Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive191

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

Randall Carver's official biography

There is a lot of information in his official biography. I am uncertain of which is necessary and safer to include. But I can't include his birthday, and I don't want to copy the whole biography. --George Ho (talk) 07:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Are there really any BLP violations going on here? I have to say I don't really understand what you're getting at. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I want to add detail that doesn't push boundaries, but I can't add incomplete birthdates. What about his family background? --George Ho (talk) 20:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Check-over please

Acharya S

Kien_Ling_Khoo

Kien_Ling_Khoo is a non-notable publicity-seeker. The article does not meet the notability guideline, as the subject of the article does not meet any of the criteria for a notable person. The article is substantially written by the subject herself, and she has added a photograph of herself to the article on David_Tutera. The article is written in resume format. I believe the article should be deleted. Glowsquid (talk) 01:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Buck Angel

There seems to be a couple of borderline issues here but only a few sources to check, anyone up for looking at this? Sportfan5000 (talk) 08:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Rupert Sheldrake

I have just removed some text from a BLP talk page. Was this the correct thing to do per policy? --Nigelj (talk) 20:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

It's fair comment. Sheldrake is well known for spouting nonsense dressed up as science. The sources in the article support this. Read it. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC) + ask Jzg (talk · contribs). Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Very poor behaviour from Nigelj such that had they been my comments, I'd be putting them straight back. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 21:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The concept of "fair comment" doesn't really govern article talkpages. The talkpage guidelines are relatively strict in stating that article talkpage discussions should avoid general commentary on the topic and instead focus on concrete improvements to the article. In that light, I think it was reasonable of Nigelj to remove the comments in question. I'd probably stop short of calling them BLP violations (after all, the idea that Sheldrake advocates nonsense is reasonably prominent in reliable sources), but the comments in question definitely didn't move the discussion or the article in a positive direction, so I don't see why anyone would fight to restore them. MastCell ^Talk 22:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

removal of comments that are not focusing on concrete improvements to the article would be removal of 90% of the items on the page. I wont object to mine being removed if its consistently applied. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Regretfully, in this case, I have to agree with TRPOD. While I liked seeing the comments removed, the fact is that doing so was something of a token in what has become a very contentious struggle to give a living person fair treatment.

Some of the admin interventions have seemed more like support for bashing the person under the cloak of admin authority. If an admin is really interested in helping the situation, perhaps it is time to resurrect the Wikipedia:Town sheriff idea. I think most of us would abide by a fair administrator who helps determine contentious points. For instance, the unending argument about whether or not he will be referred to as a biologist or a parapsychologist in the opening paragraphs.

Once what Wikipedia is going to say about Sheldrake is established, then I for one can go on and figure out if I like it--AKA, support it--or try to develop an article in a different venue that will balance the article. A town sheriff would go a long way toward settling that. Tom Butler (talk) 18:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

off topic

If, at the end of all this, Tom has to write an article elsewhere to balance our article, then I suggest that we will have done an excellent job. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 10:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm worried now Roxy the dog (talk · contribs) - if Tom Butler (talk · contribs), Director (no less) of the Association TransCommunication, expert on metaphysics, spiritualism and etheric studies, and with an hugely impressive BEng, writes something, doesn't he qualify as an expert source, and will outweigh all of our other sources? We could then rewrite the whole article to exclude the criticism, perhaps WP:POVFORKING it to criticism of Rupert Sheldrake per Barleybannocks (talk · contribs), and reflect Tom Butler (talk · contribs)'s engineered POV on this issue. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

User:FunkMonk (multiple pages)

Repeatedly adding poorly sourced, libelous information about a living person on article and talk pages:

Diff of warning on user's talk page: [4]

And after the warning: [5]
[6]

VQuakr (talk) 23:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

As I already mentioned, I'll wait before I add anything until more reliable sources have reported it. So this is moot as for now. As I also mentioned, Higgins confirmed the veracity of the leaks on Twitter by explaining his messages, therefore I did not see it as a violation, but whatever. FunkMonk (talk) 23:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Someone else reinstated the section. Wasn't me. FunkMonk (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Really? This and this weren't you? VQuakr (talk) 19:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Those edits obviously weren't the ones that revived the section, and do not involve the sources above. The offender would be this[7] one. Please stick to the issue. If you want to prevent me from commenting at all, you've come to the wrong place. FunkMonk (talk) 19:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Heiko Julien

User repeatedly vandalizing Heiko Julien article suggesting the author is better known as a false name without citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trashcanjamz (talk • contribs) 00:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Edward Williams (composer)

IP are adding that this person has died but I cannot find any sources at all, can anybody verify? Giant Snowman 13:42, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Looked for death notices and obituaries in Bristol and couldn't find anything. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Tom Aikens

This article has effectively been sanitised over the past couple of years. References to the failure of one of Tom Aikens restaurants have been removed, along with information relating to this failure. In addition other biographical material has been deleted.

I have no connection with Tom Aikens and at the moment do not have the time to source the material - and what guarantee is there that it would not be removed again? I would like to see the original material reinstated, preferably by the editors who put it there in the first place.

I am sure that what has happened here is not what wikipedia is about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.73.128 (talk) 14:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Uncited personal attacks were added to the article on January 13, 2009 by an IP editor, and reverted shortly thereafter by an experienced editor. It is very common for restaurants to close for a variety of reasons, even those run by otherwise successful chefs But we only include that information if it has been discussed in reliable sources, and we certainly exclude personal insults. I see no evidence of improper "sanitising". Perhaps you can be more specific. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Roast Busters

Is perhaps the best place to pick this seamy tale up. Johnbod (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Requesting eyes on Louis Joseph Posner

So this article got stubbed and then quickly A7'ed back in 2011, then recreated earlier this year with all the content that had been removed prior to stubbing (a histmerge was later conducted). The recreated article dealt entirely with the subject's protest movement in response to the 2000 and 2004 US Presidential elections, whereas at least in 2011, virtually all reliable sources out there focused on his then-recent disbarment following a conviction for promoting prostitution. I think AfD is pretty clearly the next step, but given WP:GNG is pretty clearly met by the number of sources discussing his disbarment, it seems that WP:BLP1E would be the only grounds for deleting at this point (if indeed the conviction and disbarment is the only notable event for this subject). If not, it still seems likely that the main source of notability for this subject is his conviction and disbarment, and thus WP:UNDUE suggests the article should mainly focus on those aspects... but how does this mesh with WP:BLP? Anyway, I'm hoping for some more experienced eyes to at least give this one a look. Thanks! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Um, how exactly does a lawyer getting disbarred meet our notability guidelines? Lawyers get disbarred all the time. If Posner is notable for anything, surely it is for his involvement with VoterMarch - and any significant coverage of his disbarment can only be a result of his earlier activities. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The conviction that led to the disbarment was substantially covered by major news sources, including the New York Times and New York Post, and industry news such as the New York Law Journal, and others. And the conviction itself was only very tangentially related to his activity with VoterMarch (which I note should probably be moved to "Voter March") insofar as it was initially alleged (in the grand jury indictment, which allegation was covered in the Times article) that he'd used Voter March to launder money from a prostitution ring operated out of his lap dance club; the charges related to that appear to have been dropped, possibly as part of the plea deal. There was also a minor incident in the wake of the case having to do with how seized monies could be used (I admit I haven't really looked into it deeply yet, but there's a reported Appellate Division case raised by the NYPD dealing with it). Anyway, long story short, I think it's pretty likely the coverage of the conviction/disbarment meets WP:GNG, or at least could be reasonably argued as such... but if you combine it with Voter March does it pass WP:BLP1E? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Material got removed

See [8]: An IP has just removed all mention of the arrest, conviction and disbarment claiming it's "potentially libelous" given a pending appeal (probably not a meritorious one, but that's neither here nor there). Can I get a third party's input here? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Dave Potter (politician)

Thanks, DGG. The article is loaded with negative information including intricate details of settled and pending investigations into his finances. Can a completely disinterested editor give this article a severe pruning, please? I think I could do it fairly, but I do have a very remote COI, so would prefer if someone else did. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. All three investigations have now been closed without any criticism of Potter. Trimmed accordingly.Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Frida (ABBA)

I doubt the reliability of the information that Frida has a passion for pigeon racing and a connection with Pigeon Fanciers' Club in north of England — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.213.121 (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Material removed as unsourced. For future reference, you can do the same for any unsourced material in any article, especially in biographies. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Found a source (but not an RS) that says she is the president of the Hardwick Homing Society in Stockton (UK). No mention of her on its Web site,[9] though. Dwpaul ^Talk 01:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Sam Hoyt

Sam Hoyt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I would like to request that this article on Sam Hoyt be placed under Wikipedia protections. I am an editor who has done considerable work on the article, recently, in order to improve it, clean it up, and remove the libelous and harmful information that is repeatedly placed on it that is unsourced. Most recently, I removed a libelous quote from the page that was falsely cited with a reference that states nothing about the specific quote that was included in it. I have taken the time to do much research on this issue and this subject, and have included and sourced only factual information that is correctly sourced. I have also placed my comments and requests for protection on the article's talk page. Therefore, I would like to request that the administrator of the article please place Level 1 or Level 2 protections or semi-oprotections on the article. The article has been repeatedly edited by others to include this libelous and harmful information for what appears to be the past 8 years! The article and subject must obviously be protected, please. Thanks, Daniellagreen (talk) 21:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

@Daniellagreen: Can you point to a diff that shows the disruptive material? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for your reply. I've gone back and tried to locate exactly who placed some of the harmful material in the article. I located 10:07, 12 June 2013 by CutThruTheNoise, who placed an inappropriate and unsourced subheader in the article, and which was toward the top (!) of the article. I removed that. I also tried to locate the editor who included the harmful information that I edited out - that you can see at my edit: 2:59, 14 December 2013. That specific information is harmful and unsourced. It was information that was going around on a Western New York political blog (WNYBuffalo), and whose editor also made comments on the article's talk page. That blog, by the way, no longer exists - I went to its website address, and it is no longer there. There was correct and correctly sourced information placed in the article by JMyrleFuller on 15:12, 29 November 2011, but somewhere along the lines, that was removed, and the harmful information replaced it, using the sources that were included by JMyrleFuller. I have since gone in and replaced the correct information, and sourced it correctly, as Fuller did. Thanks for your consideration. Daniellagreen (talk) 21:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I have a concern about the section titled "Scandal" which is referenced to primary sources. Who called this matter a "scandal" and is it worthy of mention if the only outcome was a restriction on participating in internship programs? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Jacque Fresco

Jacque Fresco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Because there is a recurrent problem I decided to present the issue here. There is an editor that has expressed on numerous occasions his intent to include information about the subject of this article. This information does not appear in any reliable sources. I have only seen such information on blogs and forums. This information would qualify as rumor and gossip, and at best fringe theory and views of tiny minorities. The information pertains to casting the subject in a disparaging light. See here the diffs where the editor has disclosed his intentions (from most recent to oldest):

At first the editor was making changes to the article with claims that neutrality was being addressed. However with time it became more clear that the editor was attempting to make progress toward the allegations above. The editor has not been successful in including this information, probably because I have been persistent in arguing against it. The problem is that this information underlies how the editor regards the subject. Because the editor has a negative regard for the subject, it has become evident that he has been pushing the information in the article in the direction of his views. This has consisted of deleting, reducing, or trivializing information in any way that can subtract significance from the subject. The editor appears to be trying to Right Great Wrongs and give the Truth according to his own preexisting beliefs. This is in defiance of what the reliable sources say about the subject and in disregard of how the sources consistently represent the subject. It goes without saying that it is also an approach that is discouraged by Wikipedia guidelines concerning neutrality and original research.

