a sizable black audience. Like the traditional minstrel shows, that act has become a bit old for the times and so the audience has moved on. I suggest that we move on also.

In another quote, he makes the outrageous unfounded and highly libelous accusation that Oprah might be kidnapping the students at her school and brain washing them[23]

The children involved were separated from their families and taken out of their country to Houston before local police could conduct a proper investigation. And now you hear NOTHING at all about these children. Where are they being held? Are they being treated appropriately or are they being brainwashed in order to help Oprah avoid a lawsuit? What happened to these children?

Anytime anything negative about Oprah or her school is in the news, he loves to flood her articles with the details[24]. As a result, the article on her school has become overwhelmed with criticism to the point where every time a student misbehaves, it gets its own section.

Here [25] another user warns him that the content he is adding to Dr. Phil’s article is inflammatory in the worst possible way, because he left the misleading impression that Dr. Phil had unethical relations with a minor. Note that this not only violates wikipedia’s biography of living persons policy, but it is libelous. Nonetheless, despite this person spending a considerable amount of time and energy explaining to him that his edits are inappropriate, this person is forced to remind his several months later to stop the libelous behavior[26] Wikeye responds to the reminder by telling the user to “shut his mouth” and to stop blaming him for Dr. Phil’s disgusting behavior [27] These hostile comments reveal strong POV pushing.

And then it gets really spooky. He adds the private address of Dr. Phil’s family to the Dr. Phil article [28] so the whole world can know where Dr. Phil lives. I find it extremely suspicious that someone who has described Dr. Phil’s behavior as disgusting and made inflammatory edits about him, went to the trouble of finding out where he and his family live, and chose to jeopardize Dr. Phil’s security by making this information available anyone with internet access. Someone had to take the time to warn him not to do this [29] If that’s not a red flag I don’t know what is.

This goes way beyond POV pushing to actively exploiting wikipedia as a tool to do harm to living persons he has expressed disdain for. I feel very strongly that there should be zero tolerance for this behavior. Others and myself have tried repeatedly to reason with this person and we’ve gotten nowhere. I just wanted to on record as saying this person should not be allowed to edit any article on wikipedia under any circumstances. Flynneffects (talk) 08:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Samantha Orobator

• Samantha Orobator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I just declined a A7 on this as it has multiple sources (CNN etc.) but I'm not sure whether we really need such an article or whether it's a WP:BLP1E matter. Could someone look over it and edit/nominate for AFD as necessary? Regards SoWhy 11:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samantha Orobator. Skomorokh 14:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Prachanda

This article on a controversial world leader was, until I removed a significant chunk of it, largely unsourced. It contains a great many unverified claims and needs experienced editors to research, update and expand it based on reliable sources. Skomorokh 14:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)