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.

Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman

Shooting of Trayvon Martin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This needs resolution, article talk is unable to develop consensus, and slow edit war (overwhelmed by massive number of productive edits elsewhere) is happening

George Zimmerman, shooter, made allegedly racist comments during incident, and allegedy racist statements in the past and had arrests but not convictions for assault and domestic violence

Trayvon Martin, victim, described as "on drugs or something", and "up to no good", "suspicious" during incident, has history of pot, grafitti, and theft, but no convictions

All information incredibly well sourced by both parties. All information is being added (or removed) without OR/SYNTH, just pure recitation of the facts as reported in MANY MANY MANY reliable sources, and in the case of Martin's past, publicly acknowledged by the parents, and an ongoing part of the controversy "They killed him, and now they are trying to kill his reputation"

There is consensus that the information regarding Zimmerman should be included. No consensus if the information for martin should be included. I believe it should be both, or neither. (personally I think both should be included) In both cases, the history informs the user about the participants past actions. In both cases the information provides no direct evidence as to what happened or didnt happen during the conflict. In both cases the information can be used to judge (by the reader, NOT OR/SYNTH in the article) the reliablility/accuracy of the statements by or about the participants.

Zimmerman is accused, by the family and the media of being a racist, and tendency to violence. Martin is accused, by Zimmerman as acting suspiciously, as if on drugs, and of violently attacking Zimmerman.

Either the background is relevant, or it isnt, but it is exceptionally widely reported, there are no real BLP/BDP issues as everything is sourced, notable, public, and acknowledged.

Gaijin42 (talk) 13:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

To be specific, here are the details that are being debated being included

Zimmerman : Arrest but not conviction for assaulting an officer, previous statements alleged to be racist attributed to zimmerman by neighbors (no actual proof they occured other than statements), restraining order against ex-fiance regarding domestic abuse (abuse alleged in both directions, both spouses subject to restraining order)

Martin : 3 school suspensions for 1) pot residue, 2) being in an unauthorized area of schoool while under suspicion of grafitti - and found with a backpack full of womens jewelry Martin said "was a friends" that he declined to name while in possession of a screwdriver on school described as "burglary tool", tardiness (obviously of lesser importance/relevance to the article).

In both cases no convictions, but were administrative actions taken by the relevant officials.Gaijin42 (talk) 13:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Just because something is "widely reported" does not mean it is acceptable or appropriate for a Wikipedia article. see WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME for example. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Quoting policy does not help, everyone knows the policy. The question is does the policy prevent inclusion of one or both or none of the participants background. Additionally, the policy does not say "do not include", it says "give serious consideration". Thats what this debate is about. Also that policy specifically says "For people who are relatively unknown" which does not apply to either person at this point. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

BLPCRIME says to defer to Wikipedia:WELLKNOWN for well known individuals. I think these two fit that criteria a this point. "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 notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." That bar is far surpassed for all of this information. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

As I've argued on the article talk page, I think that histories relevant to the topic should be used, while everything else shouldn't. To whit, the reasons for Martin's suspensions has no relevance, so it shouldn't be in there. However, Zimmerman's history of violence seems relevant, and may be used. I have heard it argued, though, that we shouldn't detail histories of violence unless they resulting in convictions. Zimmerman has no "convictions", though it appears he did reach a deal on his resisting arrest with violence charge. If WP policy does explicitly ask us not to include incidents which didn't result in convictions, than the whole shebang should be excluded.LedRush (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman accused Martin of looking like he was on drugs. And up to no good. A history of drugs and behavior that directly qualifies as up to no good (trespass, graffiti, alleged theft) is not relevant? It is an alleged pattern of behavior in both the case of Zimmerman and Martin. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Our purpose here as Wikipedia editors is to provide an informative article for our readers. If something can be sourced to multiple high quality reliable sources, it probably belongs in the article. As WP:BLP says, "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, martin is dead, so the protection of BLP are significantly weakened. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I know I, and others, have made this argument on the article talk page, but just to get it on the record here, I want to respond to comments regarding the suspension for pot possession. Firstly, there wasn't even a criminal charge, nontheless a conviction. This adds weight to the argument that it shouldn't be noted, but is not dispositive. More importantly, the fact that Martin had been suspended for possession of pot has absolutely no relevance to the shooting incident. Zimmerman had no knowledge of this, and therefore the fact that he told the operator that Martin looked like he was on drugs is neither more or less reasonable with the information regarding pot possession. What including the information does is insinuate that either Martin was indeed on drugs or that Zimmerman had reason to believe he was. The former is a clear WP:BLP violation, and the second is factually untrue as Zimmerman had no knowledge of the prior events. If, however, the toxicology report comes back and it is shown that Martin was on drugs at the time of the incident, we must include that information. Martin's state at the time of the incident is the only information that can inform the actions of Zimmerman and Martin during the incident.LedRush (talk) 17:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

A past history involving drugs, when related to a later insinuation of drugs, has the exact same relevance that a past history of violence, or racism has to a later insinuation of violence and racism. A pattern of past behavior makes an accusation of later behavior more plausible. It is not direct evidence. But If I said I saw Lindsay Lohan drunk and high, most people would believe me. They would not believe me if I said the same thing about one of Obama's kids. This has nothing to do of if I personally happened to know about their previous history (or non history). Zimmerman accused martin of acting suspiciously. The readers deserve to know that Martin had some history of trouble that makes that a plausible (not necessarily factual) accusation. They also deserve to know that Zimmerman has a past history of alleged racism (be on the lookout for black youth), which makes the accusation LESS plausible. For us to decide that one or both are not relevant is clear OR and POV, when the practically infinite number of RS, including both media and official agencies have said it is relevant (but again not definitive)Gaijin42 (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

← This is basically one step away from bringing up a rape victim's sexual history to try to discredit them. One has the right to go to the store to pick up snacks for one's family without being accosted by a large, angry, armed man and ultimately shot to death. A previous school suspension for marijuana has exactly zero bearing on that right. If Martin had a history of violence (as, apparently, did Zimmerman) then that might have some bearing on this particular act of violence. But bringing up the fact that a high school kid apparently used marijuana is evidently an effort to insinuate that he somehow brought what happened on himself. That's the reality of how high-profile cases are tried in the media, but it's beneath us to be party to it. That's WP:BLP in a nutshell. MastCell ^Talk 19:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

You are putting words into my mouth. I did not say he deserved it. I think he did not, and Zimmerman should be tried. Zimmerman is being called a racist for the things he said and his suspicion of Martin. Removing all things that might corroborate that suspicion is POV against zimmerman. Martins past has no impact at all on the actual shooting. It DOES have impact on zimmeramns decision to find him suspicious, follow him, call the police on him. The ONLY information directly related to the shooting, is what was happening in the 10 seconds prior to the shooting, if zimmerman was getting beat or not, if martin reached for the gun or not, made a death threat or not (all not-proved allegations from zimmerman) and who started the physical confrontation. But there are MANY things relevant to the events that immediately preceded the shooting. the past behavior and prejudices of BOTH participants ARE absolutely relevant to if zimmerman was justified in being suspicions in the first place. If he was not justified in having the initial suspicion, then that increases the probability he is a racist, and increases the probability the shooting was directly due to his racist mindset. If he was justified, that decreases the chance he was acting under a racist mindset as well. WE ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO DECIDE. To claim the information is irrelevant is to be directly making this decision on behalf of the readers and is OR and POV. it is absolutely a POV to decide that information is not relevant, and that POV is NOT SUPPORTED BY POLICY. WP:WELLKNOWN WP:VERIFIABILITY WP:BLD If you thin you are supported by policy, please quote the specific passages of the policy that you think preclude this information.Gaijin42 (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

But it doesn't have an impact on Zimmerman's decision to find him suspicious etc. etc. Zimmerman did not know these things when he decided to follow Martin. These are being brought up after the fact in order to justify Zimmerman's actions. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

How, exactly, would Zimmerman have known that Martin was suspended from school? Wait, I understand - you want the article to say he was suspended from school so we insinuate that he was a drug addict, and thus Zimmerman should have shot him? Got it. Yeah, you probably shouldn't edit articles about people. We don't insinuate negative things about people. Hipocrite (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

My logic has nothng to do with zimmerman knowing about the suspensions. It has to do with the plausability of martin actually and objectively acting suspiciously at the time. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

your "plausibility" has headed into untenable grounds. it may impact your personal belief, but cannot be used in any form in an article without actual specific sources making the "plausibiity" claim.-- The Red Pen of Doom 21:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, Gaijin42, you're kind of digging yourself deeper and deeper here...if your reason for including the information is because it makes it seem as though Martin was "objectively acting suspiciously," you really need to reexamine your commitment to NOR and NPOV. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

MastCell and LedRush are right. Martin's "trouble" is not relevant to the incident and only serves to make the unsupported-by-sources implication that Zimmerman had a reason to shoot him; it does not belong in the article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman said that he thought Martin was acting like he was on drugs, so if Martin has a history of drug use, it is relevant. It's no different than Zimmerman having a history of violence. But honestly, I'm really not comfortable with this line of reasoning because this rationale violates our policy on NPOV: using our own personal opinions to overrule what reliable sources say on this topic.

But ultimately, we exist to serve our readers. By omitting key parts of the controversy from the article, we leave our readers less informed. If a reader says to themselves, "Hey, what's this I hear about Martin getting suspended from school for marijuana?" or "what this I hear about Zimmerman making a racist comment?". If they come to our article and we don't cover it, we have done them a disservice. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

We are WP:NOT a tabloid. This makes as much sense as "teach the controversy" does in science class. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The autopsy report hasn't been released yet. If it says that Martin was on drugs at the time he was shot, then the marijuana incident, as LedRush said, becomes relevant. Until then, or if it comes back clean, Zimmerman's speculation that his victim was on drugs is meaningless to us. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

How about "up to no good"? There will be no autopsy findings that can show that, and some of the suspension were definitely for things that were "up to no good" - grafitti, backpack full of jewelry. There is no evidence that Martin had already engaged in a crime while on the walk, but the backpack indicates he may have been involved in crimes in the past, and may have been acting suspicius (casing?). This is counterbalanced by Zimmermans alleged racism (hypothetically seeing all blacks as criminals?) and mall-cop attitude that may have seen completely innocent behavior as suspicius. We should let the reader evaluate both of their histories and decide which one is more plausible. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

We don't insinuate to the reader that persons were engaging in crimes when no reliable source has said that said that persons were engaging in crimes. I am not kidding - you really need to stop now. Your willingness to defame the recently dead without reliable sources is rapidly reaching the point where you will be sanctionable under WP:BLPSE. Hipocrite (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Bring it on. HE IS DEAD. BLP does not apply. I am not insinuating he was acting suspiciously. HE WAS DIRECTLY ACCUSED OF THIS BY ZIMMERMAN. As a result, zimmerman has been called a racist. Nobody knows what martin was doing. Martin does have a history of things that people would consider suspicious. Therefore, it is possible and plausible, he actually WAS engaged in such behavior at that time. this in no way justifies his being killed. stop putting words into my mouth. It also does not prove he was engaged in such action. Zimmerman has made statements many consider to be racist. This makes it possible, and plausible that he was a racist bastard who hates black kids. we do not know. we should let the reader make their own opinion. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

"However, material about dead people that has implications for their living relatives and friends, particularly in the case of recent deaths, is covered by this policy." We do, in fact, know what Martin was doing. Reliable sources have reported that he was returning from a 7-11 with tea and skittles. The only words being put in to your mouth are yours, when you say that we need to insinuate to the reader that Martin was "casing" (your word) or "acting suspicius" (your word). Please find reliable sources for your racism. Hipocrite (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

BTW, there's a big difference between saying "Martin was acting suspiciously" and "Zimmerman said that Martin was acting suspiciously". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