I have tried to explain to the editor that such allegations cannot be included because no reliable sources report on it and no sources represent the article's subject in the way that the editor seeks to represent him. And also that BLPs must be treated very carefully. The editor then mistakes this proper approach for some kind of advocacy on behalf of the subject. Controversies and criticism is welcome if it has reliable sources and due weight. However, none of those listed above satisfies criteria.

Fortunately the information has not entered the article. But plenty of libelous claims have been made on the talk page. Can I have outside judgment of whether the editor's approach is inappropriate or not? Sorry for the length. Had to give context and examples. Thanks to any and all.--Biophily (talk) 10:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Michael H. Prosser

On-going edit war involving a user who may be the subject. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

wellknown/blpcrime/charges dropped

For a WP:WELLKNOWN person charged with a crime, but later charges were dropped, where the charging and dropping of charges were well covered by newspapers etc, is there a policy about if content regarding the charges should remain in the BLP? Gaijin42 (talk) 16:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd encourage identifying the article in question. Why shouldn't the rest of us evaluate the issue in context? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah. Zimmerman again?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity Yes zimmerman again. I didn't mention the article, since it is obviously a charged topic, and I was looking to see if there was generally accepted guidance to use as a starting point. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Mopidevi Venkataramana

I just gutted this article of well-sourced information related to corruption charges, could someone check I'm reading WP:BLPCRIME correctly, since it's not a policy I get to use much? Stuartyeates (talk) 08:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

He's not "relatively unknown" -- a condition required for the action you've taken. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Mark Worrall biography

I am not sure it prvoides a neutral view. There is a use of buzzwords to create a persona that isn't relevant to the article.

Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Narayan_Sai_and_Asaram_Bapu

Issue: father and son have both been arrested. How much coverage should the arrest of father be covered (if at all) in article about the son who is barely notable outside the fact that he is the son)? Please join the discussion that was for some reason opened at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Narayan_Sai_and_Asaram_Bapu -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Scott Andrews (author)

Hello. I am the subject of this page Scott Andrews (author). I have changed my pen name to include my initial, and so my books are now all published as Scott K. Andrews. Would it be possible to change the wikipedia page name to reflect this? Many thanks Scott K. Andrews — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.73.217.245 (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I have moved this based upon publisher's page here. Mangoe (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Disappearance of Natalee Holloway#Amigoe article

Someone in the talk page said that such information must be either reworded, additionally referenced, or deleted. I wonder if that's the case. --George Ho (talk) 03:21, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I would say that you can't really have a whole section dedicated to an article from a source that introduces new/controversial information without some kind of supporting coverage by other sources. In other words, there is an assertion that the article is notable and merits inclusion, and so that notability should be proven by demonstrating the existence of secondary coverage. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Newspaper articles can't be used as sources without showing that other newspaper articles reported on the newspaper article? That's a level of recursion that I haven't encountered before. The source in question is one of Curacao's major newspapers reporting the contents of interviews with people that are certainly notable with regard to the case: Julia Renfro, who assisted Natalee's mother during the early days of her search, and Gerald Dompig, who headed the investigation into Natalee's disappearance. The information itself isn't particularly new or controversial, and the documentary itself received widespread coverage. This was one of the tamer sources available, considering it was in competition with things like this. —Kww(talk) 01:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Disappearance of Natalee Holloway#Amigoe article is drawing on a single source to present a contentious view, and exhaustively detail accusations about living people. "According to interviews done in preparation for the film,". That is not proper attribution.

Re this, the source is about Sloot. it alleges he was in the business of recruiting prostitutes. Thanks for that, making very clear what the article is getting at in the lede: "he said that he sold Holloway into sexual slavery". So the article has contained an innuendo that she was the sort of girl who could be recruited to work as a prostitute. And this was while she fell under BLP guidelines. (Natalee Holloway was only legally declared dead in 2012). Overagainst (talk) 20:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

That's certainly a way to twist things. Slavery has become a voluntary state that reflects on the moral character of the slave? The allegations were made multiple times by multiple parties during the course of the investigation, and JvdS even confessed to it and later recanted. BLP policies do not require that we present a Disneyfied version of events.—Kww(talk) 20:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a helpful link in the lede to sexual slavery, so there is no doubt what was, and is, being insinuated about the victimised teenager's character was that she was the kind of girl who might be working as a prostitute. And she was officially a living person for the years that has been in the article. Highly inappropriate, and still is.Overagainst (talk) 20:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

No such insinuation is being made, nor can it reasonably be read that anyone is stating that Natalee was "the kind of girl who might be working as a prostitute." That's the problem we keep having in these discussions: you are objecting to an article that doesn't exist and insisting on changes to the one that actually does exist as a result.—Kww(talk) 21:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, my favorite discussion: identity vs. behavior (or activity). Prostitute vs. prostitution. Which is better? Fortunately, I care about speedily resolving this issue, and I sense that the whole debate is making the issue longer (and more difficult) to resolve. I guess I have no opinion on this, so it needs another opinion of someone besides yours. George Ho (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, that isn't the issue at all: the issue is that the source is stating that JvdS stands accused of doing bad things to Natalee, the article reflects that those accusations exist (and that he even confessed to it at one point), and the inclusion of that material is now being twisted into stating that Natalee is being accused of being a bad person. That's unreasonable. This discussion is also in reference to a source that the article doesn't use, but was one that I provided as an example of how we had used discretion in selecting sources to use less sensational ones.—Kww(talk) 21:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The article twice (one in the lede ) detailed the story about the victim being trafficked into prostitution as the lede's link made clear. I am scared to guess what motivated those edits, but there is no doubt it was a BLP violation for years while she was presumed alive (until 2012). It was a story told by Sloot (who the Aruban police chief publicly described as a "sociopath" in 2008) and should never have been in the article WP:AVOIDVICTIM._Overagainst (talk) 16:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps that scary motivation was to neutrally describe the aftermath of the disappearance? There were three leading theories immediately after the disappearance: homicide, kidnapping, and runaway. Runaway stopped being seriously discussed very quickly, as no one could find a trace of any motivation to do so. Kidnapping remained a theory for years, but, when no ransom was ever demanded, people focused on this idea of her having been sold into slavery. That theory was publicized in both a documentary on Aruba and in the American press by Dr. Phil, and was the subject of a recanted confession. The topic of the investigation can't be completely discussed without mentioning it. Very few people would seriously consider discussing the theory that someone had been sold into slavery as a BLP violation against the person thought to have been forced into slavery. It's a theory that portrays Natalee as a potential victim, not in a negative light.—Kww(talk) 02:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Look what the featured article has front and centre (here). The Aruba police chief's favoured theory of an accidental alcohol and drug overdose is buried in a long section in the middle of the article, but the attribution of sexual promiscuity, drunkenness and drug use is front and centre. So the explication of the course of the investigation is not what's going on. Material on obscure and prurient prostitution 'theories' does no work to explain or neutrally describe, functioning rather as a hook to hang negative attributions about the victim and her (living) family. Whether the motivation is a conscious attempt to humiliate and degrade the Holloways is irrelevant. WP:AVOIDVICTIM "...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."_Overagainst (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The Amigoe article is not a sufficient source for itself and hence much of what is in the section. The opinion seems to be that without secondary sources being added it should not be in the article. No secondary sources have been supplied and it has been reverted back to. I think it has to be removed until better sources are provided.Overagainst (talk) 10:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Newspaper articles don't need to have separate articles written about them to be used as sources. If you think that's our standard, please point to other newspaper stories that required other stories to be written about them before anyone used them: I think you will find none. The Amigoe viewed tapes of conversations with notable people relevant to the case and reported the contents of the conversations. That's well within the remit of standard newspaper journalism. That's unsurprising, as the Amigoe is a standard newspaper. Of course it's been reverted back: every argument you have made for removal is easily refuted. You have no legitimate case for removal of the material.—Kww(talk) 12:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

You've just, for a second time, reverted to original version with the section detailing the Amigoe article's allegations about living people which is referenced to .... the Amigoe article. I'm sorry but you're confused. I did not bring this here, those who expressed an opinion did think the sourcing was insufficient for what could reasonably be seen as accusations. I don't understand how you can leave edit summaries to say no one here but me thought there was any problem with what you have reverted to without any changes. The section still has not met the criterion Free Range Frog gave above a week ago "notability should be proven by demonstrating the existence of secondary coverage".Overagainst (talk) 13:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Which I promptly did with a linkage to a RNW article about the same documentary that the Amigoe reviewed interview was for. I can find you source after source for Gielen's material and the supporting tapes. The material overlaps material brought forth in other interviews. I met the challenge. Free Range Frog made an extremely inaccurate statement as well: I again ask you to indicate any other newspaper articles that you would require another newspaper article to be written about before you permitted it to be used. It's a strange standard that isn't applied anywhere.—Kww(talk) 13:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Ref 190 is for the statement "The documentary would air in November 2008." In any case, the Amigoe article, not any documentary is the ref for the accusations about the Holloways that the Amigoe article section contains (the section is actually called Amigoe article. No secondary source for the allegations detailed in the section has been provided. It remains predicated on a single newspaper article, while about living people,.Overagainst (talk) 14:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The allegations of enslavement are repeated in the Fox interview you also attempted to delete as well, as well as in the DeVries documentary and the Dr. Phil show. The allegations that Beth and Jug were prepared to evacuate their daughter in the event of a rescue are not negative in any fashion and are repeated in the Vanity Fair article. Dompig's complaints of FBI interference are repeated in multiple places. Renfro's complaints are repeated multiple places, including the Vanity Fair article. Gielen's documentary aired on a national television network and is widely covered in Dutch press. What specific allegation do you believe is predicated on a single newspaper article?—Kww(talk) 16:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

As anyone can see above, a story about Joran van der Sloot recruiting prostitutes was linked to by you for some strange reason. That made it very clear what the part of the lede that contained a news story about Joran van der Sloot's allegedly saying he had sold Natalee Holloway into sexual slavery was about. Just to hammer it home the article lede had a link to the palga sexual slavery where it talks about the modern form being prositution. So it was no accident that the article lede contained an odd digression which could be read as implying that Natalee Holloway was working as a prostitute. Joran van der Sloot originally said he ran Natalee Holloway back to the hotel, and then under police questioning he settled on a completely different story, that he left Natalee Holloway on the beach. The slavery story was NOT GIVEN DURING THE INVESTIGATION. Summary style requires that what should be in the lede is the most relevant details to the subject. The slavery story doesn't rate a lede mention.

As the title suggests the whole 'Amigoe article' section is predicated on a single newspaper article. And that article is the reference for statements about living people which are not being properly attributed. See here "Furthermore, according to Amigoe's report on the interviews, Aruban authorities were obstructed ". It shouldn't say 'according to interviews", it should say 'according to (who these people were)...'. If the interviewees or other informants are not named, then we should say something like 'according to the Aruban newspaper Amigoe, sources close to the Aruban investigation ....'.

There are 9 or 10 allegations about the Holloways in that one subsection, and yet the section is called Criticism of the investigation. Perhaps it's just me but the whole article is, I think, criticism of the Holloways IN COUNTERPOINT, and gives a misleading account of the Holloways' real complaint about the investigation which is NOWHERE IN THE ARTICLE. "The Twittys and their supporters criticized a perceived lack of progress by Aruban police." No, that is not what Beth Holloway was complaining about. She wanted it treated as a murder investigation and she complained the police were not working on the assumption that Natalee was a murder victim. The Aruban police chief said in 2008 he thought Natalee had died accidently. The article is like a specialised news blog, it's full of news reports about the Holloways and is not written in summary style. The weight given to allegations about the Holloways through exhaustively detailing each and every criticism of them amounts to a BLP violation. This probem would disappear if all these sections with specific allegations about the Holloways were condensed into a few short paras. I don't see the problem in doing that. The more extensive the media coverage of a subject, the more it should be condensed. You can't eliminate the main contention made by one side of a controversy out of the article, but exhaustively detail each and every criticism made by those on the the other side of the controversy.Overagainst (talk) 11:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Part of that is something that can actually be worked on: if you don't feel that the Twitty's concerns about the Aruban police department are accurately represented, there's no problem with adding material that explains their complaints. I can see merit to the argument that their complaint gets lost in the text. If you propose additions like that, I will work with you on them. The problem to watch out for is to not assume that Beth's allegations are actually true. It certainly is true that Dompig has publicly stated that he believes no murder occurred and that any foul play was limited to covering up an unintentional death. It certainly is true that Beth has publicly stated that she believes her daughter was raped and murdered. It is certainly true that that mismatch is what drove this whole controversy in the beginning. What we have not got is anything to tell us whether Dompig or the Twittys were actually right, and we have to write the article on the assumption that either or neither may be true.

It's also unreasonable to attempt to minimize Beth's involvement, but her involvement should be portrayed without malice without portraying it as heroic because portraying her as a hero involves painting Dompig as a villain. She did what we all expect mothers to do in this situation: she used every resource she had to keep people searching for her daughter. Nothing in the article should portray that as mean-spirited. What happened was that the scope of her resources allowed her to have an effect well beyond what most mothers could accomplish in that situation: I certainly couldn't get any country to devote 40% of its annual police budget to any case, nor get a Governor of an American state to demand that Americans cripple the economy of a foreign country until that country did things the way I wanted them to. Her actions triggered reactions, and those reactions are a major part of this story.

I see Beth as somewhat of a tragic hero: if Beth had won, and somehow managed to produce either her daughter or conclusive evidence of what had happened to her, she'd be a hero to all. As it stands, there's one group that applauds her struggle as being noble, and another that views her as having overstepped and overreached. I do know that if I were in her position with her resources, I would have behaved similarly. I sense that you feel that same sympathy. That sympathy doesn't mean that we should eliminate all coverage of the negative effects of the behaviour.—Kww(talk) 13:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure the parents of Stephany Flores think the US media made too much fuss over the disappearance of Natalee Holloway or believe the Aruban police did all that could be expected. You should create an article about Beth's 'involvement' if it is that important, some of that stuff I have complained about above might have some relevance there. Fact is the article is not officially about that, but in practice is, mainly consisting of slant against Beth Holloway. The real loser from the current article is Aruba which comes off very badly. There is no pro Beth group or side. And I will prove it to you: no one has tried to remove the attack page Beth Holloway, or even alter it in ANY WAY. I should have listened to those with experience on this about how entrenched the slant was. I know better now. The events of 2010 have conspired to make a nonsense of the tone of the article anyway.- Overagainst (talk) 16:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The article is not now, nor has it ever been, particularly slanted against Beth. That's the fundamental problem with this discussion: you begin from a false premise and then wonder why people have difficulty reaching the same conclusions that you do. The article contains both positive and negative statements about the major parties, and focuses on the notable feature of this disappearance: the long-lasting aftermath. It strained international relations between Aruba and the United States, strained relationships within the Kingdom of the Netherlands, resulted in the Netherlands overriding Aruba's sovereignity, cost 40% of Aruba's police budget, became national news in the US (becoming its own television show on CNN for a while), was the topic of news throughout the Kingdom for years, spawned two major documentaries, was the topic of a Lifetime movie, subsequent legal action against JvdS for extortion, confessions that were made and recanted, and the discovery of the linkage between JvdS and this event was confessed motive for the murder of a second woman. That's a lot of impact, the Twittys were involved in making that impact, and the article tries to cover it all in a balanced fashion. I welcome efforts to cast that involvement in a balanced light, but trying to pretend that those things didn't occur or that the Twitty's were uninvolved in it doesn't seem like the right solution.—Kww(talk) 18:56, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Outdented on purpose. 'Nuff said! George Ho (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC) Feel free to replace this message, but don't remove the outdent. George Ho (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Beth is mentioned 31 times. Often in an argumentative tone (" Beth Twitty has made varying statements as to whether", "Beth Twitty alleged.. Beth Twitty and Dave Holloway alleged ... However, )" Why was that SPS external link never spotted before I pointed it out? It may be that one had ever read the entire article before I did, it's long, repetitive, and achingly devoid of interest, due to the insane concentration on denigrating Beth.

"and the discovery of the linkage between JvdS and this event was confessed motive for the murder of a second woman. That's a lot of impact, the Twittys were involved in making that impact"

No, Beth publicly saying Joran van der Sloot was a murderer was not responsible for him later killing Stephany Flores—only an undercover misogynist could imply otherwise._Overagainst (talk) 22:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Beth played a key role in the controversy surrounding the investigation. It's not surprising that she is mentioned frequently. The investigation would have come to a grinding halt soon after the disappearance without her influence. It's not Wikipedia's place to comment on whether her continued role was a good thing or a bad thing ... it's just a fact.
None of those examples are argumentative.
The article does not denigrate Beth.
I made no such implication, and take no responsibility for any false inferences you make. I refrain from insulting you, and would ask that you refrain from insulting me.

—Kww(talk) 23:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

There was no mistaking what you meant. I said "I'm not sure the parents of Stephany Flores think the US media made too much fuss over the disappearance of Natalee Holloway" suggesting that if Aruban police (or Peruvian passport control) had taken what Beth Holloway said seriously, they might have prevented the murder of Ms Flores You responded with "and the discovery of the linkage between JvdS and this event was confessed motive for the murder of a second woman. That's a lot of impact, the Twittys were involved in making that impact". So you were implying that the publicity about the disappearance of Natalee (Beth's statements) drove van der Sloot to murder Flores. If that was not a BLP violation I do not know what is.-Overagainst (talk) 11:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say that at all. "The event" referred back solely to the disappearance. JvdS's stated motive in the murder of Flores was rage over Flores discovering the linkage between JvdS and the Holloway disappearance.—Kww(talk) 14:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Keith B. Alexander

User added (presumed authentic) SSN, addresses and other confidential info about subject with this edit.[10]. Changes have been reverted but request permanent deletion of this version of the page. Dwpaul ^Talk 20:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

You're right. I've contacted someone from the RevDel team to revdel that out. KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh 17:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Dwpaul ^Talk 20:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Update The information is now RevDeleted. Thanks to the RevDel team !! KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh 17:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

– Data revdeled (thank you) Dwpaul ^Talk 16:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

John Cramer (announcer)

Hi,

I have correct information for John's page on Wikipedia.

He was NOT born in Glendale as the Wikipedia page says, but lives in Glendale currently (and since 1965).

I am his sister. He has a brother Michael (b. 1956), sister Susan (b. 1957), and half-brother Bill Buchanan (b. 1964).

He has been married twice and is currently divorced with a girlfriend.

He has 2 children from his second wife, Eileen McNulty. She is the daughter of Dr. James McNulty and Ann Blythe. Ann Blyth is already on Wikipedia. Dr. James McNulty is the brother of actor/singer Dennis Day.

I have lots of information is you want any. Let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.217.177 (talk) 20:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

what you would need to do, is provide reliably published, third party sources that contain information about the subject. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

It does appear that James McNulty (gynecologist) is at least partially notable - he's not a BLP and he had an obituary in the LA Times. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

michael cera

In the michael cera wiki, i dont even understand the meaning of the below stated paragraph. It needs to be rephrased, it's not proper english at all.

"Cera also appeared in a staged comedy video that shows him being fired from the lead role of the film Knocked Up after belittling and arguing with the director, in a scene that mocks the David O. Russell blow up on the set of I Heart Huckabees.[11]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.21.73 (talk) 17:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

You'd have to be familiar with the event on the Huckabees set to understand the parody being described. Perhaps just including the word parody will help, e.g.:
Cera also appeared in a staged comedy video which parodied David O. Russell's "blow up" on the set of I Heart Huckabees. It purported to show Cera belittling and arguing with the director of Knocked Up and his dismissal from the project.
— Dwpaul ^Talk 16:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Melissa Reid

The subject of this article is a little known British female golfer called Melissa Reid.

A different Melissa Reid from Britain was convicted of attempting to smuggle cocaine out of Peru on 17th December 2013 and sentenced to 6 years and 8 months in prison. Reid's story recieved huge coverage in the UK and elsewhere since her arrest in August 2013. The vast magority of people in the UK will have heard of Melissa Reid the drug smuggler; very few will have heard of the golfer.

There is a real danger the two individuals will be confused. Already the Melissa Reid article has been amended to reflect the drugs conviction of her namesake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.32.31.1 (talk) 14:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Article warrants being added to some watchlists to make sure the drugs story doesn't creep in. Is a hatnote warranted, since the other Reid isn't notable enough for an article? —C.Fred (talk) 15:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, the source which a different IP used to attempt to add the charge to the article shows the two Reids are six years apart in age, so they aren't the same person.[11] —C.Fred (talk) 15:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

"Is a hatnote warranted, since the other Reid isn't notable enough for an article?" Good idea! At least until the drugs story dies down. The drugs story is big news in UK and Ireland as a quick google will confirm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.32.29.1 (talk) 15:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Tyrone Hayes

This article appears to have been written either by the subject himself or an advocate of the subject. It refers to Hayes' work with Atrazine and frogs but fails to note that no other scientist has been able to duplicate his results. The article also cites Hayes' own work and website as supporting evidence for Hayes' assertions, and contains unsourced statements such as:

"This work shows that every scientist who has studied atrazine finds adverse effects on reproduction.[citation needed] The only scientists that do not, are those paid by the manufacturer, Syngenta.[citation needed]" Doobie61 (talk) 16:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Ross William Ulbricht

plz come to help and improve this article--TheRamtzi (talk) 18:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Al Goldstein

Does the rather non-encyclopedic information added with this edit[12] relating quotes by the subject about religion and pornography belong in this biographical article on the recently deceased pornographer? The subject would no doubt be proud to be remembered this way, and technically he is no longer BLP (but I think we include the recently deceased under BLP guidelines). Mainly unsure if it really adds to the quality of the article and/or meets general biographical guidelines here. Another set of eyes ... Dwpaul ^Talk 20:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

BLP applies to recently deceased people as well. In regard to the edit, well, those are his views (perhaps uncouth and offensive to some), and the source seems OK. Perhaps just a bit weighty in relation to the rest of the article, so maybe it can be worked in with a bit less quoting. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Ian Watkins (Lostprophets)

More eyes please. Sportfan5000 (talk) 07:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I just made an edit to the page there removing the phrase "Is a Welsh paedophile" from the lead paragraph. Although he is guilty of such offences, I don't think it's apropriate to state it in this manner. I have time to keep an eye. TF92 (talk) 09:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

It's a distasteful situation, but if we stay focussed on what he was convicted on I think things will go fine. Sportfan5000 (talk) 10:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Ned Vizzini

An FYI, there are rumors of his death roaming the internet currently. No official validation in either direction, but extra eyes are warranted. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Sonora Matancera

12-20-13

To Whom It May Concern,

I am not inserting spam. I merely am including relevant information concerning the history of Conjunto Sonora Matancera. Your edits are unwarranted and detract from the argument I am making.