And it's in the article now that Zimmerman said that. What's not in the article now is the proposal that the article say "Zimmerman said Martin was acting suspiciously. Martin was suspended from school for being in an unauthorized area, vandalzing, and having MJ residue in his backpack, so who KNOWS what he was doing - We report, YOU DECIDE," which is what's being proposed here. Hipocrite (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Articles on controversial topics like this are always a mess, and I try to stay out of them, preferring to offer advice at a distance. The article is rapidly changing and it's been a couple days since I last read it. I see now that it says "Martin's suspicious behavior" in Wikipedia's voice. That's not right. Nobody know whether Martin was acting suspiciously. We only know that Zimmerman said he was acting suspiciously. We need to be very careful on how we phrase things. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

This has now been fixed.[1] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I consider you calling me a racist a personal attack. why dont you take a look at WHO FUCKING STARTED THE ARTICLE, and the edits I put in, before you call me a racist.We DO NOT know what martin's actions were. We know what martins parents SAID his actions were, and they were not there. I am absolutly not saying that we should put into the article that martin was casing the homes. I am saying zimmerman said he was suspicious. Martin had previously acted in ways that are suspicious. It is directly relevant to if Zimmerman is completely making shit up or not, or might have actually seen something. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, it has nothing to do with being tabloid. Do you think we should ommit the Monica Lewinski scandal from Bill Clinton's article? Of course, not. And we do have an article on Intelligent design. It's a Featured article if I recall correctly. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

"But ultimately, we exist to serve our readers" - as an encyclopedia. I really dont think that it is Wikipedia's responsibility or that we are actually serving our readers either short term or long term when we specifically vere from presenting encyclopedic coverage in favor of "clearing up" potential misinformation in current public media circuses. That easily leads to UNDUE focus on ephemeral, emotional trivia. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Roscelese that the Trayvon/marijuna residue suspension is irrelevant unless and until a positive toxicology report is released. Let's also remember that 'possession' (of residue) is different from 'under the influence', and that school violations are significantly different from arrests and convictions or incidents resolved by the criminal justice system. Keeping POV out of this article is very difficult, and I hope everyone can engage in some introspection. Part of that difficulty is the scope of the article itself. It's too early to characterize the meta-event, and yet that is the scope. I think in these cases, less is more, and simple is preferable, knowing that over the course of time, just what all this was about will become clearer and less controversial. ArishiaNishi (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

A comment from someone who has so far stayed out of this dispute: I think that one or two editors may need to be reminded that Wikipedia is not a court of law. We are not here to present 'evidence for the prosecution', or 'evidence for the defence'. Our readers are not jurors, assigned with the duty of determining innocence or guilt. This is an online encyclopaedia, and we should confine ourselves to summarising, accurately but briefly, the more cogent details of the events around which the article is centred, in due proportion to the weight assigned by such sources - with the obvious proviso that we consider tabloid tittle-tattle etc of little merit. We do not have to cover every bit of 'evidence' that might be seen as significant at a later trial - if for no other reason than that we should not be engaging in crystal-ball-gazing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Gaijin. Both sides of this story belong in this article, good or bad. As long as the information is presented in a non-biased view, then we have done our job of creating a complete and informative article that a reader will be able to access and come away with their own opinions. That is what WP was designed for was to create a source of information that is presented in a NPOV that leaves the reader with the satisfaction that he was presented with "all' of the information and not had certain information ommited or censored. We leave it to the reader to form an opinion for themselves, after being presented with all of the reliaby sourced facts in this case.Isaidnoway (talk) 03:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with LedRush, MastCell, ArishiaNishi, Hipocrite, Roscelese, and maybe others here that I missed. Martin's school suspensions have no place here - not the reasons for them, and likely not even the fact that he had been suspended. Unless George Zimmerman is clairvoyant, as I have said repeatedly on the article's talk page, we have no information that says that he somehow knew that Martin should not have been inside that gated community (in fact incorrect), or had a history of anything, and that is all that matters. We do not know how Martin was acting, or what made Zimmerman suspicious. No one is claiming that Zimmerman smelled weed. He had no knowledge of Martin at all, but events happened and Martin was shot and killed. We have some actual facts, such as that Martin was unarmed, and that belongs in. But Martin's history, unknown until well after he is dead and buried, so obviously not related to how the event went down, is utterly irrelevant to this article. Zimmerman's is something else - if he has a history of violent reaction, and if he reacted violently that night, his history could have relevance to the event. "Balance" and NPOV does not mean for every bad thing we put in about one person we have to put in a bad thing about another - we put in things that are specifically relevant to the story and properly sourced. Trying to match negative for negative may be thought of as just trying to be fair, but in fact in this case it attempts to shore up the case of one side which everyone must agree is not what we are supposed to be doing for either side. Tvoz/talk 18:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Well said about balance. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

That's your own original research as to why you think it's not relevent. But obviously lots of reliable sources thought it was relevent otherwise they wouldn't have reported it. While we all have personal opinions, we should check such opinions at the door. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you are confusing the original research with the proper enforcement of wikipedia policies under BLP. No one is arguing for the inclusion of information that was derived through original research. We are arguing that because the information is completely irrelevant to the topic of the article, it should not be included. Remember, the news media is not writing an article called "the Shooting/Death of Martin". They're writing one called "let's get as many readers as possible, regardless of whether the information is relevant to the underlying facts of the incident." No article on wikipedia should include every detail of an event that is reported in the media...we should include the relevant ones. Therefore, every article is an exercise in judging what to include and what not to. It's not original research. It's a fundamental aspect of basic editing. And it's complying with BLP.LedRush (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Not at all, you're using your own personal opinion to override what reliable sources are saying about a topic. That goes against WP:NPOV. Further, you can't just cry "BLP! BLP! BLP!" without explaining exactly what the supposed BLP violation is. Nevermind the fact that Martin isn't a living person. And I have yet to see an argument why a less informative article is more desirable than a more informative article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, now that I see you are uninterested in honest dialog, it is easy to dismiss your unfounded accusations and misrepresentations.LedRush (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I think what happened is that I brought up four valid points, you don't have a rebuttal to any of them, so you resorted to personal attacks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I can see a valid debate as to if the information is relevant to the article, or overly prejudicial to the article. I cannot see a valid point that BLP/BDP mandates the information not be included. This is extremely well sourced information, that the family has acknowledged. BLP no longer directly applies as Martin is dead. BDP could apply to the family, but I say they are clearly WP:WELLKNOWN people at this point, participating in multiple nationally broadcast interviews, protests, etc. Information which is negative, but reliably sourced, which is a source of a controversy should be added into articles, even if the subject would prefer not. This is the policy used for THOUSANDS of bio articles. There is clearly a controversy/scandal regarding this in the media, and obvious (from this discussion) a controversy within wikipedia. Just saying "it shouldnt be there" or "BLP!!!!" is not enough. Specific clauses of policies need to be cited, and specific refutations of why the clauses in policies such as WP:WELLKNOWN do not apply. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I think we've largely been debating "relevance". If it is not relevant, than BLP kicks this info out. If it is relevant, than it doesn't. Of course, I would still debate WP:Coatrack and WP:Undue, but we're on the BLP board.LedRush (talk) 21:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

"BLP! BLP! BLP!" Sadly, this policy is being used as bogeyman. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced... This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.

From WP:BLP; emphasis mine. The question is not simply whether the material appears in print somewhere. We should not be acting as an echo chamber for the effort to posthumously cast Martin as a menace. MastCell ^Talk 21:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

If this were about some minor detail, I'd agree with you. But with this topic, we have editors arguing to omit key aspects based on their own personal opinions and prejudices which is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. My advice is this: if something is widely covered by lots of reliable sources, it probably belongs in the article. If it's not, then it probably doesn't. Generally speaking, that's good advice no matter what the topic. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I included the BLP quote to clarify that this is policy-based, not a personal prejudice. Secondly, we don't include details just because they've appeared in the press; that's a major theme of WP:BLP, addressed directly by the quote above. And finally, what key aspects are we talking about? I see people arguing over a school suspension. MastCell ^Talk 22:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Mast, based on that last comment it seems like you may not be aware of what the school suspension under discussion are about. Martin was suspended 3 times. Once for tardiness (clearly not relevant). Once (most recently) for having a baggie that had pot residue in it. Once for being in an unauthorized area of the school. In that suspension, he was observed on a security camera allegedly putting graffiti on school property. When confronted, they searched him, and found a backpack with a bunch of women's jewelry in it. He said it belonged to "a friend", but declined to name a friend. No theft could be proven, and no charges were filed. All three suspensions are well sourced, and acknowledged by the parents. That is the context for my comment below about "history of doing things that if observed would be considered suspicious".

@MastCell & @LedRush Thank you for putting out more reasoned and cited reasons, it makes it much easier to have a discussion. I am in general agreement with you regarding extending victimization, etc. and that the primary issue is relevance. There seems to be general consensus, that Zimmerman's past assault/domestic violence history is relevant to the current situation, as he may have a predisposition to resorting to violence, and this may have had an effect on his actions that day. He has been directly accused of such by the media and Martin's parents. Zimmerman accused Martin of acting suspiciously. Martin has a history of doing things, that if observed, would be suspicious. I am absolutely not accusing Martin of any wrongdoing at the time of observation by Zimmerman, but if Zimmerman is making that accusation, how is a past history of such behavior not relevant in the same way that Zimmerman's history is. Both have been confirmed to have done (in the past) what is being discussed. Neither one was convicted. Both had administrative action taken against them by the relevant officials. Both histories have a plausible relation to hypothetical but unobserved unproven behavior at the time of the incident. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to explain this in a sort of diagram-y way, if it'll help. Zimmerman has a history of violence ... Zimmerman was violent ... relevant and included. Martin has a history of acting suspiciously ... Martin acted suspiciously ... relevant and included? No, because we only have Zimmerman's word here that Martin acted suspiciously, and he's not exactly objective. And again, Zimmerman was not in possession then of the same knowledge that we have now about Martin's history. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. Let me make two points. Zimmerman has a history of unjustified violence (since there were legal consequences, we can say unjustified?). He was violent in this case, but it is only an accusation that it was unjustified. Secondly, my logic does not require Zimmerman to have any knowledge of Martin's history. If Martin has a history of suspicious behavior, it is in fact possible he was acting suspiciously and Zimmerman observed that.

I think the relevance of Martin's suspensions (and their causes) can be plausibly argued for or against. I don't see a consensus on whether to include them or exclude them. The question is whether, by default, Wikipedia includes reliably sourced information or excludes it. As it is right now, the de-facto policy is to *exclude* information of plausible relevance. Personally, I think well-sourced information that is at least plausibly relevant ought to be *included* by default, and left to the reader to decide. Emeraldflames (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

@MastCell: I know, and I apologize if you thought I was referring to you. I was referring to some of the other editors working on that article.

I'm not saying we should include every detail just because they've appeared in the press. I am saying that if something is widely reported by multiple reliable sources, it probably belongs in the article. If it hasn't, it probably doesn't.

You quoted part of WP:BLP so let me quote the very next paragraph:

“ 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 notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. ”

I think that's pretty much what I am saying here.

I'd like to take a step back and reflect on what the BLP policy really means. BLP adds little beyond what WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV already state. That is to say, if you're writing an article and you're carefully following V, OR and NPOV, odds are that you're following BLP, too. The few additional restrictions that BLP adds to these three core content policies (such as not using categories regarding sexual orientation unless the subject publicly self-identifies or don't create biographies about people notable for only one event) don't apply to this article (or haven't been violated).