I do not have a close relationship with anyone associated with La Sonora Matancera. I simply am a fan of their music.

Sincerely,

Alan Bobé-Vélez — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.246.248 (talk) 18:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing, but edits like this [13] are not liable to be accepted, as they're unsourced and may constitute original research, WP:NOR. Please do add relevant content that's properly sourced. JNW (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

- I do think the article will profit from further oversight from objective parties. There appears to be a long term issue of WP:OWNERSHIP, which has resulted in the addition of lengthy lists of recordings, as well as unencyclopedic rhetoric. I've commented at my talk page, and have copied the discussion to the article's talk page. JNW (talk) 21:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

David Bergstein

The subject's promotional team has made its reappearance. It will not be long before the flameboys make their return. additional eyes will be helpful. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

J. Alan Thomas

Is this person notable? And dead? I tried finding his obituaries, but I found none. I see GENI and FindAGrave used as sources, but they are completely unreliable. I copied credentials of this person to Taxi (TV series) in case of possible merge. --George Ho (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

No more or less notable than most character actors in Wikipedia, however I removed all that stuff sourced to a genealogical website and discussion boards, removed claims of him being deceased. In absence of a reliable source supporting the subject's death, they stay alive. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I checked, and he has a SSDI death record. So yeah, he's deceased. He seems to be pretty obscure, though. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I checked it myself. The records don't indicate the same person. there are many a J. Alan Thomas, Jeffrey A. Thomas, or any other similar name. --George Ho (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

It lists him as Jeffrey Alan Thomas. While I'd say it's likely they're the same, I'll have a look and see if NewsBank gives me anything. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Remember, no primary sources. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

There are four dead people named "Jeffrey Alan Thomas" and 13 people named "Jeffrey A. Thomas". We can't find exact location of birth and death. I changed category to "possibly living". George Ho (talk) 23:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The Social Security Death Index isn't considered a primary source; the primary source, in this case, would be the death certificate. There was a discussion at the RSN a while back. I agree in this case it shouldn't be used, because the name is very common. Btw, the Newsbank search brings up an Obituary article, but I can't read it and it's from 2009. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The Windows Internet Explorer 10 won't let me access NewsBank. It restarts the browser. Either something's wrong with the site or the browser, but the browser's fine with many pages. George Ho (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Problem somehow resolved. I was able to access NewsBank, and I found no obituaries about the actor from certain sources. George Ho (talk) 23:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Tavita Kenoly

I, Tavita Kenoly, am currently in the midst of divorce proceedings with my husband, Ron Kenoly. Dr. Kenoly left me for another woman. I do not wish for the autobiography to reflect the erroneous information that we are a happy, loving, family. Please edit your information accordingly.

(redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2:2180:3B3:219:E3FF:FED8:9D5C (talk) 03:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you really the Tavita wife of Ron Kenoly? Can you verify your divorce? I can't see one in sources. Also, what's with your contact info? George Ho (talk) 03:45, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I redacted your personal information. Please use the email ticket system to contact us instead, or edit the article yourself if you feel you can remain neutral and provide sources. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

jay-z

Jay-Z (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

His wiki page is constantly edited to reflect an unconfirmed rumor that he legally changed his last name to Knowles-Carter when he married Beyonce. This is a rumor that has never been proven as a fact. Please edit the information accordingly. His bio should read that his name is Shawn Corey Carter, not Shawn Corey Knowles-Carter. link

Are we back to this? Sigh. I undid the edit and left a comment on the talk page. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Rob Neyer

In the sportswriter Rob Neyer's page, two users have inserted mention of his support of Bill James's defense of Joe Paterno. It's true that he wrote an article trying to explain his mentor's action but including it in Neyer's page seems like coatracking especially when it's sourced to a sports tabloid blog, Deadspin, that is not a reliable source. "The site posts commentaries, recaps, and previews of the major sports stories of the day, as well as sports-related anecdotes, rumors and YouTube videos." Neyer has written lots of things that people have problems with, not sure if this particular thing should be included. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree and have removed the entire paragraph. Deadspin is on the margins of being a reliable source, but the connection trying to be made here is extraordinarily tenuous, and the implication (that Neyer supports Paterno) is completely unsupported. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Hal Mumme

Hal Mumme and Mike Leach came up with the "west coast offense" on several recruiting trips while at Iowa Lutheran when the both coached there together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.24.36 (talk) 03:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Dana Rohrabacher

The video has Rohrabacher saying: "Today, radical Islam and China appear to be the main adversaries of people in the free world…." So, for the Wikipedia article to assert that Rohrabacher believes "Islam 'motivates people to murder children'" seems to be quite a distortion of what he said. He was obviously talking about "radical Islam" rather than "Islam" generally. Which is yet another indication that Think Progress is an advocacy site rather than a reliable source.[14]Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Speaking of Islam, "That's what we're up against, people who will murder children, intentionally murder children," said Rohrabacher in an interview with Newsmax.com.[15] QuackGuru (talk) 07:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

QuackGuru, if you would like to use that further source to support the notion that the subject says Islam consists of child murderers, please note that the NewsMax piece quotes Rohrabacher three times using the word "Islam" and all three times he was saying "radical Islam". Thus, he was not speaking of Islam generally, no matter how much one might wish it were true that he slimed the entire religion. He carefully avoided doing so three times in that NewsMax article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Speaking of radical Islam, "That's what we're up against, people who will murder children, intentionally murder children," said Rohrabacher in an interview with Newsmax.com.[16]

I added "radical Islam" to the same proposal. What do you think now? QuackGuru (talk) 07:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

That's a lot better, but I'd like to also hear from the editor who was on the other side of the edit-war.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

This is only one sentence. It might be possible to expand it. I do not know where in the article it could be placed. QuackGuru (talk) 08:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be a running issue in this of people on both sides looking at single statements and not looking for secondary sources which put it all together. Surely they must exist. Mangoe (talk) 15:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

It looks like ThinkProgress is the outlet that first noticed Dana's statement about murderers, because other sources cite it. I'm ok with the compromise version above. MilesMoney (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't really call it a compromise version. Instead, it's a version that attempts to avoid a very clear BLP violation. I don't think anyone who's commented here about Rohrabacher believes it's okay to distort what he says. The best way to avoid this sort of thing is to avoid partisan or unreliable sources like Think Progress, Redstate, Daily Kos, Instapundit, et cetera.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

According to WP:RS, partisan is not the same thing as unreliable. In this case, there's actually no risk of our secondary source being mistaken, because we also have a link to the primary source.

We seem to have some sort of consensus for using the quote, but enlarging the context to include "radical" as the type of Islam. I'm fine with that. MilesMoney (talk) 23:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Add Newsmax to that list of hyper-partisan sites that should only be used with great caution, if at all.

I note with amusement that the editor who stepped in with a new source at the article Talk page, claiming that no BLP violation took place, now admits that the very same source he brought to the table demonstrates that the original BLP violation was quite real.

I support the inclusion of a direct, verbatim quote so long as the surrounding prose preserves Rohrabacher's delineation of "radical" Islam. Roccodrift (talk) 23:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Rohrabacher was interviewed by Newsmax TV. There is no problem with the source. You support the inclusion of a direct, verbatim quote using which source? QuackGuru (talk) 01:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Let's not get the cart in front of the horse. First, what do you propose to add to the article? And in what context? I'd say right off the bat that the former section heading "Islam" is off the table, since it is well-established that Rohrabacher wasn't speaking about Islam as a broad topic. It seems to me that Rohrabacher's views on radical Islam might make an appropriate addition to the existing Terrorism section (which should probably also mention that he chairs the United States House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia and Emerging Threats). Roccodrift (talk) 02:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Beware of any editor that argues in favor of adding minor but highly negative information to any BLP no matter how well sourced it is.--MONGO 20:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Beware any editor opposing the inclusion of minor and accurate information solely on the basis that it's "negative". Also, keep in mind that the idea that it's "negative" is itself partisan. To Dana's supporters, his words against (radical) Islam are highly positive, since they agree wholeheartedly. MilesMoney (talk) 23:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Both the text quoted in the article and the C-span clip have him saying, "I hope we all work together against a religion that will motivate people to murder children and other threats to us as a civilization." It could be that he did not mean to say that, but that does not make the article false. My dispute with MilesMoney is that he falsely claims the source says there is a controversy. If there had been a controversy, then one would expect a clarification from the congressman and third party comments about what he really meant. Then we could assess the weight of the significance of the "controversy" and assess the weight of different views. TFD (talk) 00:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, whenever Rohrbacher referred to "Islam" it was prefixed by "radical". According to the Wikipedia article about Islamic fundamentalism, "The term Islamic fundamentalism has been criticized by Bernard Lewis, Khaled Abou El Fadl, Eli Berman, John Esposito, among others. Many have proposed substituting another term, such as 'puritanical', 'Islamic revivalism' or 'activism', and 'Radical Islam'." Radical Islam is not the same as Islam generally. No one would confuse "Christian fundamentalist" with "Christian" generally, as one is a subset of the other (and there are various religions within each).Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

ThinkProgress accused Rohrbacher of "referring to Islam broadly". That appears to have been incorrect.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. The TP article contains an outright lie in the opening paragraph, and that was the portion of the TP story used in the article. Oh, but TP isn't unreliable? Give me a break. Roccodrift (talk) 01:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for repeating myself, but I'm fine with removing any mention of controversy. I'd rather let the in-context quote speak for itself as a statement of his position on Islam. MilesMoney (talk) 00:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

NOTE: I have asked for clarification regarding the meaning of an incoherent sentence in the guideline on identifying reliable sources.[17]Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The congressman's quote was "I hope we all work together against a religion that will motivate people to murder children and other threats to us as a civilization." That is a clear reference to Islam. What else could it mean, but the Islamic religion which motivates extremists. TFD (talk) 06:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow. You are exactly right. There are other sources with the same quote.[18] QuackGuru (talk) 06:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The quote is accurate, but it is out of context; it mentions neither Islam nor Christianity nor Judaism. What he was referring to was "Radical Islam". He said so many many times (in the NewsMax interview and in the hearing video).Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

He said "Radical Islam" but he also said work together against a "religion". Radical Islam is not a religion. I'm sure there will be editors who want to leave out the facts. QuackGuru (talk) 06:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Opinions vary. Did Rohrbacher say Radical Islam is not a religion?Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

What else could it be? St Anselm (talk) 06:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Islam is a religion. "Radical Islam" is not a religion, it's a characterization of certain elements of the religion as radical. MilesMoney (talk) 07:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion, Miles, but subsets of Islam are often called "religions".[19] As for Radical Islam in particular, many people consider it to be a distinct religion.[20] I have no opinion about it myself. Does Rohrbacher?Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

It could of been dog-whistle politics to say "I hope we all work together against a "religion". Radicals or terrorists are not a religion. QuackGuru (talk) 17:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Human sacrifice was part of Religion in the Inca Empire. Not all religions are cuddly.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

This is one of the reasons our biographies are so jacked up. POV pushers like MilesMoney waste ridiculous amounts of time wikilawyering about one comment made by an individual that in the scheme of that individuals life isn't even a fart in the wind.--MONGO 14:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Dude, this is not the Albert Schweitzer article, and the US Congress is not a Tailgate party. SPECIFICO talk 17:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Mongo. However Miles Money and other editors have chosen to make this an rs issue. Anythingyouwant calls ThinkProgress a "partisan or unreliable" source, then provides a column from a partisan Canadian tabloid as a source that radical Islam is a religion, adding his synthesis on how the the congressman's words should be read. TFD (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The column in the Canadian tabloid is unreliable and should not be used in the Wikipedia article for that reason (and other reasons). Surely you must realize that I never suggested using the tabloid in the Wikipedia article. I mentioned the tabloid only to illustrate that different people have different opinions about whether "radical Islam" is a "religion". Thus, we shouldn't assume Rohrbacher believes that "radical Islam" is not a religion, based on unsupported assertions by Think Progress.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

New Proposal:Speaking of radical Islam, "I hope we all work together against a religion that will motivate people to murder children and other threats to us as a civilization," said Rohrabacher during a hearing in April 2013.[21] QuackGuru (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Please, could we get some more eyes on the latest edits to this article, where a dispute which is making news in Roll Call has been deleted by another editor, who claims it is not "suitable" for a biography? --Orange Mike | Talk 22:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Your edit summary claims you are trying to avoid an edit war, so why are you edit-warring??? You made an edit, it was reverted, then you immediately repeated your edit and came here without discussing your edit on the article Talk page. Bringing this to BLPN is premature, given that edit-warring is the only thing you have done so far. Roccodrift (talk) 22:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I did not edit that section of the article, but I would not include the information on the rental house because the OC Weekly is definitely a tabloid and unsuitable for a BLP. Bahooka (talk) 22:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, Orangemike, I'm surprised an editor of your experience would make such an addition to a BLP. The sources are dreadful: not just the OC Weekly, but also the Roll Call "Gossip Blog". St Anselm (talk) 23:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I have not been following the current discussion, but I can't agree with this marginalization of the OC Weekly as a source. That paper wins lots of awards [22] and is known for its effective investigative journalism. The story at issue here has also been reported by the CBS-owned KCAL-TV [23], and the OC Weekly report has been picked up by the far-from-liberal Oklahoman [24]. I can imagine a good faith disagreement about weight, but valid sources exist. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:36, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, the KCAL source is a whole lot more neutral. Compare the headlines: Dana Rohrabacher Is Dirty vs. OC Congressman Accused Of Trashing $1M Costa Mesa Home. St Anselm (talk) 23:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The KCAL9 source looks acceptable. The issue is in litigation right now, but I suppose it can go in an encyclopedia article as long as it is neutral and not undue. Bahooka (talk) 00:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Glen Ridge rape

This article needs work, and it contains unsourced info about living people. --George Ho (talk) 19:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I've removed a large chunk of the articles on the grounds you raised - it listed people who were minors at the time, without sources, and without distinguishing those charged and convicted from the others. I'm thinking that we should perhaps nuke the whole thing and start over. - Bilby (talk) 05:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Jonathan King

Can we have some eyes on Jonathan King and its talk page? We have a new editor, User:Trfc06, making a lot of pointed comments on the talk page and arguing that the article should be made "less biased". Whether that's true or not is a matter of opinion, but we need to make sure that any edits and comments made are in line with policy. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks who ever you are, im new to this and I must say I was shocked how bad this page is. I though wiki would be some sort of fantastic set up, with all relevant facts for you to see. But this page is basically a love letter form the subject to himself. I dont want to make the page a slag off of the subject, but neither can it like it is. We just need the facts on it, and if I disagree with the facts I will accept it, not a problem. So any help appreciated. Thanks in advance. Sorry still dont know how to sign my name! Trfc06 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trfc06 (talk • contribs) 12:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The article does seem written a little too much in the style of a cv. Why, for example, is Rod Liddle's opinion of him good material for the lead? Why does the part of the article dealing with his conviction for child abuse place so much emphasis on the fact that a list of his celebrity chums supported him at the time, while making no mention of what the charges related to or even mentioning that he was actually convicted (even though these facts are mentioned in the lead)? Formerip (talk) 13:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The article does not have huge NPOV issues in my view, but there have been attempts at pro-King slanting in the past, possibly from people with a WP:COI. Also, the sourcing should be beefed up to good quality secondary sources.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the coverage of King's conviction in the article has been inappropriate - although it's much improved by FormerIP and IanMacm's edits today. The version prior to today, IMHO, contained a distinct innuendo that the conviction was in some way unsound, and certainly down-played it. Looking back in the history there appears to have been a long-term issue with IPs and SPA's editing the article in that manner. I think eyes do indeed need to be on the article, but not for the reason stated above. DeCausa (talk) 20:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

But some commentators (e.g. Richard Stott in the Mirror, Ian Jack in Granta) DID write that they thought the conviction unsound, and/or that the sentence was unfairly harsh, and surely that view is entitled to be represented in the article? -- Alarics (talk) 07:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The conviction was reviewed by the CCRC and confirmed. (The fact of the review but not the result had be included). I don't think journalist commentary should be given any sort of equivalence, especially tabloid opinion (at least in the case of the Mirror): it was hardly a widespread "campaign". But the main point is that weight of the 2000-2010 section was (until yesterday) disproportionately suggestive that it was a miscarriage of justice, IMHO, rather than a minority commentary. This was accompanied by some rather sly innuendo eg "He was released on £150,000 bail, £50,000 of it put up by Simon Cowell, the impresario, and was re-arrested, after the media publicity, in January 2001" (my emphasis). I think as it is this morning is much fairer. I think that article definitely has a dubious edit history. DeCausa (talk) 07:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I removed most of the names of supporters because they were mainly sourced to a dead link on a minor news website, with the exception of Richard Stott. I think there's a big BLP issue in naming people as supporters of a convicted sex offender unless we can be totally sure that that is a fair representation of their position.

It may be that more detailed coverage of the sex offences would be warranted. But we also have a responsibility to provide balance. This means not just digging out material that questions King's guilt. It cuts both ways. I note that, above, an interview with some of King's victims has been dismissed as coming from an unreliable source. But the source is the same as for Richard Stott's op-ed. Formerip (talk) 13:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

For info, I've now significantly expanded the coverage on the offences in the article. Because of that, I believe it's appropriate to include reference to "supporters", and have, with 2 sources, mentioned the late Richard Stott and (the living) Lynn Barber, but also making it clear that neither thought he didn't commit the offences (which is what the sources say). DeCausa (talk) 11:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Anna Sobecka

Self-translated direct quotes attributed to the article subject and POV commentary on the BLP using unreliable opinion commentary sources.

User:Estlandia is placing content using unreliable sources (Michal Gasior is an opinion columnist, writing in Polish, with NaTemat.pl) and attributing self-translated quotes (original language is Polish both for the LP and the opinion columnist) to the same BLP here and here. I did open a discussion on the article talk page [25] to resolve the dispute, but no response has been provided to date other than the second revert listed above. Estlandia admits in the edit comment for this diff [26] for own userpage that my polish is elementary, but it is improving, it is improving..., thus the user is not in a position to provide a reliable translation for a BLP direct quote. Please note that Estlandia is also showing the same behavior on non-BLP articles such as United Poland. Looking for Admin assistance with this matter. Ajh1492 (talk) 20:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

If you think my translation is deficient, please improve it or remove it. But only then! So far you haven't demosntrated that my translation is wrong in any way. Plus it is not really BLP matter 'cause she herself said such things. PS. AFAIAC (it was there before me) the famous 'Sex is bad as it doesn't develop [the mankind]' can come back it is easily googleable [27]. Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 20:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree that op-ed columns have no business in BLPs. End of story. Volunteer Marek 21:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you cite a policy applicable to the article in support of your view? Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 21:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

BL-F-P. Volunteer Marek 23:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Kim Hyun-jung

Kim Hyun-jung (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article, until recently, was completely unsourced. Now it has two sources, one of which is a Wikipedia mirror and the other a Korean blog. I've tried to talk to the user who is editing the article, but they are a SPA and don't talk. The article needs to be cut way back, and I'd rather that others wield the axe, particularly because I'm perilously close to edit warring with the user, so I have to step back.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Whose smart idea was it for the English Wikipedia to have user names like 나는우리?Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:29, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Username_policy#Usernames_with_non-Latin_characters Oy vey.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Here's the RFC that's responsible, in case anyone's interested. I guess that makes me a xenophobic racist.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I've stubbified Kim Hyun-jung (singer). I couldn't find any reliable sources. There may be some in the Korean language, but I don't know how to find them. The Wikipedia article said, "the song 멍 (Bruise)...is still her biggest hit to date...." You can listen here. The singer seems to be male though. But maybe it's this song instead sung by a female. This is a contradiction among unreliable sources, which justifies more axing than usual.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:31, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

My axing has been axed. Shall we just take it to AfD?Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Megyn Kelly

[28] has been repeatedly added to the BLP -- adding Race and appearance of Jesus which is likely not a proper Wikilink IMO to represent the actual wording she used, and may actually through Wikilink get the BLP under ArbCom sanction regarding "race" in general. I may be oversensitive to adding the "race issue" willy-nilly to BLPs in general, so ask for other input from those who have not made any edits there. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC) |

I don't at all see how a wikilink to our article about the race and appearance of Jesus is inappropriate in a sentence discussing Kelly's statement about Jesus' race.

Kelly stated (controversially, as it turns out) that Jesus was white - we conveniently have an article that examines the competing theories as to what race Jesus may have been. Her statement became the subject of significant commentary and derision. How does that wiklink implicate a violation of BLP? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you cite a source that Kelly was referring to the history of depictions of Jesus? I suggest that where a phrase is rather easily understood by readers that Wikilinking to a marginally relevant article is pretty useless. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the Baronof guy. It's an innocuous and relevant wikilink. What's more suspect is the sentence saying, "The day after making the comment she was absent from her show without explanation." Insinuation anyone?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Her absence was noted in a article in an RS publication, which the sentence is sourced to. That said, I don't think the sentence is really relevant or necessary. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Collect, Megyn Kelly made an assertion on national television that Jesus' race was white/Caucasian. We have an article specifically discussing the variety of conflicting views of what Jesus' race might have been. Whether or not she intended to, Kelly voluntarily became part of the history of depictions of Jesus by making the statement she made. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

And if she says she drinks coffee, you will wikilink Coffee on her page? Wikilinks which do not benefit readers are not all that great an idea AFAICT. YMMV. Collect (talk) 02:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

This source say she merely had a cold the next day, and also has her elaborating that the skin color of Jesus is "far from settled ". I'd remove the trivia about her next- day-absence, and insert the clarification if it's not already there.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't really see a problem with the wikilink as it stands, but if it helps, it could be moved to the final sentence - "skin color of Jesus". Either way, I think it is helpful to the reader as necessary context for the debate. St Anselm (talk) 05:47, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I also don't see a problem -- and in fact I think the wikilink is likely to be helpful to readers. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Georgism

A large number of living persons are named in the article and in Category:Georgists as being Georgists or influenced by Mr. George. The problem is that almost none of the sources make that statement about the person, and in at least one case the source is ... George's publisher making it not really an arm's-length claim. In addition, a slew of people are in Georgism related categories without even having George's name in the BLP (or BDP in some cases - but the problem is the same). My opinion is that any categorisation of any sort ought to require actual sourcing. I can not do this as one or more of the people is conceivably related to the TPm, broadly construed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I've added a wikilink to the article concerned. For those not already familiar with the topic area, you may want to expand very slightly on what "the TPm" is? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I do not see the purpose of the list. If George's influence on an individual is significant to the article, it can be mentioned in the body. And there is no value in saying he influenced someone unless it is explained how. TFD (talk) 18:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

In fact, most of the people added do not have George so much as mentioned in their biographies. The sources also do not support any link to "Georgism" AFAICT as a rule. I did not look at every one -- I figured the first dozen being bad was pretty clear -- so I looked at a few others without finding a valid entry. Alas, the person who wants them all in has reverted me on removing the huge mass of people -- I fear it will soon get over a thousand entries in the list <g>. As one or more individuals may be among the hundred or more added to a TPm category in December [29] , I can not work on them one-by-one :(. Collect (talk) 22:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The first thing I did when I saw this report was check the article talk page to see if Collect had brought the subject up. He did, back in 2010, but was unable to get any sort of consensus supporting him. More recently, Collect tried twice to remove parts of the list, aggressively edit-warring against an editor named Whomyl.