I get the idea that some editors think that BLP radically alters the way we write articles, and that's simply not the case. For the most part, BLP just reiterates what V, OR and NPOV already state. BLP reminds us that since we're dealing with living people, we need to make sure we get it right. If you look at the top of the BLP policy, it says that we should be very careful to make sure that we're following V, OR and NPOV:

“ This page in a nutshell: Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoiding original research. ”

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Include suspensions stated by family as not media rumors: Although some might wish the suspensions noted with just a few phrases, the family replies which confirm the 3 suspensions did occur, is needed in the article to defuse notions of invented claims. The recent suspension explains why the 17-year-old was in central Florida on a school night, rather than at his home in Miami Gardens (in far south Florida) preparing to attend class the next morning. The prior 2 suspensions explain why the recent suspension was a 10-day suspension. Plus, the mention that other students were involved in the suspension shows that Martin was not "singularly unusual" in being suspended. Hence, there is a lot of text, likely notable, due to coverage in whole reports by both The Miami Herald and The New York Times (27 March 2012, not just a single fringe source). Both reports were complete, so there is not even the need for Wikipedians to combine multiple sources to cite the 3 suspensions, and the confirmation by the parents. Another clear connection to the article is the revelation of school police searching Martin's backpack containing a "large screwdriver" and "12 items of women's jewely" (with "wedding rings") which he said "were not his" in his backpack, then photographed to notify the city police. Such details are not "fringe" or wp:UNDUE as they tie into the incident's themes of drug-use (marijuana) & burglary and police suspicions, as obvious connections for a news story. In general, Wikipedia should only censor non-neutral POV conclusions (such as "gansta lifestyle" or "potential drug dealer"), but allow statements of fact, such as detection of marijuana residue or possession of some unnamed person's jewelry and wedding rings, without concluding: "drug dealer paid with stolen jewelry" (which would be a POV-conclusion). Beware users wanting to remove text as "undue" when it is merely "un-positive" toward one side. In general, heed wp:NOTCENSORED and only omit POV-conclusions (either derogatory or peacock), where the vast bulk of text from multiple sources should be allowed in an article, and not blocked by users trying to wp:OWN the contents of an article. Background text must be allowed. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Without restating the arguments, I believe these facts are relevant and should be included for both Martin and Zimmerman. Intrepid-NY (talk) 21:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I see that this farcical 'talk page trial' is still continuing. When are we expected to reach a verdict? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

If you like writing about current events, Wikinews would love to have you!

Here we go again, can we not step back and remember Wikipedia:Recentism, Wikipedia:UNDUE, and Wikipedia:NOTNEWS? Give it a few days, I'm here in France and the recent Toulouse killings have generated a lot of "he did, he didn't, he was disguised as a camel robbing a post office, oh no sorry it was his 5th birthday party" type of coverage, Wikipedia *is not* a breaking news website and, as such, neeeds to step back, weigh up the different RSs and let the dust settle before writing definitve things in article space about PEOPLE! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 15:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with some other people on some points - this is like bringing up a rape victim's sexual history, and Wikipedia is not a court of law. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that should cover what the sources cover. That means including arguments that we feel are irrelevant, illogical, and unethical, provided that the media sources find them to be relevant. We're not here to judge - we're here to provide a navigable path through the thicket of available sources. To exercise NPOV sometimes we need to be dispassionate, and sometimes we need to be outright cold-blooded. Just cover the sourced information. Wnt (talk) 03:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Please reread WP:BLP. We do not abdicate relevance to newspapers. Otherwise, the Amanda Knox article would have a list of everyone she's every dated, where she ate lunch yesterday, and when she and Sollecito are going to start making flippy-flop again. The reasons of the suspensions are simply not relevant to the crime or the shooting, and therefore cannot be in the article. It's clear from this talk page that we do not have consensus for inclusion, so the suspensions should remain out until consensus is reached, again, per WP:BLP.LedRush (talk) 15:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Gaijin42, the premise of the encyclopedia is that we approach articles conservatively. The media does not. You claim things are widely reported and notable and there are no BLP issues to worry about. The facts are limited, and that is why the media is having such fun playing with this and swinging back and forth. If there are reasons to exclude something from the article, then prudence dictates we should avoid it. It is true that this has become a national phenomenon, but that is entirely a work of the media, not the work of George Zimmerman, and certainly not the work of Trayvon Martin. Spreading titillating bits of gossip about people might work for the media or a trashy tabloid, but it is beneath the encyclopedia. Stick to a rational and reasonable portrayal, based in solid and honest reporting, not the stuff that mostly fills the airwaves. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 16:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

@Avanu: "You claim things are widely reported and notable and there are no BLP issues to worry about." Yep, that's pretty much what BLP 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 notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. ”

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

You keep on missing a quite important word in the policy. "Relevant". Seeing as most of the discussions here have been arguing that the information isn't relevant, I think you should start to read the section you've now quoted at least twice.LedRush (talk) 16:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

@LedRush: Not at all. Zimmerman said that Martin was acting strangely as if he was on drugs. It seems to me that Martin's drug history is very much relevent. It's also relevent in that supporters of Martin have attempted to portray him in a positive light while Zimmerman's try to portray Martin in a negative light. It's not our job to take sides. We simply document what these sources say. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Your position on relevancy has been discredited above. So has your vision of a Wikipedia in which every bit of minutiae published by any newspaper finds its way into an article.LedRush (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

@LedRush:Diff, please? Anyway, now that I think about, if anything, it's a BLP violation not to include it, both from a NPOV perspective and from Zimmerman's perspective. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

You mean to not violate BLP and NPOV we need to violate it? Sounds quite streching to me.TMCk (talk) 18:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

It's in the this very thread where everyone explains the logical fallacy of the relevance of a past suspension from school for pot possession on whether or not a man was justified in thinking that someone was on drugs when he had no knowledge of such past suspension. So many people have articulated this, it's not worthwhile to show the diffs. The same truth refutes your BLP claim: omitting irrelevant info can never be a BLP violation. And when in doubt, the info is out!LedRush (talk) 17:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

@LedRush: I saw that post. It's based on the straw man that Zimmerman needed to have knowledge of such past suspension in order for it to be relevent. Do you actually have a valid reason to omit key information from the article? It's sounding more and more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

What's "key" about it? HiLo48 (talk) 19:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing "key" about it. And with no knowledge of the suspension of Martin, it doesn't even inform his actions in any way. If a toxicology report comes back which shows Martin was on drugs at the time of the shooting, that would be relevant and should be mentioned. But until then it remains irrelevant trivia which must not be included.LedRush (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

@LedRush: Yes, that's your personal opinion. We write articles based on what reliable sources are saying, not on our personal opinions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Really? The pre-9/11 issue comes to mind where you argued the opposite. Change of mind?TMCk (talk) 21:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

As has been explained above, your argument about something being an opinion is a straw man. Editors have a world of information and have to decide what goes in and what doesn't. We use policies like WP:COATRACK, WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP to ensure that not everything written in reliable sources goes into every article. Even beyond that, we use common sense and the fundamental pillars to decide how to weed through the vast sea of information and decide how best to write an article. These processes require opinions. Your personal opinion is that this information is relevant and belongs. My opinion is that your opinion is unfounded, and that the policies linked to above mandate that the information not be included. If you disagree with that analysis, that's fine. We can discuss it here. But your repeated accusations that people who disagree with you are improperly using opinions is completely inaccurate and counter-productive.LedRush (talk) 22:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP are policies we can use, and which certainly argue for keeping this information here, as many sources feature it prominently, indeed, are treating it like it turns the tide of the case (something I don't agree with, but agree with reporting here). WP:COATRACK is an incoherent essay favored by deletionists because they can say that anything you want to keep is "just a bunch of miscellaneous junk", no matter what the sources think. And "common sense" is, well, uncommon - especially so for those who think that people who have just read all the latest developments in the case and then come to Wikipedia and see a Pollyanna version are going to leave impressed. Wnt (talk) 22:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Impressed indeed, about WP adhering to BLP and NPOV instead of sensationalism.TMCk (talk) 22:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

@LedRush: You are advocating that we ignore WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:BLP and write articles based on our own personal opinions to protect a non-living person who's family has given press conferences to the public about this very content. Look, editors come to this board to get advice from uninvolved editors. You can ignore such advice, but I'm not giving out bad advice. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that it is helpful to continually and deliberately misrepresent my views. If you cannot engage in honest discussion, there can never be progress on reaching consensus.LedRush (talk) 15:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

@LedRush: You're using your own personal opinion to override what reliable sources are saying about a topic. WP:NPOV specifically says we are not to do that. I don't know how else you expect someone to view such idiosyncratic opinions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Dishonest discourse is easy. First, ignore whatever the other party says. Next, make up what you wished they would've said, like "You're using your own personal opinion to override what WP:BLP, WP:NPOC, WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK are saying about whether certain information should be included in an article. WP:NPOV specifically says we are not to do that. I don't know how else you expect someone to view such idiosyncratic opinions." Now we're sure never to say anything the other can intelligently respond to!LedRush (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

@LedRush: There you go again. You don't have a argument based on policy and you resort to personal attacks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Please see my extensive policy based arguments above, and your repeated personal attacks against me. If you are able, please try and comment on my actual policy based arguments, not the fake arguments that you invent. If you do that, and avoid commenting on me, we might be able to proceed with intelligent discussion. Hope that helps!LedRush (talk) 13:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

@LedRush: You haven't presented any policy based arguments. Indeed, your arguments violate our policies on WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:BLP. Resorting to personal attacks and false accusations of personal attacks just reinforces the fact that you don't have a policy based argument. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly what I was talking about. There's a big difference in saying "I understand your reading of WP:BLP but I feel that your analysis of "relevance" in that context is wrong" and saying "you advocate for the use of original research and you are advocating that we ignore BLP, NPOV, etc." You see, I've made my argument that BLP supports my opinion and have specifically addressed your OR claim at least twice. By ignoring that argument and misrepresenting my views to say that I am advocating the very policies I continually reference and analyze, we can't have a conversation. I've done my part by addressing your points honestly. That's all that I can do.LedRush (talk) 14:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

@LedRush: If you really want to address concerns about your personal opinion, all you have to do is to present the sources which have made the same conclusion as you have. Not once have you attempted to do so. What's more, even if you could provide sources, we can only document the dispute, not take sides in it. You have presented no argument why WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:BLP should be ignored, and pretending that unsourced opinions which go against Wikpedia policy should be accepted without question does you no service. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly what I was talking about. There's a big difference in saying "I understand your reading of WP:BLP but I feel that your analysis of "relevance" in that context is wrong" and saying "you advocate for the use of original research and you are advocating that we ignore BLP, NPOV, etc." You see, I've made my argument that BLP supports my opinion and have specifically addressed your OR claim at least twice. By ignoring that argument and misrepresenting my views to say that I am advocating the very policies I continually reference and analyze, we can't have a conversation. I've done my part by addressing your points honestly. That's all that I can do.LedRush (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

@LedRush: No, you haven't. If your argument isn't original research, then just cite your sources. This is getting tiresome. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Kenneth R. Melani

Resolved

 – BLP issues resolved. JFHJr (㊟) 20:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Kenneth R. Melani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could someone with better mastery of WP:BLP please glance at this recent short addition. I don't know if there should be an "alleged" or two included. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Collect. [2] --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Victor Merzhanov

Resolved

 – Unsourced contentious content removed. JFHJr (㊟) 20:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Victor Merzhanov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dear Sir/Madam,

According to the revision history of the article, user 76.84.219.119 edited it on January 30, 2012. The edit seems to have been the user's only contribution to Wikipedia. As a result, information about the subject was "enhanced" by an unsourced, unverified, libelious assertion that the subject "was offered to become an informer of the NKVD-KGB, a duty that he performed well for more than fifty years. No one knows, how many lives and careers were destroyed by his denunciations.". NKVD-KGB is a former secret police of the former Soviet Union, and the accusation is quite harsh. In a Russian Wikipedia article on the same subject, no information about that is anywhere to be found - nor are any available sources cited in the English article I am referring to. I am new to Wikipedia - in fact, have joined it as soon as have seen the libel. What is the best way to proceed? Can I mark the article as libelious? And if yes, how do I do that?