Here's what Whomyl said to Collect in an edit comment:

You misunderstand; page is called "geoism"/"Georgism". Not directly tied to George; he was just a famous advocate. Could called "Smith" or "Paine" economics

When you put it that way, it's pretty clear that Collect is barking up the wrong tree when he demands proof that Henry George influenced these people, especially since some of the ones mentioned in the lede predate George by centuries. The fact that Collect made no attempt to bring up the issue on the article talk page before coming here, along with his record of reverting, make this BLP report even more suspect.

My tentative conclusion is that Collect came here with dirty hands and his entire argument is based on failing to understand the subject. If Collect objects to this material, he should stop edit-warring and open up a discussion (like WP:BRD says). If that doesn't work, he can file another report here, but this one is premature at best, dishonest at worst. MilesMoney (talk) 09:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Um -- when did you become interested in Georgism? Ah -- just here to attack? That is not the purpose of this noticeboard! BTW, the page is called Georgism so why you think that I miscalled it is outré. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:AGF. You know I edit articles about economics, so your accusations are ridiculous. Please stick to this BLP issue. If your best argument is to repeat the title of the article, there's really nothing more to discuss. MilesMoney (talk) 21:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Ashley Spurlin

I am Ashley Spurlin I am undergoing a active duty military top secret clearance. It is being stopped by this wiki page. I need the page deleted for my top secret clearance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.205.150.75 (talk) 23:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Given that you were a reality TV contestant and the subject of several Air Force public affairs releases, it's a little difficult to put the genie back in the bottle. I suggest that you nominate your biography for the Articles for deletion process and explain your concerns. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

After reading the page, I don't see anything that should be cause for concern to prejudice your clearance, though it might slow things up. Additionally you might not want to advertise your application for a clearance as that might not be helpful. You may want to request someone oversight this entire section. Two kinds of pork (talk) 00:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

A review of the Ashley Spurlin talk page shows that multiple IP addresses have attempted to remove or edit this page in fairly uncivil ways such as here and here and throughout the entire edit history. I don't know if this is related, of course, but people should be sensitive to the possibility that this one-edit IP address might possibly be someone other than the subject himself (noted without prejudice). __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

There may be more BLP concerns here. 1. The edit history has anonymous death threats as an attempt to get the page deleted. 2. I can't tell how much of the page has been sourced and how much of it was added by drive-by IP contributors. I'm concerned some bogus information has been added merely to spoil the article so that it would then be unreliable enough to delete. There's a mention of a wife that is not apparent in the citations given, added by IPs that insist the subject is also dead, killed in both August or October, with zero sourcing for wife or death. __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

This person does not pass our general notability guide as far as I can see; neither a bronze star nor being a runner-up on a minor reality tv show are inherently notable acts. Ref #1 is a military press release, #2 is a blog. If someone doesn't send it to AfD within a few hours, I will probably do so myself. Tarc (talk) 02:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

On a second look at the totality of sources available, I tend to agree with your assessment, and have nominated the page for deletion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Lester Coleman

I'm not sure what is going on with this Talk page, but the edit history is somewhat troublesome. WP:SPAs seem to abound in general, but would like fellow editors to especially take a look at today's series of edits. Shearonink (talk) 18:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Bob Blair (cricketer)

The last paragraph reads as follows: 'He re-married, had 4 Children (3 boys and a girl) and was having an affair. He took off one night with the neighbor of whom he was having the affair, while his wife was ill in hospital. His youngest child then was just 4 years of age. It took Blair close to 40 years to apologize to his Children. He hasn't, to my knowledge apologized to his now deceased ex wife, Shirley'.

Apologies as this is the first time I have had need to raise an issue of this nature, but I feel that this does not correspond with my knowledge of Wikipedia rules (personal perspective/unsourced/libelous?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.239.159.5 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 24 December 2013‎

Given that it was entirely unsupported by sources, I've removed it - though I'm not sure that it would merit inclusion even if sourced. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

my pleasure, thanks and keep up the good work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.239.159.5 (talk) 13:36, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

M.A. Jalil Ananta

José Huizar

José Huizar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Agutierr07 removed sourced information (initially without comment) about a sexual harassment lawsuit this California politician has found himself in. I am not keen on keeping negative information on BLPs but in this case there I restored it because are two articles by a reliable source (LA Times) that have covered the issue in detail. On the other hand, it seems the matter is still in the allegations stage, and we sometimes omit those kinds of details from bios until there is a legal outcome of some kind - although there is precedent on including when there is no undue weight issue and the coverage is substantial. I'll be on partial wikibreak these next two weeks or so, so I'll leave it to other editors to decide what consensus there is for the material to stay or go. Also, I'd encourage Agutierr07 to declare their conflict of interest here, if they have one. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Pamela Geller

Pamela Geller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is currently described as a right-wing political activist, but we have a number of really strong sources, from top newspapers to the SPLC, which call her far-right. (They're listed on the article talk page, but we can bring them up here, if necessary.) Due to this strong sourcing, I do not believe that BLP is violated. I'd like a ruling on this, as there are some editors who are taking an obstructionist stance. MilesMoney (talk) 04:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

As a rule, opinions are citable as opinions, even if held by the absolutely non-partisan SPLC. One can have "She has been called far-right by the SPLC" but that is not the same as saying she is far-right in Wikipedia's voice. BTW, you do not get a "ruling" here, you only get opinions from folks familiar with that policy, and the part about opinions being cited as such has been around for quite a while now. Cheers. Collect (talk) 04:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

And yet we call her "right-wing". Should we attribute that as an opinion? If not, why the double standard?

Her far-right status is not an opinion. It's a fact recognized by the SPLC, the Guardian and the other sources. MilesMoney (talk) 04:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

We in general do not use pejorative descriptors which are opinions and call them "fact" because the SPLC has that opinion. I fear you might be so certain that she is "far right" that you do not understand why WP:BLP is written the way it is written. Now you are free to propose changes to the policy, as may any editor. But I fear you may not be able to make the change you seem to endorse. Cheers. Collect (talk) 04:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, let's examine these "really strong sources," shall we?

Alrighty, and what do we have here? #1 and #2 are from the U.K. edition of HuffPo - both by the same British author writing for a British audience. Ditto #3. #4 is a liberal advocacy site cleverly disguised as a news source. #5 is a left-wing hate site that is essentially no more usable for BLP purposes than a blog - probably less so. #6 is another left-wing hate site which, while it's reputation for accuracy isn't all that bad, it has a conflict of interest and should not be confused with an impartial reporter of plain facts. #7 is a British tabloid that is, perhaps, one notch above the National Enquirer.

The problem here is that, while some of these sources are often reliable, none of them are convincing. They all have an identifiable ax to grind. And the only ones that might have some credibility are based in the U.K., where the news media is an order of magnitude more sensationalist than the rest of the world and where voicing certain opinions (usually right-wing opinions) can land you in jail.

Miles is working under the misconception that sourcing = inclusion, consensus be damned. And he doesn't understand that some sources are simply not usable in certain contexts, i.e. in a BLP. Roccodrift (talk) 04:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be repeating lines of argument that didn't work the first time, either. One is the idea that Geller is only considered far-right by UK standards. There's no evidence of this, and the fact that Weiss and the SPLC are both American but call her far-right disproves this. Likewise, you argue that some of these sources are not themselves right-wing, so you consider them biased. I'm sorry, but that's not how sourcing works. Reliability does not require neutrality. If it didn't, we'd have very few reliable sources left. MilesMoney (talk) 04:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Is she sometimes referred to as right-wing and sometimes referred to as far-right? If so, why not say so? Or, if there's a fairly even split on that question in reliable sources, why not use explanatory information instead? Sometimes the usual left-right system of description doesn't work very well. It seems she's usually described as anti-Islam or anti-Muslim, and someone with that philosophy could be far left or far-right or anywhere between.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

All far-right is right-wing. In her case, the left-right system works perfectly well. MilesMoney (talk) 04:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know that all far-right is right wing. That's not what I asked.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

She's referred to as many things, and there's no contradiction among them. I'm not sure what the benefit would be of including subsets of categories she fits in. In other words, if she's far right, then why additionally call her right wing? It seems redundant and confusing. MilesMoney (talk) 05:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

For example, if 100% of sources say she's "right wing" and 0% of sources say she's far-right, then obviously we would have to say "right wing" even though 100% of the sources are consistent with her being far-right. So what's the breakdown? What portion of reliable sources call her "far right" versus "right wing"?Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

If we could comprehensively list all sources, such math might be meaningful. We can't, so all we can ask is whether we have multiple, independent reliable sources to support "far-right". As it happens, we do. MilesMoney (talk) 05:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

You can estimate. That's part of a Wikipedian's job, in order to strike a proper balance of POVs, and to avoid undue weight.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

In accordance with BLP the text should be restored. QuackGuru (talk) 05:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Of course. It would be nice to hear any sort of credible objection, but all I've seen so far is easily rejected. MilesMoney (talk) 05:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Perjorative labels of living people should be attributed to a source in the text, rather than being stated in Wikipedia's voice. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:31, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

How is that perjorative? MilesMoney (talk) 05:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Because the term "far right" is always used by critics of ultraconservatives (often justified from my own off-Wikipedia personal perspective) but to my knowledge, is never used as a self description by the ultraconservatives themselves. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The text should absolutely not be restored, as it is repetitive to the point it is unbalanced. Also, I agree with editors who say that more neutral sources should be used.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Some writers may consider Geller part of the far right while others may not. You need to show that there is a consensus. Incidentally, the SPLC did not call her far right, rather that is the description one of their contributors used. TFD (talk) 05:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

A consensus among editors? Among sources? Where are you getting this from? I'd like you to quote the relevant policy. MilesMoney (talk) 06:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

See "Neutral point of view": "Avoid stating opinions as facts." "Avoid stating facts as opinions." You need to determine whether the description is presented as a factual statement or as the opinion of the writer. The best way to do that is to consult academic books and papers on the far right. TFD (talk) 07:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't support what you said, particularly as "far-right" is no more or less an opinion than "right-wing". MilesMoney (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

If they are both opinions they should be described as opinions and not a fact established by editors of Wikipedia. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Sourced text was deleted again. She is "right-wing" according to many sources. QuackGuru (talk) 04:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Opinions must be cited as opinions. Dictum. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

A consensus among reliable sources is not merely an "opinion". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

And how would you prove your "consensus" unless she self-identifies with a position? A GoogleNews search shows no RS sources for the claim. [30] ascribes the opinion as such to Salon.com. [31] does not make the claim as "fact" but treats it as an opinion -- ascribed to salon.com. Where reliable sources cite it as an opinion of salon.com, it is not up to us to use the term as a fact in Wikipedia's voice. [32] cites it as an opinion of Justin Elliott -- writing in salon.com. Unless you can find her self-describing herself as "right wing" all you really have is reliable sources ascribing the claim as opinion to a writer at salon.com. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

A consensus of opinions by reliable sources is merely a consensus opinion. And there is no consensus. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Except there does seem to be a consensus, in that we have a lot of sources saying something and no sources saying anything contradictory. Strictly speaking, yes it is a matter of opinion rather than fact. But, then, so is "Pablo Picasso was an artist" if you want to be picky.

There also doesn't seem to be any reason to suppose this is controversial. According to the article, she's banned from the UK for hate speech. That doesn't really happen to people because their views are too moderate. Formerip (talk) 17:15, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

We have a lot of reliable sources quoting Salon. We have zero reliable academic sources saying she is "right wing" as a fact. And the fact that the UK bans someone for "hate speech" is in the article -- as is the Salon quote properly cited to a secondary reliable source. Anything different would be a violation of WP:BLP. Opinions are only citable as opinion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC) BTW, Picasso self-identified as an artist. Straw man arguments remain straw man arguments. Collect (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Collect wants an academic source. A pity he was unable to produce what he wanted for himself. But here it is, all gift-wrapped and beribboned:

"right-wing activists and organizations abroad, including the Jewish Defense League in Canada and American 'counter-jihadists' like blogger Pamela Geller", from an article titled "Right-wing movements" in The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social and Political Movements, edited by Sivan Hirsch-Hoefler, Cas Mudde, published January 2013.

I'll let someone else do the honours of adding it. —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

One contention is whether we have verifiability and reliable sources. This, of course, is absolutely necessary. But with BLP it is not sufficient. If it were we would not need a whole page devoted to WP:BLP. As it says in the lead to that page we “must take particular care” since such “material requires a high degree of sensitivity” by using “high-quality sources” in addition to the core policies applicable to all articles. We should document in “a non-partisan manner” presenting material “responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone” avoiding “guilt by association, and biased or malicious content.” In WP:LABEL it says “value-laden labels” should be avoided unless “widely used by reliable sources”. Thus, the question is not merely is do we have some sources but the breath and non-partisan nature of these sources are key. A “high degree of sensitivity” suggests we demand the upmost support for a categorization that the subject seems not to use in defining herself and most usages come from political opponents or sensationalist headlines. I’m a strong proponent of not applying potentially pejorative labels to biographies unless the subject seems to embrace that designation in a self-classification. We can certainly describe the opinions of others and their criticism within the body of the article, by attributing it to the author in question. Why not use caution? Jason from nyc (talk) 20:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

It's straightforward. If the sources that say right-wing are more numerous and of better quality, we go with that. If the better and more numerous sources say far-right, then so do we. If it's equivocal we might say right-wing, often characterised as far-right. Guy (Help!) 20:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Some of our best sources (Guardian, SPLC) say "far-right", and it's not as if "right-wing" in any way contradicts these. MilesMoney (talk) 20:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I have strict views on BLP, but I don't see the problem here. I think Guy is right that this is ultimately a matter of sourcing, and the sources seem to favour "far-right".

We certainly do use political descriptors without attributing them (in the text) to a source - there are lots of articles that refer to someone as a "liberal activist" or a "conservative activist". This is true for "far-right" as well, as well as for other terms with even more pejorative connotations such as "fascist" or "Neo-Nazi". Indeed we have whole categories for far-right politicians from various nations.[33][34][35][36][37][38].

Of course, if the matter is seriously contested (in reliable sources), then we can't assert it. But I have found few sources describing her as "right-wing" and they are of dubious reliability. In contrast, we have more sources for "far-right", and also better ones (such as The Guardian and the SPLC. I note that the Express, a right-wing newspaper (and a middle-market newspaper, not a red top tabloid), also calls her "far-right". Neljack (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:British_far-left_politicians Category:Far-left_politicians_in_France Category:Irish_far-left_politicians Category:English_far-left_politicians Category:Northern_Irish_far-left_politicians Category:Scottish_far-left_politicians
Category:British_far-right_politicians Category:Far-right_politicians_in_France Category:Irish_far-right_politicians Category:English_far-right_politicians Category:Northern_Irish_far-right_politicians Category:Scottish_far-right_politicians Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Also there's been a related issue on this article - whether it is permissible to describe the English Defence League as "far-right". This had been cited to The Guardian, but then people claimed that it was not a reliable source because of its political stance. This is, of course, totally irrelevant to whether it is a reliable source - that depends upon its reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, not its political views. Nothing in the RS policy precludes an RS from having an editorial position. Indeed, most major newspapers do (consider the NYT, the WSJ, The Times, The Daily Telegraph, etc). The Guardian is recognised as one of the "quality" English newspapers (the "broadsheets", as they're often known). It certainly has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It's left-wing stance does not stop it from being an RS, any more than the right-wing stance pf the Telegraph' or the WSJ does. This seems to be part of a disturbing trend I've noticed recently of trying to discredit The Guardian based on its political views.

In any case, our article on the EDL refers to it as "far-right" and cites not only The Guardian but also The Daily Telegraph (does the Torygraph also suffer from left-wing bias?) and several academic sources. While I can understand the disagreement over the description of Geller, I really can't see how there is any room for disagreement over this. Neljack (talk) 23:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello? Do you have anything to say about the redlinks above?Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

(ec)At the end of the day, that's just an irrelevant OTHERSTUFFDOESN'TEXIST argument. Doubly irrelevant because it is about categories, whereas the current discussion is about article content. Create a bunch of "far-left" categories or propose deleting the existing "far-right" ones if you want.

FWIW, though, I think it probably that "far-left" is considered redundant to more specific categories such as Category:British Trotskyists, Category:German Communist Party politicians and so on. Formerip (talk) 23:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, if there's something specific that makes Geller allegedly far-right, and if we categorize her as such, would the far-right category then be redundant?Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know enough about her, but possibly. In any event, this is a tangent. Formerip (talk) 00:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Tangents have their uses. If "far-right" is something more than a vague and subjective label, then there must be something about her that makes her far-right. If no one knows what that something is, then perhaps it would be best to just drop the whole discussion about categorizing her that way.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

If you want that particular discussion dropped, you probably need to start it first. Categories are a different matter to article content. Formerip (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion has already been started. Edits like this make it relevant.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd say you have a lot of work ahead of you if you volunteer to create and fill those categories. But none of it has anything to do with all of the quality sources calling Pam "far-right". MilesMoney (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Do more quality sources opt to instead call Ms. Geller "right wing" instead of "far-right wing"? I personally have much better things to do than lumping people against their will into pejorative, vague, subjective categories, and if I did do so for only left-wing ones then doubtless I would be banned for POV pushing.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The British government refused to allow her to visit because, as the Guardian reports, she's a far-right US blogger. Are you saying that the Guardian lied or that the British government was wrong? MilesMoney (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

That isn't what the Guardian reported, Miles; that's your own spin on what the Guardian reported. It says more about you than it does about Geller. Roccodrift (talk) 01:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Is the British government a reliable source? I haven't seen it in many footnotes.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

As noted on the article talk page -- you are insisting that a Headline is a reliable source for a BLP. It ain't. The body of the Guardian article does not make the claim you ascribe to the Guardian. That is not exactly the best way to deal with a BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Ignoring the fact that the Guardian is by no means the only source for this, why on God's lovely earth do you imagine a headline in the Guardian would not be a reliable source? Formerip (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Let them wikilawyer over this fine point. I've made another proposal on the talk page that avoids all of their complaints (though they're still complaining). MilesMoney (talk) 01:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

BLP Policy requires multiple RS for anything that may be considered contentious being said about a living person. Does being called far right or right wing fall into that category? I would say it does. If Gellar is truly a right winger, one would expect to see this stated in many sources.Two kinds of pork (talk) 01:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, so your expectations are fulfilled, it seems. Formerip (talk) 01:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

If the sources you appear to be inferring to are the ones in this thread, then no, my expectations are not fulfilled. No Huffpo, blogs from the SPLC (their statistics is what they are notable for), or any other blog. High quality sources are needed. If they exist, then by all means put it in. I've no dog in this fight.Two kinds of pork (talk) 01:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

We have the NY Daily News, the Guardian, Jewish Week, the SPLC and a book. All of them confirm that Geller is right-wing. Not a single source disputes this, so there's no need to treat this as an attributed opinion. Even Geller's own About page describes her with the term, showing that she does not oppose its application to her.

I'm sorry, but there is absolutely no shortage of sourcing options and no chance of BLP violation here. We should pick some sources we like and close this section as satisfied. MilesMoney (talk) 01:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I continue to oppose saying that she's "far right" in Wikipedia's voice. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

That's fine, because none of the currently proposed edits do this. MilesMoney (talk) 05:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

At this point, the only remaining issue is that we've got multiple sources which identify her as right-wing, but some editors seem to object. Is there any BLP basis for their objection? MilesMoney (talk) 15:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The issue now is misuse of sources to make claims which are not directly in the source -- I believe that this has been written to you in the past but let us be perfectly clear:

If a claim is not directly supported in the body of a source, the source does not support the claim.

"Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

No, actually, that's not the issue. We have sources with directly state that she is right-wing. You need to look at the sources. MilesMoney (talk) 17:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Afro-Latin American

An editor si claiming that Mariah Carey is from Latin America by re-adding her pic to Afro-Latin American, an article about people of Afro origin in Latin America. By making this the editor is claiming Carey is a Latin American which is a BLP vio as she is from the United States, having a latino heritage in the US is not the same as being from Latin America, obviously♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 19:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Richard Hillgrove

BLP of a spin doctor being spun by IPs and apparent socks in apparent breach of BLPCRIME. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:44, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this looks like a good candidate for deleting. Any useful content (if there is any) can be merged to Nigella Lawson and associated articles. Formerip (talk) 01:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion. I only used the BLPCRIME rationale, as I don't think the socks are relevant to the article itself. Though someone many want to address that in the discussion. I didn't look at the history too closely.Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:22, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

What is going on here? This article has exactly zero IP edits on the article page or on the talk page. What IPs are spinning anything? And it looks like people are throwing around accusations of socks on no evidence at all. This article was created a couple of days ago by an editor that actually seems more towards the negatively critical end of the spectrum regarding the events of the subject's life, so I don't see what's being "spun" here. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The Family Crews

This article is heavily unsourced and contains a lot of information about a public reality tv show about a family. What should be done? TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 13:56, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Take a look now... Giant Snowman 14:59, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Cecil Bothwell

Appears to be essentially an autobiography (all substantive content supplied by user:Cecilbothwell and user:Hekerui)_ , relies on some deadlinks and selfwritten links, and uses material not in the links as being referenced. He may be notable or not -- but I daresay the latter is entirely too likely. Collect (talk) 15:34, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I remember working on this and I'm sure I used newspaper sources and worked properly and the only contact I had to the man was a request for an image under a free license using WP:ERP. I stopped checking the article long ago but whatever was changed by Boswell in the meantime lacking sources can surely be corrected by us, no? The article was on DYK so it's not a stub and at least some people thought the content passed muster. That can be discussed further in DR if wanted but I don't think it's in terrible shape. Regards Hekerui (talk) 00:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Sanal Kumar Sasidharan

Sanal Kumar Sasidharan is an emerging Indian film maker who has interests in parallel cinema and independent film making . he is the co-founder of Kazhicha Filim Forum with his friends and made three short films which got accolades in many festivals . Moreover sanal is a law graduate and a well known blogger and a poet. his nick name is sanadhanan . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijaymohanm (talk • contribs) 19:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

page for Barbara Milberg misspells her name.