Thank you. MoscowpianistMoscowpianist (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed in this edit.--ukexpat (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Marc Hudson

Resolved

 – Unencyclopedic content removed. JFHJr (㊟) 20:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Marc Hudson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article is Marc Hudson. It is not written in a neutral point of view at all and there are also unverifiable claims written in it that seem to be merely a matter of personal opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.127.17 (talk) 11:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Martin Hosking

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

Martin Hosking is a article that has drawn some past controversy - he runs a company that has drawn a lot of criticism in the australian media, much of which has focused on him personally. There have been past BLP problems in the article, which - imo - had been pretty adequately dealt with. The subject of the article has (apparently) showed up on the talk page of the article, upset at some of the content in the article as it had stood in this revision. I may not have time to pay enough attention in the article to figure out what should be in and what should be out today, so additional eyes would be appreciated. Kevin (kgorman-ucb) (talk) 18:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

(earlier comment -- moved here to combine sections -- Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)There continue to be poorly sourced and unbalanced editing of this article. I appreciate that an editor is looking at the article but it would be useful if another eye can be run over it. The section on children's clothing is about a Company and not about Martin Hosking. The article in contrasts makes no reference to the numerous awards won by RedBubble or to the many speaking engagements by Martin Hosking. All of this is well documented. We can submit a re-edit of the article in compliance with Wikipedia guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.205.26 (talk) 02:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I have made a thorough revision of the article, ferreting out invalid sources and dead links while adding information from existing sources that had been ignored. I've also re-organized his career into chronological order rather than three sections with one or two sentence each that don't help the reader get an overview of the subjects career. I do not see anything in any of the current sources that indicates any kind of criticsm or controversy on the subject of this article. I'll also post on the talk page and keep in on my watchlist.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Your edits removed every shred of negative information about Hosking's company. Many of your comments that Hosking is not mentioned in the sources are incorrect. I'm not sure what to do about your edits at this point, although I'm tempted to restore the article to its previous state. Hosking and others associated with Hosking have repeatedly complained and inappropriately edited the article. I am generally seriously in favor of protecting BLPs, but the article is now significantly non-neutral. I don't have time today to do much about this, and it may be useful to wait to see if anyone else comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think a rollback is appropriate as I've done a lot of good work there and if something was mistakenly deleted it can be added back in. I'll go back and recheck my work, but it would be helpful if you specified a particular source(s). [We can also continue this discussion on the article talk page]. I'd be curious to know in what way the article is "non-neutral". Are you concerned about hype I removed about his award? Or my removal of the long quote from the company website explaining how great RedBubble is? I think we have the same goals and values for both BLP's and WP, so working this out together shouldn't be a problem but your comments need to be more specific so we can address the issue together. I look forward to working with you on this. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

When I came to the article there were 12 citations. Now there are 9. I removed three cites from two sources (one source was listed twice) [3] [4] They are both RedBubble blogs written by an unidentified person. I don't see how this is relevant to the BLP, how they are relable sources nor do I see any "negative information" in them. So I'm confused. Maybe you can clarify. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

This source is still in the article, but I don't see any mention of the subject, can you point it out to me? Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Looking at older versions of the article I see that there were three sources that reported concerns about porn images on baby clothing. But that text and those sources were not present in the article when I began editing it. So I think you may have jumped to the conclusion that I removed those sources and content, which is not the case. However, I'd be happy to look at those sources with you on the article talk page and decide on appropriate neutral content for the article in regard to them.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I concur that a rollback is not appropriate. If the article is going to include coverage of Redbubble beyond the relatively cursory then it should be complete. And if complete is better in the context of a full article about the Company. Simply picking out one incident and inserting it in a biography is not appropriate and inevitably is unbalanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.148.117.90 (talk) 01:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

As I noted on my Talk page, I will respond more fully to Keithbob when I have time. Just a passing note that 192.148.117.90 is a shared IP address of an Australian ISP. There is a remarkable campaign by Hosking and his associates to whitewash the article, as well as comments that are perilously close to legal threats (e.g., repeated use of the word defamation).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I've had a look at the sources and see nothing wrong with them. In light of Keithbob's comment above (that he didn't remove the material whose absence Bbb23 considers unwarranted), I have restored some material. I'm sure this won't be the end of it... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate everyone's comments and participation here. I think the core issue is the offensive images on baby clothing text. So I recommend we discuss it on the talk page and achieve consensus. I have started a thread on the talk page for that purpose. Please join the conversation here. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Before I saw this comment, I edited the article and added back in the baby porn material. I'll comment on the article Talk page, but it's well sourced and has comments by Hosking in the sources.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Martin Hosking Here. I am again going to urgently request that the section in my biography related to Hipster Hitler and guidelines around children’s clothing be removed. This is in accord with Wikipedia policy - “When in doubt about whether material in a BLP is appropriate, the article should be pared back to a policy-compliant version.” [5]. The inserted material in the biography does not create a biography that is “very neutral in tone and contents, and written with regard to the highest quality of fairness and sourcing, beyond the normal standards” as it includes material that “grossly unbalance(s) the biography's point of view and … is not justified by any encyclopedic need.” [6] This is seen by the simple fact that they account for 132 of the 309 words of the biography. If editors believe I am only notable in connection with this “one incident, topic or matter, and are not notable per se except for your role in that matter, then an article based on that incident or matter will often be more appropriate than one about you specifically” [7] [8] In reverting the article to the policy compliant version I would also request that the talk section be edited as it contains attack material [9].

In relation to the issues I will say both were complex issues and trying to do them justice in a brief biography is impossible. They are also unconnected except in time. Clearly they also have the potential to be inflammatory and attract people who want to insert the words Nazi, porn and children into the BLP. (That they can cause serious reductionist errors is seen in the quote above which talks about "baby porn material" - when it has nothing to do with any such thing.) If they are considered important they should be handled in an article on REDBUBBLE. In which case I would note in relation to the former, that REDBUBBLE was commended by the Simon Weisenthal Centre, with whom we worked on this range of issues (it went beyond Hipster Hitler) as having “modeled how conscience and commerce can intersect”. [10]. In relation the issue of children’s clothing I note that this was a sensationalist tabloid issue and thus is not worthy of being covered by Wikipedia and certainly not in the context of a BLP. The sources cited are not of the standard required for a BLP and are mostly wrong. 220.245.205.26 (talk) 05:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the material for now, further discussion would be useful on the talk page. Kevin (talk) 05:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The issues over this BLP have not been resolved. Controversial and poorly sourced material creating IMO a WP:coatrack have been reinserted by original editors. The issues are being discussed in the talk section. 121.219.122.136 (talk) 10:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Hosking has co-founded a custom products company Redbubble that has been newsworthy about its Hitler customer products and porn for children custom products - with debate and news. Otherwise Hosking is completely unnotable. Why is there a Wiki entry on Hosking? Maybe Redbubble should have an entry to explore the sides of the Hitler/child porn custom products coverage from Redbubble perspective but if Hosking is completely separate from the custom products company Redbubble why is he own entry when nothing notable? Muwt5 (talk) 10:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Bingu wa Mutharika

Resolved

 – Subject's death reliably sourced. JFHJr (㊟) 20:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Bingu wa Mutharika (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Somebody keeps editing the article for Malawi's head of state to report his death. It has indeed been reported by the BBC that Bingu wa Mutharika has been rushed to the hospital for cardiac arrest (http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-17628591). However, no reputable source has yet reported his death.

A Malawi tabloid, the Malawi Democrat, known for sensationalist tactics, has written a story about his death, which has led to widespread speculation on Twitter. However, there has been no official report at this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.220.15.2 (talk) 13:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I added the BBC detail to the lede - until there is a decent reliable source for a death claim it should not be added and if needed semi protection should be requested. Youreallycan 14:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Lawrence O'Donnell

Lawrence O'Donnell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An anon or anons have been adding a paragraph to the article about O'Donnell's "well demonstrated hostility to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". The material has been inserted repeatedly without source. When I reverted the addition, I tried to explain the need for sourcing. Consequently, the latest version has sources, but (a) they're mostly poor (Newsbusters, The Corner), or are primary sources from which the anon is drawing original conclusions. There's one good source, IMO, from Religion Dispatches, but even that is an opinion piece, and seems to be inappropriately used. Details of my take on the issue at Talk:Lawrence_O'Donnell#Views_on_LDS.

More eyes would be appreciated, as would feedback on my rationale, if people think I am mistaken. Guettarda (talk) 04:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Lately I wonder what that guy *isn't* hostile toward. -- Avanu (talk) 05:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Yep, that's a good example of the type of unsourced comment that you should never make about living people in Wikipedia. Guettarda (talk) 05:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

When I see him in an interview berating George Zimmerman's attorney for cancelling his appearance and the practically interrogating an empty chair, that's where a comment like my previous one comes from. A journalist doesn't behave like that, but a biased self-seving huckster does. We don't need to add any improperly sourced material to articles, but my point is that respect and a careful concern for the truth does not appear to be on that man's agenda, but here in Wikipedia, it needs to be front and center. -- Avanu (talk) 05:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM. The BLP noticeboard is not the place to discuss your views on the subject of the article. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Dieudonné M'bala M'bala

Dieudonné M'bala M'bala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The English language version of the page is well written, with one exception : the introductory paragraph, which is riddled with spelling mistakes. It is also very obviously biased, in favour of Dieudonné. I have been unable to edit it. Here it is, with my comments ( in parentheses ) :

Dieudonné M'bala M'bala (born 11 February 1966), generally known simply as Dieudonné, is a French comedian, actor and political activist. ( No problem here )

A famous popular French humourist who has talent to laugh of sensitive world news, especially politic minds and characters ( bad English and meaningless ). He became internationally known since he made a short improvised show (5mn) in 2003 at a French TV show Channel France3 "on ne peut pas plaire a tout le monde" misinterpreted and comdamned ( bad English - and as for the incident referred to, it wasn't "misinterpreted" ) , by the zionist community in France ( a loaded accusation, smacking of antisemitism ). Dieudonné M'bala M'bala who is member of anti-rascist French organization ( bad spelling ) since 25 years, because of this sketch he has been wrongly called as antisemit by mass medias ( bad spelling, and the rest of the WIkipedia page gives a list of incidents and statements which explain why Dieudonné has been accused of antisemitism). Since 2003 he had more than 23 justice processes and won 20 ( bad English, bad spelling, and the two figures quoted, 'more than 23' and '20' are not backed up by any source or reference, and highly suspect ). Today all the French city mayors boycott Dieudonné M'bala M'bala shows, even if it doesn't talk about any suspicious and sensitive subjects he has been forced to make his shows in a bus ( bad ENglish, bad spelling, etc).

Trying to edit this, I found the only editable text was the first two lines, which are true and uncontroversial.

This odd intro should be removed, fast. The rest of the article, as far as I can see, is fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.243.69 (talk) 13:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC) IP info added by CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 21:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• Note the intro has been dealt with by an IP, the article needs a serious lookover as it is all sourced to French newspapers, the article is mainly written in French in English, and this guy has a lot of polemical stuff going on. I will give it a workthrough over the next few days so consider this one closed. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 21:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Moshe Feinstein

Resolved

 – No BLP issue: subject died in 1986. Caution and edit request link provided. JFHJr (㊟) 20:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The report on Moshe Feinstein is especially libelous since as one of the top Jewish leaders he was guilty of being a Nazi leader killing untold numbers of Jews by refusing the offer of Adolf Eichman to resettle the Jewish people in Israel which is the homeland of the Jewish people and he continued to kill Jews as they defend his grave in the land that he never bothered living in — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.172.141.251 (talk) 18:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Um, what? You might try making that complaint without committing linguistic atrocities. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

From reading this, I suspect you might be this blocked editor, who also made the same claims under a similar IP to yours, and was the reason the page is now protected. If that's true, I urge you to log back in and request an unblock. Instructions are on that talk page. Once you're unblocked, the best place to request an edit is at Talk:Moshe Feinstein (look below "What can I do?" for the link to submit one). If you decide to make a request, please refrain from accusations of libel, and make sure to provide a few reliable sources that support the information you'd like to add (with citations, word for word and without synthesis. Until you're unblocked, though, I'd refrain from editing at all, even here. What you've written above is unsourced and unsubstantiated point of view pushing, and looks like block evasion. Good luck. JFHJr (㊟) 20:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Sylvia Young

Resolved

 – Vandalism removed by Andy.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

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

I am Sylvia Young. . My wikipedia page says that I was diagnosed with fatal lymphocytic leukaemia, this is not true. I am in good health. The entry has caused concern from my students and parents. Can this be removed please. I have no idea who would have put this on — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylviayoung (talk • contribs) 19:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sylvia. This seems to have been dealt with now. Wikipedia apologises. FormerIP (talk) 19:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I've removed this - it was entirely unsourced, and should never have been added to the article - it is possible this was a case of mistaken identity, but I'll see if I can find out more - it may have been vandalism. Apologies, either way. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks like it was added by the same IP (slightly different address but probably the same person) without explanation or sourcing. I'll watch the page for a while.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• comment - Resolved is a bit of a simple statement in this case - and in general in reflection of wikipedia Biographies of people of limited notability - This uncited serious illness claim sat in the article for over three months - no wikipedia editor noticed, after the insult to the living person of hosting such a serious falsehood in the main Internet search for her name was published by wikipedia for over three months , resolved is a hollow claim - Youreallycan 20:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, it's worse than that. It has sat twice for months. Each time it was removed by Sylvia herself (ironically, the second time Sylvia's reversion was bot-reverted, probably because of a typo by Sylvia). That said, I'm not sure what your point is. Do you have a suggestion to prevent this kind of damage? Unless something could be added to a bot filter, I don't see it, short of fundamentally changing the structure of Wikipedia, i.e., you must have an account to edit - and even then.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• ", I'm not sure what your point is. " - the point is to promote and expose the serious failings and violations of its own policies and guidelines of the en wikipedia project. _ Youreallycan 23:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

That's not the point of this page, though. We've done what there is to be done here. FormerIP (talk) 23:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

You didn't do anything, neither did I - no wikipedia editor did anything for over three months while the the violation sat published by the en wikipedia project for over three months. SHAME - Youreallycan 23:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I've semi-protected for a year. Obviously the 1st reversion didn't actually resolve the issue, unlikely a plain reversion will this time either. Kevin (talk) 02:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh picture

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

• - WP:IMAGES

Recently a decent portrait style picture has been removed from the infobox of this BLP - the user that has nominated it for deletion at commons, see discussion has replaced it with this picture - imo a very poor picture for inclusion in the infobox of a living person and imo is violation of the guidelines of WP:IMAGES - I have removed it a couple of times and there is discussion on the talkpage here - sadly its being repeatedly inserted during the discussion - its a rubbish picture and we are requested to carefully consider the inclusion in infoboxes of pictures that poorly represent the subject - any thoughts, we are looking for policy considered consensus - Youreallycan 20:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems on the order of a cell-phone pic at best ... Collect (talk) 21:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Google "Rush Limbaugh bounce" for a likely reason this crap quality CPAC photo may be the object of enthusiasm. It's a kind of meme at this point. There is indeed a BLP issue in this context. JFHJr (㊟) 21:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the BLP issue. However, I think the image does violate the guidelines of WP:IMAGE in terms of its quality. And to respond to a comment by another user on YRC's Talk page, I think it would be better to have no image than this image.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• You are right, there is no BLP issue. It is a kind of crappy pic, nobody disputes that. The dispute is whether the article is better off with this less than ideal picture or no pic at all. I say less than ideal is better than none. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• - There is always a WP:BLP issue - although I did not focus on it - any attempt to portray a living person in a negative manner, such as this attempt to retain a low quality image in the infobox of a living person against the guidelines stated in Wikipedia:Images is a violation of policy - not guidelines - WP:POLICY - Wiki is not a pictorial - content is king - no picture is preferred according to policy than a crap picture.Youreallycan 21:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• He isn't beng portrayed in a negative manner. That claim is absurb. He is neatly dressed, performing a perfectly normal function at a reputable event. He isn't caught making some sort of weird expression like a previous image did. There is simply an issue of photo quality. If a higher quality one is available, great! Let's discuss it. But the claim that this one somehow damages his image is a red herring. And you have yet to quote what part of the policy is actually being violated. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• WP:BLP requests us to portray subjects in a fair light - - a crap picture is just that and clearly makes them look crap - its not rocket science - Sadly - wikipedia policy and its actioning is so weak that this is even under discussion,Youreallycan 21:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• Poor resolution doesn't reflect on the subject, it reflects on the photographer. There is nothing unfair about the way he is being portrayed. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Rush Limbaugh.jpg is a lot better, and a good profile shot (a little more blurry than the original; unfortunately that original is a clear copyvio so will be disappearing). The down side is that technically it is a booking photo... I'd say use it because it's not got anything suggesting that is what it is, and looks like a perfectly average potrait of the guy. But I could see a valid argument for not doing so :) --Errant ^(chat!) 21:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Whatever else this photo is or isn't, it isn't a BLP issue. We should use the most best quality, most appropriate image available. Would someone mind quoting the wording in WP:IMAGES that this photo supposedly infringes on? FormerIP (talk) 22:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Have a good read of the mos image guidelines and then supplement it with a read of WP:BLP and you should agree that, crap pictures should not be used to represent living people. - Youreallycan 22:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

So, in other words, there's nothing about the picture that is contrary to either BLP or MoS. That's what I thought. FormerIP (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you read the guidelines and come back - for your ease - a common sense position - its a crap picture - Youreallycan 22:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

We use crap pictures all the time, as well as crap prose. We're Wikipedia. It doesn't constitute a BLP issue. There's nothing disparaging about it, it's just lo-res. You may think the delete nomination is motivated by a desire to downgrade the quality of Limbaugh's photo. You may be right or you may be wrong, but it's tough luck either way. FormerIP (talk) 23:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

You claim, "You may think the delete nomination is motivated by a desire to downgrade the quality of Limbaugh's photo." - this is totally mistaken, I do not think that at all, the deletion discussion is all in total good faith. - There is no excuse to use crap pictures because we are wikipedia - we are challenged to portray our living subjects in a fair light - a crap picture is just not good enough - no picture is recommended in such a situation - its got nothing to do with tough luck as you assert - Youreallycan 23:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• Yet another editor sees that you aren't quoting policy. Instead, you are asserting your interpretation of policy and guidelines is the true and correct one (ie, the only one) and that anyone who disagrees lacks "common sense". Personally, I think that your attempt to hode behind BLP is a move to fend off 3RR issues. You've yet to quote any policy that states a low res pic is a BLP problem. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• @Errant - I agree with you about the booking shot - It is by far the best policy compliant picture we have at the moment - only issue is that even though it is a decent quality , it is still known as a booking/mug pic, I couldn't support such a pic to the infobox even if technically it is the best one of him we have. Youreallycan 22:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• - User:Wormcast has just replaced the disputed picture , without any discussion at all .. their edit summary of, "restored image. Keep until better-quality image is located." - is not to be found in any wikipedia policy or guideline either - keep this crap picture until we find a better one - Youreallycan 22:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• And still another editor has replaced it. Maybe this isn't as cut and dried as you think. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• As a separate point.....BLP applies to all pages in Wikipedia, including here. If you truly believe this photo is a BLP violation, then why are you posting it here, in violation of BLP? Niteshift36 (talk) 23:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm with Youreallycan on this one. It's not at all a flattering picture and should be replaced with a better one. Also, a reality check is needed here. If an editor complains about a possible BLP violation, you work it out on talk until consensus is reached. What you don't do, is edit-war to include the contentious BLP content back in the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Two points. Firstly, it does not look to me as if any editor has complained about a possible BLP violation, in that no explanation as been offered as to how BLP is being breached. Secondly, although I don't agree that the picture is unflattering, it is not the best imaginable picture and it should be replaced by a better one, at such time as a better one is available. FormerIP (talk) 00:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed on both points. YRC and Niteshift stopped battling over the image. However, multiple other editors are reverting depending on which side of the issue they're on, and that continuing battle is silly and unseemly. As to whether the image should stay in until a better one comes along or whether no image should be in the article until a better one comes along, I've already stated my view on that, but it's relatively subjective and based on guidelines not policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Excuse me, but your phrasing is off. I discussed first, then made a total of 2 reverts. Saying that I am "battling" is frankly some BS. YRC, on the other hand, took action before discussion and has 3 reverts. Trying to make it sound the same is off base. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Per WP:MUG, the booking shot is out; so is the image posted above, because of its association with YouTube videos mocking the BLP subject. If these are the only alternatives, then no image is the best solution until a neutral image can be sourced. JN466 01:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• And yet it is now the pic that is in the info box.....go figure. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

He's quite a heavily-mocked guy, though. Good luck finding a picture that has never been used by an internet satirist or prankster. Formerip (talk) 01:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

As a conservative political figure, Rush Limbaugh is protected by WP:BLP - his article must remain laudatory and any problem that any nominally conservative editor has with the article is, in fact, a BLP violation. Accurately notes political stances? BLP VIOLATION! Grainy picture? BLP VIOLATION! Mispelling? BLP VIOLATION! Hipocrite (talk) 12:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

That was sly, Hipocrite -- committing a BLP violation in a post that clarifies the nature of BLP violations. Hint: which word is not spelled correctly? Someone oughta take you to ANI for this. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, it isn't an accurate depiction of the situation. I'm as conservative as anyone and I'm one that isn't having a problem with the lower quality photo. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• I said nothing about other editors here. The fact that you disagree with the conservative editors who use this board as a central location to protect their favored sons in this one, specific case does not make the fact that BLP over-reach is used by a specific type of editor to do a specific type of thing untrue. It means that you alleged you don't do it. Congrats! Hipocrite (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Some of us are completely uninvolved neutrals only attempting to apply wikipedia policy and guidelines. - Youreallycan 19:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Got a new image and inserted it into the article. Any objections, please feel free to remove and discuss. Best, – Connormah (talk) 18:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thats a fair bit better - Thank you - Youreallycan 19:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

No worries. I tried to find something better but there doesn't seem to be many images on Flickr of him even (except a couple from a Think Tank's official stream, I contacted them a few months ago and they haven't replied). – Connormah (talk) 19:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

paul ryan

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

middle name is not douchbag, please correct - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.68.215 (talk • contribs)

I checked with his office, and you are correct. Thanks for letting us know. I have fixed it. Just so you know, vandalism like that can be fixed by anyone. Just click on the edit tab at the top of the page. Cheers. FormerIP (talk) 22:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

It is quite commonly used accurately of politicians, though not necessarily this one, so confusion is understandable. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Heh, sounds like bad lawyer jokes directed at politicians - many of whom happen to be lawyers.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Paul Burston

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

I think the article on Paul Burston probably constitutes a "puff-piece" with lists of "glowing" book reviews etc. There also appears to be some sort of editing battle going on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Septemberfourth476 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I've shortened the article considerably, mostly based on lack of sourcing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Bbb23, I was edit-conflicting with you, here and in the article. Thanks for looking into this, and thanks to the editor who reported it. Drmies (talk) 00:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, if I had known you were going to do the work, I would have been happy to let you. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 01:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Gjekë Marinaj

Gjekë Marinaj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This biography doesn't follow Wikipedia principles of neutrality and veriability.

Moreover, many sources miss such as alleged interview with football player Pele, President Bush, Shimon Peres e.tc.

Article is written by user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Johnspring who is undoing everything. Obviuosly he acknoloedges that Johsnpring us Gjeke Marinaj himself or a very close affiliate of him. This he wrote as comment when undoing:

" (Gjek’s works speak for themselves. Where are your credentials? You can include Belushi if you want. But please keep out of our team’s work.) (undo)"

(It is obvious that Belushi is not your PROBLEM. If you think our team is going to let you continue like this you better think again.) (undo) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.17.252.233 (talk) 04:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Mess. Puffed up. "Praise" as given by his own site. Added some cn tags - more are needed. Had huge "bibliography" which I removed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Collect, I think you were being very kind when you took your blunt ax to the article. I'm looking at Protonism right now, and I have a feeling this will end up at AfD. Drmies (talk) 14:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Gee -- I did not think of the ax as blunt. Now "Protonism" needs that AfD imo. Collect (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I had that thought, and I held back only because I always feel obligated to find an appropriate delsort and didn't want to spend the time thinking about which one. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Ranina Reddy

Ranina Reddy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm not sure if this is the correct place for this, but I want other editors to have a look. It isn't the "usual" BLP issues of attack language, but the article creator has basically created a fan page and I don't have time to keep removing all the non-encyclopedic stuff by myself. Cheers.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 17:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I took a machete to it. But I'm not inclined to add it to my watchlist... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Machete was not enough. Collect (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Your machete was bigger than mine. Or sharper. Or something. But these weeds grow fast. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Bob Turner (politician)

Bob Turner (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is heavily edited by what might be a POV editor, or at least one who might have ownership issues on the BLP judging by number of edits. Request eyes on the article, as it may violate some precepts of Wikipedia. Like NPOV. I have watched it since the election, but am now accused of "stalking" of all things ... Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I had a bit of a read of it but as a United Kingdom editor most of it goes over my head - As a summary, (I despair to waste my time attempting to improve USA political biographies) - I will say that it seems unusually promotional - no critical content at all and it seemed a bit written in a sort of opinionated commentary style and I felt some of the content was assumed and asserted rather than cited. All in all IMO it resembles an official campaign biography in violation of NPOV. I also tweaked what felt undue weight in the lede in a coatracking manner to the Weiner issue - Youreallycan 19:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I was concerned about using "claimed" or the like in a BLP, as that usually indicates a bit of a problem. I made what I thought were pretty simple edits, but was accused of "stalking" for no apparent reason, so thought added eyes were prudent. Collect (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Peter Meineck

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

This biography has been vandalized several times and incorrect, harmful and libelous information displayed. On April 6 the entire article was rewritten in the first person with several offensive additions. I am the subject of this article and I would like it to be deleted. While I fully respect Wikipedia's open source policy, somebody is using it as an opportunity to public defame me and I respectfully respect that you now remove this entire entry.

Peter Meineck — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.225.57 (talk) 03:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Peter. I've gone through the article to hopefully improve it a little and make it more focussed. We prefer content that has a citation to go with it. There doesn't seem to be anything wrong at the moment, but if there is something I haven't spotted please remove it. I've put the article on my watchlist, which means I will be notified every time an edit is made, and I will do my best to undo any vandalism in future. Hopefully some other editors will do the same thing.

There is a procedure for getting your article deleted if you are of low notability and not a public fugure (I'm in the UK, so I wouldn't know if this applies to you). However, might I suggest that having a few editors watching your article might solve the problem, and invite you to give that a chance first. Protection can also be put on your article to prevent passers-by from editing it, if there is a recurring problem. If you are really determined that you want the article deleting, then we will see if that can be done, but you should be aware that attempts to do that are not always successful. Thanks, and apologies about the vandalism. Formerip (talk) 17:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Wes Keller

Wes Keller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I love how every so often, something comes across in my talk page, or in an edit summary in my watchlist, to the effect of criticizing me for "drive-by merge requests." However, I look at this article and the dozens of other look-alike and read-alike articles on members of the Alaska Legislature, the vast majority of which serve no purpose other than to announce "Hey, lookee, this person is notable!" I must draw the conclusion that drive-by article creation is considered perfectly okay. The reality is that one editor dumped something of dubious usefulness upon Wikipedia, deciding that it was up to someone else to do the real work, all the while wishing and hoping that there is a someone else out there who may possibly halfway give a shit.

I'll quit ranting for now. Consider it lucky that someone was watching this article who did bother to give a shit. An IP repeatedly inserted a screed, packed with POV and containing the barest of "sourcing," about comments Keller may or may have not made about the 100th anniversary of the Girl Scouts (in the United States?) and a connection between the Girl Scouts and Planned Parenthood. I've had more important things to do lately than watch the legislature on television or read the newspaper every single day, so I'm clueless as to exactly what this is all about. I need to leave for work any minute now. The Anchorage Daily News website has multiple references to this, but I can't tell if they are all opinion pieces or if this actually was reported as a news item by them or by anyone else.RadioKAOS (talk) 03:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - reverted the IP as the section was clearly POV (and borderline defamatory) and unsourced by the IP. Something maybe viable to add, but I'll start with cleaning out the junk first. Ravensfire (talk) 15:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

AlanDavies

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

someone has made a false allegation against alan davies relating to his aledged racial comments about tottenham hotspur. this can be found at the bottom of his page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.169.158.130 (talk) 15:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I've removed it. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Ivana Trump

Ivana Trump (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article says she filed for divorce in 1991, but then says the divorce proceedings were wrapped up after her dad died in 1990, which makes zero sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.161.84.111 (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The cited source that purports to say her divorce wrapped up in 1990 does not really say that. It says she and her estranged husband were together at her father's funeral. Ivana's website says her divorce from Donald was final in 1992. You could correct it or if you don't get to it, I will.Coaster92 (talk) 04:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I made the corrections to the article.Coaster92 (talk) 05:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Sergey Zagraevsky

Sergey Zagraevsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Appears to be a bit of a mess-- thought the person who wanted [11] the huge list of "stuff" is compromising, I think that added eyes on this BLP would help. It has less puff than it had before, but I wonder if listing all his articles (and showing a sample gallery of his works) is called for here. Thanks! Collect (talk) 21:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The paintings now shown on the article do not seem excessive. I do not follow what the Selected Books section is. I don't see his name in English as an author. A list of his publications seems appropriate. But I cannot tell if these are his works. Are these books showing one or more of his paintings? If so, that seems like it could be appropriate. If not, I am not sure why this list is included. Maybe I am not finding the explanation or maybe it needs to be added. The article needs editing for syntax and grammar for sure.Coaster92 (talk) 04:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

malcolm thomas rugby player

Malcolm Thomas made his debut in 1949 at the Stade de Colombe not at St Helens I have the Programme of the match signed by Haydn Tanner who with Bunner Travers are the only two Welshmen to play before the war and after. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.248.197 (talk) 07:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Mike Morgan meteorologist

Mike Morgan (meteorologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello, I am a high profile professional in the tv broadcast media in OKC.

For months now birddog77 has been posting information about my internship with the national weather service that is false. Simply, I did intern with the nws way back in the 1970's, and says I did not. The edit war is just getting rediculous. Birddog77 likely does not care about whether or not I interned with the nws, but rather is more likely simply wanting to discredit me.

Please do something to stop the endless edit war. Thank you, Mike Morgan Chief meteorologist Kfor tv OKC

Anviltop — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anviltop (talk • contribs) 09:12, 11 April 201 2 (UTC)

Yes, looking at User:Birddog77's edits he does appear to have a single conflicted purpose that is not WP:NPOV on this biography. I left him a note User_talk:Birddog77 - about his editing and a link to this discussion. - Youreallycan 09:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I wonder how many jobs, let alone internships, haven't changed eligibility requirements in 35 years. Dru of Id (talk) 13:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Lacking reliable, independent, third-party sources, that entire article should consist of "Mike Morgan is a television meteorologist". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thats close to the current reality - al we have to support any content is his empyer bio and thats no longer hosted and only at the wayback. The Bio is crying out for more sources - I did a google but didn't turn anything up - Youreallycan 13:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Just to chip in, did a quick check on the users and they are both SPAs (no other edits at all apart from this bio), edit warring over article content in article space and not on the talk page. Was busy this afternoon but wondered "does this guy actually meet WP:GNG?" Wikipedia:BEFORE anyone? CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 17:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Being a TV weatherman is a high-profile job in Oklahoma, because of the frequent major storms. Searching for news stories about him is tricky because there's a controversial state senator with the same name, not to mention that The Oklahoman is tightly paywalled. My own sense is that he probably is notable but it may take some effort to establish this clearly. I've added a couple of sources, will try to find more. In the meantime, I think YRC's recent edits[12] are well-judged according to BLP policy, and I hope we can avert the continuing edit war.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

A total outsider here just butting in on this discussion. For an example of a similar person in another city obsessed with weather, take a look at David Brown (meteorologist). HiLo48 (talk) 01:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• note - The disruptive user on the account, Birddog77 has been blocked indefinitely after returning to his previous pattern of editing. - Youreallycan 10:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Since the contentious claim was sourced to an archived copy of a bio on the subject's employer's website, I removed it from the article, along with a bunch of unsourced stuff. Hopefully, that will solve the edit-warring problem. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The Exorcist

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.

---

By chance, when looking up something else I strayed onto our article for The Exorcist novel where I noticed that we name the subject of the original case. This struck me as odd, because previous times I've seen this case discussed the subject's name was given as a pseudonym - I checked through the source given - the unknown reliability Strangemag and reliable or not it uses a pseudonym as well. I then checked to see if there are any other reliable sources that identify the name - the only one I can find is the St Louis Riverfront Timeswhich doesn't appear to be definitive about the claim and while Mark Opsasnick's article may point to this individual it's not really up to us to name him without a good reliable source and strong reasoning. Oddly we name the individual in The Exorcist, The Exorcist (film) , and Thomas B. Allen (author) all cited to the same source. But use pseudonyms in the articles Possessed (2000 film), and the article on the subject Exorcism of Roland Doe - clearly a consistent approach would be preferable and I would think that at minimum the name should be limited to use in the Exorcism of Roland Doe if well sourced and all the other articles should use a pseudonym linked to the subject's article. If the source can't be improved upon then it should just be remove period. I considered boldly removing but as this affects multiple articles thought I'd get some BLP feedback first. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 11:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I find no matching obituaries and one possible living match, so BLP is a valid concern, especially given the uncommon last name. Dru of Id (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

This sounds like WP:BLPNAME should apply. Formerip (talk) 15:07, 11 April 2012 (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.

Tim Bueler

Tim Bueler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This person is completely non-notable and does not meet the minimum requirements to warrant mention on Wikipedia. The article is clearly written in the interest of self-promotion, as this man's entire modus operandi is to spam anyone he can with his politics, via e-mail, forum, or otherwise.

I request immediate removal. The page's discussion tab suggests the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.37.24 (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Much as I understand the dislike of a subject who has marketed aggressively and potentially illegally, non-notability is not a legitimate concern here. I can see nationwide news coverage stretching back to his high school years. More of a problem with the article is neutrality, where the article does not fully represent the controversy Bueler has courted throughout his life. Whether a rewriting or deletion is required is still a valid discussion to have. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Martin Hosking

Asking for input on this text currently in the BLP of Martin Hosking attributed to a single news article at www.news.com.au:

• Current text: In September 2011, RedBubble was criticised for having pornographic images on baby's clothing. In response to the complaints, Hosking said such sales were against RedBubble guidelines: "The fact that an image can be shown on children's clothing does not mean that it has ever been ordered or produced." After being contacted by the press, RedBubble removed many of the items the same day.
• Portion of news article that mentions Hosking: Martin Hosking, CEO of Red Bubble, said the sale of offensive children's clothing was contrary to the site's guidelines, which state that all children's clothing should not be sexually or violently suggestive, demeaning, derogatory or political. "The fact that an image can be shown on children's clothing does not mean that it has ever been ordered or produced," he said.

Is this scandal at RedBubble relevant to the BLP of Martin Hosking? If yes, then does the current BLP text accurately represent the source? Comments welcomed.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

What is this, a pub quiz? If you think the text is inaccurate somehow, please indicate how. I don't see the problem, myself. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The above comment is a demeaning attack in the form of bullying - the post by Keithbob is clearly in good faith and a detailed request for comment - User:Nomoskedasticity simply makes fun of his request for comment - the user, who claims to be a working intellectual university professor repeats this pattern at any opportunity. Youreallycan 16:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Well the issue is that you have a company that allows users to select a piece of clothing, and its colour, and to then chose an image from a databank and to decorate the clothing. There was no filter to stop people from choosing a porn image to put on clothing appropriate for children. Thought experiement: if the WMF decide to do the same with clothing or licensed someone else, as they do with turning articles into books, to make cafepress style stuff drawing from commons images, then would it be UNDUE to add to Sue Gardiner's page criticism that the WMF allowed people to order children's cloths or school notebooks with a "pre cum" image? John lilburne (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. The article uses Hosking as a spokesman, and does not extend the controversy to him. The material is not appropriate for his biography. Kevin (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

(Sorry John had misunderstood your point, have edited my comment now I do 220.245.205.26 (talk) 07:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)) The use of single tabloid sources in a BLP is a clear contravention of the policy that "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism." [13]. The headline of the article is out of sync with the article itself which has no reference to pornographic material. There is no factual evidence presented that pornographic material ever appeared on children's clothing and the article makes no reference to it (or provides any images of it). As a single source tabloid story there is no verifiability over whether Hosking did or did not make the quote or what he is was not quoted as saying. And as others have pointed out the inclusion of the reference in a BLP (not in an article on REDBUBBLE where it may belong) clearly creates guilt by association again in contravention of BLP policy. Unless there is a verifiable high quality source for the article and convincing argument it is material to the BLP it should be removed. 220.245.205.26 (talk) 23:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you'll find that John is agreeing with you. Kevin (talk) 23:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I've pretty much stated my views on the Hosking Talk page (and in earlier discussions here). Hosking is the co-founder and CEO of a small company. That company makes news (negative). He comments in response to the news reports. It's fair for us to report that material. It would be different if he was the head of a very large company and the company had its own article here. In that case, it would be more reasonable to report on the material in the company article. As for the pornographic clothing material specifically, I have already said on the Talk page that I have one issue with inclusion of that material, and that is it is reported by only one source (that I've been able to find). Although we are not required to have multiple sources to include material, because of the negative nature of the material, I could see removing it as kind of an extension of demanding high-quality sourcing for negative BLP material. Finally - and I've noted this before - it troubles me that Hosking has mounted such a concerted campaign (not just him, but his representatives) to control his article. It's not against policy for him to do so, and the people involved have been mostly up front about it (a good thing), but the pressure is a bit much.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I might agree if Redbubble were a one man show, but that does not reflect reality. We have no understanding of the internal workings of that company, and so the actions of the company do not give us any understanding of Hosking as an individual. We should only use material where Hosking has offered a personal opinion, in which case we can report the opinion, or where a publisher has directly connected the company actions to Hosking. In this case, the latter does not apply. Kevin (talk) 02:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect to Bb23, who is a good editor and is making good faith efforts to improve Wikipedia (as we all are), I ask him, or anyone, to please specify where in the WP:BLP policy it says that information about a company belongs in the BLP of an officer of that company. Whether there is a Wiki article on RedBubble or not is irrelevant IMO. I say that we do not compromise an individual's BLP by using it as a place to store content on a related topic until another Wiki article gets created. Also regarding the statement: "Hosking has mounted such a concerted campaign (not just him, but his representatives) to control his article." I'm new on this article (I came via BLPN) but all I've seen so far, is an IP, who claims to Hosking, making intelligent comments and citing policy. Assuming he is Hosking, I commend him for taking an immense amount of his personal time to learn our Wiki culture and policies and engage in discussion at appropriate forums. This is model behavior compared to the way most disgruntled subjects of BLP's behave. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The insertion of the material on children's clothing and the previous paragraph on Hipster Hitler have created a non-compliant wp:coatrack article and should be removed. The comments by Bbb, however well intended, do not reflect an understanding of the higher order requirement for balance (particularly around BLPs) which means things cannot simply be inserted because there is some (uncertain) connection. The policy around wp;coatrack is designed to prevent just this. The Editors who would have it remain (of whom I see none at this point) have the onus of proof on them as to argue compliance with WP policy. Or the article should be edited to make it compliant. MH 121.219.122.136 (talk) 03:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Summary-- Seven editors participated in this discussion: Keithbob (me), Nomoskedasticity, Youreallycan, John lilburne, Kevin, 220.245.205.26 and Bb23. Out of the seven only Nomoskedasticity, found the text cited above to be acceptable. Bb23 said, while he supports other criticisms in the article, " As for the pornographic clothing material specifically, I have already said on the Talk page that I have one issue with inclusion of that material, and that is it is reported by only one source (that I've been able to find). Although we are not required to have multiple sources to include material, because of the negative nature of the material, I could see removing it as kind of an extension of demanding high-quality sourcing for negative BLP material". Therefore I think there is a clear consensus for the removal of this text. I will move it to the talk page for storage and it can be included in the RedBubble article when one gets created. Thank you to everyone who participated in this discusion-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

David Bahati

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

Could someone take a look at this for me. I'm concerned about information being added that suggests he's homophobic and racist, but with only one reference backing up that claim. I've removed some information today that had been added after a previous delete and pointed the user concerned towards WP:BLP though I'm not entirely sure how to approach this. I generally tend to steer clear of controversial topics like this one, but I think it goes against BLP unless we can find a few reliable sources to support it. Having said that I would think in terms of reliability National Public Radio is comparable with the BBC so if there are a few more then perhaps it would be all right. Any thoughts? Paul MacDermott (talk) 17:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the article and the references relating to the controversial anti-gay bill Bahati introduced. These sources appear reliable, BBC, MSNBC, and NPR. One other source is Pink News. I am not familiar with this source so I can't say if it's considered reliable. However, the statement in the article attributed to Pink News appears to be available from the other sources as well. The last couple of sentences of the section need a citation. I found a transcript of the interview on line and this information is from the Rachel Maddow interview, which is referenced. I'll fix the reference. The story is consistent in all the referenced sources. The sourcing looks adequate to me. Perhaps you could explain your concerns further. Maybe I am missing something.Coaster92 (talk) 06:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. I was mainly concerned with the stuff I removed which had been added by two similarly named accounts with very few edits (one of who subsequently posted this on my user page). To say someone is racist and homophobic seems quite a controversial statement to me, and I really mentioned it here because of that and as I thought it could be a BLP issue. Maybe I'm being over-cautious. I guesss his homophobic is self-evident, but not sure where the racism fits in. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Richard F. Cebull

Richard F. Cebull (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Richard F. Cebull is the judge who sent out a controversial email. Diff Dozens of news articles refer to the email, or the joke contained in the email, as racist or 'racially-charged'. However, three editors on the talk page User:Youreallycan, User:Jokestress, and an anonymous user, feel that the dozens of newspaper articles and headlines merely constitute a partisan opinion. They have not supplied any sources, reliable or otherwise, which assert an opposing view. User:Youreallycan argues that it doesn't matter how many reliable sources are supplied because "...the press is clearly opinionated and partisan..."[14]. Help please. — goethean ॐ 19:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

A bit more detail - actually the press is less opinionated and partisan than some wikipedia users. - its not that partisan sources are important but attribution of opinion is important rather than presenting as if fact - User:Geothean's version -

Cebull used his official courthouse email address to forward to seven friends an email containing a racist[8][9][10][11][12] joke about President Barack Obama

imo presented as if fact in wiki's voice - and my version -

Cebull used his official courthouse email address to forward to seven friends an email containing a joke about President Barack Obama which some commentators asserted was racially charged.[8][9][10] - Youreallycan 20:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Setting aside the obvious misunderstanding of "partisan" (none of the afore-mentioned sources are beholden to, or adherants of, a specific party), and assuming the editors instead meant to say they think the sources are "biased" in some way, it should be made clear that this is an invalid argument against the use of those sources to convey an assertion of fact. Having bias does not disqualify someone from editing Wikipedia, nor does it disqualify a source from meeting Wikipedia's reliability requirements for the assertion of fact. The above cited news sources are not opinion or commentary pieces, and they do meet Wikipedia's WP:RS requirements. WP:NPOV instructs us to Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion. The "some commentators asserted was racially charged" suggested wording violates this instruction, and misleads the reader by representing the information conveyed by the sources as mere opinion -- something I'm sure the involved Wikipedia editors did not intend.

The issue now appears to be moot, unless we are now going to argue Cebull is biased against himself: Cebull acknowledged that the email was racist, but said he is not a racist – and that he sent along the email only because he dislikes Obama politically. And also: “The only reason I can explain it to you is I am not a fan of our president, but this goes beyond not being a fan,” Cebull said. “I didn’t send it as racist, although that’s what it is. I sent it out because it’s anti-Obama.” Goethean's wording properly conveys the content of the reliable sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• The alternate wording is preferable. The joke appears in the article; if you wanna get analytical about it, it's misogynist not racist, no matter how many footnotes are stacked. Fix the wording and loose the multitude of footnotes, which are a dead-tell that something dubious is being asserted as fact. I'll add that I think YRC's protestations about liberal media bias are fringe views without merit, just so you don't feel like I'm piling on here. Carrite (talk) 21:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
• I support YouReallyCan's alternate wording that "some commentators asserted was racially charged," and the five bare refs for the word "racist" is textbook Wikipedia:Citation overkill which should be stripped out. This is a classic instance of editors trying to coatrack on a BLP of someone they don't like. Jokestress (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
• YRC's made-up wording is not preferable. Preferable is conveying what "reliable sources for assertion of fact" convey, and leaving our own personal analysis as to the nature of the joke out of it. As Wikipedia requires of us. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
• Given the above quotes, maybe it would be better than any of the other options to say something like "later acknowledged by Cebull to be racist". BLP is one thing, and it is wrong to give opinions on contentious matters in WPs voice. But it is far worse to be ambivalent in WP's voice about whether a joke placing black people on a continuum between humans and dogs is racist. Formerip (talk) 22:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

This is an excellent solution which I support. Jokestress (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• If prominent sources describe it as racist, then we should say it was racist. If the phrase "racially charged" is the main one sources are using, then use that. If there is parity of use of these terms, then say something like "racist and/or racially charged". This shouldn't be so difficult (though I see there's been another big bustup about it). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
• I bowed out of this article a while ago after I got tired of the circular discussions about this single event. However, I don't have a conceptual problem with YRC's suggestion - just copy edits (and use the word racist) to: "Cebull used his court email address to forward to seven friends an email containing a joke about President Barack Obama that some commentators asserted was racist." It's a bit of a mouthful for one sentence, but ... --Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• "some commentators asserted" is an astonishingly limp formulation to describe this particular state of affairs. Would you also say that some commentators assert that the world is round, or would you support for something slightly more full-throated on that one? — goethean ॐ

Good points from all who have posted. My view is to use one of the versions suggested by Youreallycan or Formerip. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a little conflation of point a with point b going on, and setting up straw men. There is unanimity that the email COULD be interpreted as racist (though a bit of a stretch, a defensible one), justifying the racist or racially-charged label. That does NOT mean that it can ONLY be considered racist. It also does not mean that Cebull INTENDED of thought of it as racist WHEN HE SENT IT. Quite the contrary, he denies this. Agreement on a, disagreement on b and c. When you say he "sent a racist email" you imply both that the email was intended as racist and can ONLY be regarded as racist. The first is denied by Cebull, and therefore needs a disclaimer to get to NPOV, the second needs something, such as a desciption of the interpretations (which would be long and cumbersome) of the text of the actual joke (so that people can make up their own minds). Probably a better wording is "Cebull used his court email address to forward to seven friends an email containing a vulgar joke about President Obama's mother that commentators later pointed out, could be considered racist".--209.6.69.227 (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't feel very strongly about this issue one way or the other, and have not edited the article. However, I have to say that, to me, "racially charged" sounds very much like a euphemism for "racist". Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 05:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Dmytro Salamatin

Dmytro Salamatin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An IP-editor earlier today deleted all info (she/he went so far to even deleted references with information about it (I wonder if this falls not under WP:CENSOR)) in the article about Dmytro Salamatin's alleged/reported involvement in all fights in the Ukrainian Parliament since his entry as a deputy back in 2006. I think this alleged involvement falls under Wikipedia:Relevance and thus I put the information back in. Was I right? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Without commenting on the merits of the material as I'm unfamilar with the article, generally, unexplained removals of sourced content are reverted.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

OK; thanks. Latest edits of the same IP make more sense, I already had rewritten the article to a more NPOV style and that seemed to have taken away his will to delete negative information. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Tricia Walsh-Smith

Tricia Walsh-Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Gorge Custers Sabre is repeatedly sabotaging the Tricia Walsh-Smith page. It so happens that I am the subject and sick of ithe inaccurate quotes he keeps inserting while insisting they are accurate, such "although her castmates strongly dislike her." he claims this is from the Daily Mirror. It is not -- I have repeatedly inserted the accurate quote. he removes all updates of my work and insist on a quote that other editors have repeatedly remover "although she was unknown befoe." Everyone who is famous was unknown before and this has been pointed out by other editors. he appears to have a dislike of me and his editing is harmful to my career. I make my living in showbusiness and I am happy to have an honest page, not a page full of bitchy comments intended to make me appear unpopular. I would like to get the page protected or this person blocked from editing it. This evening he has undone at least four revisions in the space of half an hour so seems to have an unhealthy obsession. He is a wiki stalker. Fruitinlondon (talk) 00:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It's a bit hard to follow you, but the quotes you're talking about are old news (February?), so I'm not sure what the problem is with them now. As for the recent material, you should stop editing your own article. See WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Not only is it generally a problem for the subject to edit her own article, for you it's even worse because you have no idea how to edit properly. And, contrary to your view, Gorge is being extraordinarily nice and patient with you. You appear uninterested in paying any attention to his advice. I have reverted the material you added. It's absolutely a mess. I suggest that any changes you wish made the article you post to the article Talk page (with reasons and sources backing up the changes).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Jennifer Winget/Karan Singh Grover

Jennifer Winget (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Karan Singh Grover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
While gossip columns predicted this Bollywood couple would marry on Monday, there are, so far as I can tell, exactly zero reliable sources that the wedding took place. (I'm not even sure there are even RS's saying they're a couple.) Nevertheless, IPs and new accounts keep adding claims that the two have married, sourced only to the gossip column predictions if they are sourced at all. RFPP request is caught up in a large backlog. I've reverted this repeatedly, as repeating an unreliably predicted wedding as an established fact seems a clear breach of WP:BLP to me, but some additional eyes would be helpful. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• Now semi protected - Youreallycan 21:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Nelly Furtado

I have a post at WP:RS/N#Nelly Furtado citizenship that is meeting with resounding silence. As frequently happens, source discussions and BLP discussions overlap, so I'm posting a pointer here.—Kww(talk) 02:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

NOTE: Several editors have commented there today.  Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Daniel Tammet

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

User 188.29.98.131 is repeatedly inserting unreferenced comments and original research in contravention of Wiki rules for Living Person Bio articles. He has also removed correctly referenced material. Specifically:

- He has been inserting comments from a PDF document http://myreckonings.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/LightningCalculators/lightningcalculators.pdf that was published on the document author's blog: www.myreckonings.com/wordpress. Wiki rules on veriability and original research state: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources)

- He has been inserting a comment which he claims is word-for-word from Tammet's memoir. He has not given a page number, and in any case the sentence appears lifted out of context. It seems to be a case of original research, as no third-party published source mentions comment anywhere.

- He has removed a referenced statement made on Tammet's blog. I have attempted a compromise by replacing the statement with one using short direct quotes that appeared in an article on Tammet published in the New York Times.

- I have restored the statement that research on Tammet's mind has appeared 'in several peer-reviewed scientific papers' as it appears in Tammet's second book 'Embracing the Wide Sky' (published by Hodder, Simon & Schuster, and elsewhere in 2009).

- I have removed the original research insertion: 'The Icelandic talk show interviewers spoke with Tammet for a "few minutes"' - I cannot find any third-party reliably published source to support this claim or that gives any specific detail on interview's precise duration.

- I also note that the article's talk page has increasingly become a forum for original research claims. See recent 'Great read' entry (which is comparatively mild in comparison to other comments).

I would be grateful if an editor could review this situation and comment/intervene to prevent another edit war (the article has already been the subject of several in the recent past).

Oughtprice99 (talk) 07:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• note - I requested semi protection as this is a repeated pattern from unconfirmed IP addressees, but it was refused by User:Slakr - Youreallycan 11:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Ravi Belegare

Ravi Belagere (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Doesn't establish notability and more reliable references needed. recommend for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bharathiya (talk • contribs) 10:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

At first glance and with a quick Google news search the subject appears to not to be notable but its hard to tell as all the sources are in German or Hindi. According to a Google translation of his web site he has written many books and received several awards. [15]. World Cat verifies he has written a number of books. [16] Thoughts? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Tamer Şahin

Tamer Şahin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article in the link : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamer_Şahin contains autobiography. It is created by the user itself and contains bogus stories to advertise himself. Most of the citations from the owners source. Deletion requested.

Case: - Hacking Bill Gates email account: There is no information about that available. The only reference says that Microsoft servers made a mistake by putting their secret documents into a public link. Many people get these sources and obviously it is not a hacking activity nor it is related with any personal mail hack. User claims hacking Bill Gates mails.

Most of the citations from his personal site and clearly shows an advertisement of his activities.

Turkish hacker; he is the first officially judged and sentenced hacker of Turkey, and was accused of hacking several important systems That should not be a material of Wikipedia. I suggest removing this article to avoid more personal advertisements with made up stories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daicarus (talk • contribs) 21:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Paul Gascoigne

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

All sorts of problems with tabloid sources and undue weight, in particular this section which seems hugely bloated and highly POV in places. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 21:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see the problem. Paul Gascoigne has admitted all of these incidents/problems, and that he has been to rebab no less than twelve times. There are numerous other non-tabloid sources confirming the information. (TommyAnders (talk) 21:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC))

Dear me, the indef blocked sockpuppeter - of User:HarveyCarter - As for the content complaint - I had a bit of a look and imo according to policy and guidelines - coverage of his illness is undue and primarily cited to redtop titillation and referenced to tabloid publications. You get such claims as arrested and charged and then there is no more press coverage - (usually due to the fact that a warning is given or the charges get dropped ) the tittilators never report such detail - I would trim that section in half, focusing on the main details. - Youreallycan 15:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Joyce Banda

Joyce Banda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am sick and freaking tired of User:Mewulwe and his/her baseless assumptions and edit warring of of reliable sources "copying from Wikipedia". They have repeatedly removed a year/date of birth from Joyce Banda that has been sourced to RS such as BBC and a published source. Please also note that I have only re-added the YOB, not the full DOB. A quick news search of "Joyce Banda 1950" also turns up many news outlets reporting a 1950 year of birth. However, because these are quite recent, Mewulwe decides to assume that they got the YOB from Wikipedia and repeatedly remove it and "require" a pre-Wikipedia source to source it. Any thoughts? – Connormah (talk) 23:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

If a reliable source says she was born in 1950 (and there is no conflict with other reliable sources), then the year should be reported in the article. Mewulwe's reasoning is their own and unsupportable without some actual evidence that the source "copied" Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I had a published source in and a BBC article in but they were both dismissed as "copying Wikipedia" - Mewulwe has once again reverted... [17]. – Connormah (talk) 01:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I saw an article that was crearly a copy of wikipedia and I have a degree of sympathy with the users claim that the date was copied from wikipedia, There is imo that I have seen so far a reliable source for her date of birth as for the year of birth, there doesn't appear to be anything official - I say wait for a government article to officially publish it. - Youreallycan 07:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

[18] - is this the source? Perhaps if you present all your sources here for investigation we can have a good look at them, The user is clearly removing the date in good faith but needs to move to discussion, I have let them know about this report and asked them to comment. Youreallycan 07:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I am sick and tired of Connormah stalking me for months and constantly accusing me of "baselessly" removing information. If the earliest source to be found for a given information is Wikipedia itself, you need a higher standard than the usual "reliable source" to confirm it. Why would the birth date of a politician who has been active for many years suddenly crop up in various sources just after it was introduced in Wikipedia? Coincidence? We know for a fact that BBC and everyone else has copied from Wikipedia before (including hoaxes). The Historical Dictionary series routinely uses Wikipedia, often openly citing it,[19] so it is also worthless here, since the book was written after the date was already in Wikipedia (it was added - by a one-day user - in July 2011,[20] while the book's very article on Banda describes events of September 2011). We had the same phenomenon with Gaddafi, where many obituaries repeated an exact birth date which had been in Wikipedia at the time, even though it appears in no pre-Wikipedia sources and in fact many sources have explicitly stated that his exact birth date was not known. Mewulwe (talk) 11:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

This is textbook WP:OR. The fact that information present in Wikipedia might appear in a newspaper at a subsequent point in time does not mean that the newspaper got the information from Wikipedia. If the newspaper article says that it got the information from Wikipedia, then fine; otherwise, stop speculating. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

OR doesn't apply to sourcing issues. In fact, source evalution is necessarily OR. What else do you do, take their own word, "We are a reliable source"? If Wikipedia is not a reliable source, then no source which itself may use Wikipedia can be either, as far as information is concerned which has been in Wikipedia before. The burden of proof is not on the one who wants to keep information out (you don't need any source for NOT including something). You would have to prove that the sources did NOT take it from Wikipedia, when that is a reasonable possibility. In a similar case recently, someone actually wrote the BBC and they admitted using Wikipedia. Mewulwe (talk) 11:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

If you have a concern about reliable sourcing, go to RSN. If you want to write to the source to ask whether they used Wikipedia, go ahead. Apart from that, your speculations are just that. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, you go ahead if you want to use it. I don't have to. Nor do I need to go to RSN. Per IAR, I am not bound to overly generalized rules (like "BBC = RS") where they contradict plain common sense in a particular case. Mewulwe (talk) 12:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

This is one citation http://http://www.malawivoice.com/2012/04/07/joyce-banda-sworn-in-and-puts-god-first-i-felt-presence-of-the-holy-spirit-21929/ - that has been added multiple times to cite her dob - the content is a direct copy of a previous version of the en wikipedia article - the user has a good faith concern and if users present their citations we can investigate. Youreallycan 12:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is a perfectly valid citation for her year of birth. Why is this so bloody difficult? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Because it's not "perfectly valid" at all, as the BBC is known to copy such things from Wikipedia. Mewulwe (talk) 13:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, if you have concerns about the BBC, WP:RSN is the place for you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

What would I do there? I agree with the prevailing consensus that BBC is among those sources normally considered reliable, but those things are never absolute and you have to argue on substance here, not just say "BBC = RS, end of story." Mewulwe (talk) 14:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Arguing on substance is exactly what you are not doing, at least not sensibly. According to your logic, any source at all that subsequently publishes something containing a claim about her year/date of birth "could have" gotten it from Wikipedia and so can't be used. I accept the point about a source that consists of a previous version of the Wikipedia article, but I don't accept it about the BBC. I really don't care about whether her birth date/year is included or not; I only care about Wikipedia editors pushing stupid arguments. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

"Any source at all" is not my logic. What we need is either an official Malawian government source or an authentic personal site of Joyce Banda publishing the date, or a birth certificate published in a reliable source, or any source that is beyond suspicion of copying from Wikipedia; or else simply any generally reliable source dating from before July 2011. If that can't be found, all occurrences of the date must be presumed to be derived from Wikipedia. Why don't you accept it about the BBC when it has copied Wikipedia vandalism before? Mewulwe (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

That question is exactly what you should raise at RSN. Go ahead, ask them: the BBC copied Wikipedia vandalism in the past, does that mean that we should not accept it as a RS anymore? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The situation is already clear. RS is not black and white. We should accept BBC in general unless we have a good reason not to. Mewulwe (talk) 18:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• The "12 April 1950" date of birth appears to have been added by Malawicommentator (talk · contribs) in July 2011 (previously it said "born 1951?"). Taking that date and running a search for "Joyce Banda 1950" through Google News (custom range 1/1/2004 to 1/7/2011) returns no news hits (all hits for "Joyce Banda" in this timeframe do not mention a year of birth). I think in this situation it is correct to leave the date of birth out and to make an assumption that any news source that has had a date since could have taken it from Wikipedia. We have to be careful about circular referencing. That said, this does not excuse edit warring on either side. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

  Yes I agree completely. Its not like the wheels are dropping off. I am sure in the near future there will be an official biography published on the government website that will include a reliable date of birth. - It clearly seems that the primary location for her alleged date of birth has historically been unverified additions to en wikipedia. Youreallycan 13:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)