Barbara Fisher (nee Milberg) is my mother.

The page Barbara Milberg redirects to Barbra Milberg, misspelling her name. I edited the latter page, correcting the spelling in the body. What is the correct way to change the page title and the redirect?

I am quite sure that the second page is not for someone with a similar name. The page describes my mother's career and references one of her published books. Her name is correctly spelled on Agon (ballet)#Casts, for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjifisher (talk • contribs) 16:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Benjifisher (talk) 20:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Revealing individual campaign contributions by way of Opensecrets.org

At several lists of political campaign endorsements, the website www.opensecrets.org, run by Center for Responsive Politics, is being used to support entries naming living people who have quietly contributed money to the campaign. Should we be telling the reader this information? Even if the article was called List of campaign contributors, with reliable sources telling us what campaign contributions were made by notable people, should we use opensecrets.org?

An example is actor/comedian/writer Paul Dooley. At his biography page, we can see he makes no political statements at all, and does not look like a political person. However, his name is found at opensecrets.org as a "celebrity" who quietly donated $5000 to Obama's 2012 presidential campaign. Which explains why User:Rusted AutoParts added Dooley and others to one of these lists way back in October 2012, using opensecrets.org as the reference. No other reliable source connects Dooley to the 2012 presidential campaign—he made no statements about his preference for a candidate. Certainly there is the question of whether such a quiet donation can be called an "endorsement" (I think it cannot), but is it possible for us to use this reference to say Dooley made such a contribution? Can we use the reference at his biography, for instance?

Another way that opensecrets.org can be used is by searching for a specific person (donor) and getting a page of results telling how much the person donated to various campaigns. For our example Paul Dooley, this process can be implemented to discover that he gave the following amounts:

On October 16, 2006, he gave $2000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
On May 11, 2007, he gave $2500 to Al Franken, the donation composed of two sums: $2300 and $200.
On May 18, 2007, he gave $2300 to Barack Obama, made up of $4600 with $2300 subtracted.
On June 30, 2008, he gave $26,200 to the Democratic National Committee.

Can this sort of information be added to Wikipedia?

Note that the Center for Responsive Politics gets their information from monthly reports that the candidates are required to file with the US Federal Election Commission. Such reports are a matter of public record. Are such reports a primary source? Is opensecrets.org a simple relayer of primary sources or are they exerting editorial oversight to become a secondary source? Is the first example of a page showing "celebrity" donors a primary or secondary source? Is the second example of an individual donor search query result a primary or secondary source? How reliable is this website? Binksternet (talk) 07:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I would consider this to be primary source material, because there is no editorial discretion or discussion being undertaken - it is a simple republication of public records.

However, if a news organization picked up on the contribution and reported on it using the public records/CRP data as a source, that would be a legitimate secondary source.

If no news organization has reported on the contribution, that strongly suggests to me that the contribution is not an encyclopedic part of one's biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with User:NorthBySouthBaranof. Unless reported elsewhere, this seems a questionable source to be citing - and it certainly can't be described as an 'endorsement', if only because it isn't unknown for individuals to donate to opposing candidates, and there is no guarantee that the list is complete, or even accurately identifying the individual concerned (as with all databases, there may be issues with different individuals sharing the same name for instance). AndyTheGrump (talk)

I see two separate questions here:

1. Is Opensecrets a reliable source?

We need to decide this before we go any further. A quick search revealed what I believe to be some useful information.

For their own part, Open Secrets states that they get their information direct from the Federal Elections Commission or other government sources, and that their information products are processed by human beings (as opposed to simply streaming a data feed).[39] And since what they have to say about their methodology seems to indicate there is research, fact-checking and internal accountability, I think this qualifies them to be considered a secondary source.
Per WP:USEBYOTHERS, their reliability should be gauged by who depends on their data. I found usage by Mark Shields [40], The Atlantic [41], the Washington Examiner [42], the Anchorage Daily News [43], Fox News [44], and the San Francisco Chronicle [45]. It looks to me like a broad spectrum of mainstream media sources consider Open Secrets to be a viable source for information.

2. Can we use information from Opensecrets in BLPs?

Probably not on our own initiative. Regarding your second example... While campaign contributions aren't private, using Opensecrets, on our own initiative, to dig up info for an article is, essentially, original research. I can't imagine why any editor would do this except to advance an agenda of one sort or another.
BLP policy favors privacy by default, and we have to be mindful of this in a case like your first example, where a celebrity who isn't known for their political statements is giving money to campaigns without talking about it publically. So I think we really need another secondary source to initiate the editorial decision making by reporting on such a thing before we can include it. This is a case-by-case thing, of course, but that would be my general guidance.

Roccodrift (talk) 08:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your second point, I consider it less original research and more undue weight. If no secondary sources bother to report someone's campaign contributions, then there is no reason to include them on Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Norman Pender (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Mr Pender, a former Scotland prop forward [46], has been found guilty of sexually abusing girls. [47] [48] [49]

The article needs expanding to include more details to add balance. I also assume that this needs more eyes, as it's the sort of thing that internet vigilantes like to vigilante upon.

update Auric has said Mr Pender was found guilty of rape. He wasn't - the rape charge was found to be "not proven" under Scots law. He was "only" found guilty of lesser charges.

This still hasn't been fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.236.245 (talk) 11:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I've clarified the verdict. Thanks for this.--Auric talk 13:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Scott Rasmussen

A 17:1 consensus of mostly uninvolved editors holds that inclusion of the material is inappropriate under Wikipedia policy. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

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

I'd like some new eyeballs on Scott Rasmussen to contribute to a determination concerning the material highlighted in yellow. Here's a diff of the most recent edit [50] (it's been re-added more than once).

Personal life

Rasmussen lives in Ocean Grove, New Jersey with his wife Laura.^[1] From 2006–2011, Rasmussen served as volunteer president of the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association (OGCMA), "a ministry organization whose mission is to provide opportunities for spiritual birth, growth, and renewal in a Christian seaside setting."^[2] OGCMA is affiliated with the United Methodist Church.^[3] In 2007, in his capacity as president of OGCMA, Rasmussen denied the request of a local lesbian couple to hold a civil union ceremony on a boardwalk pavilion owned by OGCMA because the United Methodist Church "recognizes marriage only in terms of a covenant relationship between one man and one woman." A complaint was filed with the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights.^[4] In 2012, an administrative judge ruled that the OGCMA was not legally allowed to deny the couple's request for a permit, but imposed no penalties as the organization had not "acted with ill motive."^[5]

^ Cite error: The named reference maine ahead was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Scheller, Christine (12-11-2011). "Lifelong Ocean Grove Resident Takes Helm of Camp Meeting Association". Manasquan-Belmar Patch. Retrieved 19 December 2013. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
^ "About The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association". Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association Website. Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association. Retrieved 19 December 2013.
^ Schwebber, Nate (6-24-2007). "The Week in New Jersey". New York Times. Retrieved 19 December 2013. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
^ "Finding of No Probable Cause" (PDF). Department of Law and Public Safety. State of New Jersey Office of the Attorney General. Retrieved 19 December 2013.

Roccodrift (talk) 00:09, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

It's reliably sourced and arguably relevant to the biography of a significant public/political figure. Editorially, one could question it but I certainly don't think it violates any policies. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:44, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it possible that his notability is unrelated to being president of a community organisation (which is the de facto governing body for the community) at all ... and since the judge ascribed nothing personal whatsoever to his actions, but noted it was the organization's rules involved, it is remotely possible that the material is actually unrelated to Rasmussen personally. Collect (talk) 15:14, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

It's hardly "unrelated" to discuss a legal case involving an organization a person was president of at the time of the legal case, if that person was discussed in reliable sources relating to the case. The question is an editorial one - is it significant enough to merit inclusion in his biography? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:59, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the coverage in the media shows it was significant enough to merit some space. Right now, it's about as small as it can get while still making sense. MilesMoney (talk) 17:19, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

It likely belongs in the organisation's article -- but is of dubious relevance to the notability of the living person here. As such, it requires a clear consensus for inclusion on the BLP talk page. Collect (talk) 17:31, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Collect, but that's not an accurate description of how Wikipedia works. MilesMoney (talk) 17:37, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Monty Python Argument Sketch time. All I do is try to follow policies, and not simply gainsay everything everyone else says. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:05, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Except the policies you speak of don't say what you seem to think they do. Please read them again. MilesMoney (talk) 18:27, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

You're both under arrest.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:36, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of policies and following policies... Miles, how do you justify keeping this content in Rasmussen's BLP in light of this rather clear directive from WP:BLP?

"Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." (Emphasis in original.)

If we take out the NJAG source (which we are required to do), there isn't a lot left to argue about. Roccodrift (talk) 19:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm all for improving sources. We should add http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/12/judge_rules_monmouth_church_gr.html and http://www.nj.com/monmouth/index.ssf/2012/10/lesbian_couple_discriminated_against_by_ocean_grove_association_state_says.html. What's especially nice is that the first lets us put back a simplified version of the sentence about the second lesbian couple. MilesMoney (talk) 22:33, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a BLP. Sources which do not even mention the subject of a BLP are unlikely to be usable in making claims specifically about the subject of the BLP Is that clear enough finally??? Collect (talk) 00:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Which source doesn't mention him? MilesMoney (talk) 00:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Having taken a more detailed look at the sources here and searched for others, I'm in agreement that, for editorial reasons, there aren't sufficient reliable, independent sources discussing this in the context of Rasmussen's life for it to be included in his biography, as opposed to a page about OGCMA. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:00, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. We have exactly zero reliably sourced information about the subject's personal opinion on the matter; only the information he conveyed as an executive of the organization involved. For all we know, he might have opposed that position internally. Also, quite importantly note that the cited ruling from the Attorney General's office says that Rasmussen's organization won the case, and does not contain the quoted language. It's therefore an outright BLP violation and I'm going to remove it as such. Apparently there is more than one case, or more than one ruling involved, and however it turned out, the content at issue is either incorrect or improperly referenced, and certainly shouldn't be included in a BLP in the current form. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

There are two cases, and you misread. They lost the case that went to court. They also decided to refuse all weddings, so the second case was blocked. In short, you really messed up when you whitewashed the article. Merry Christmas and read WP:COMPETENT. MilesMoney (talk) 01:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

That's inaccurate and uncivil. The only relevant reference is a ruling that says the organization won its case, and does not include the quoted language it is cited for. There is no way the disputed text can be included in a BLP. And, at this point, four editors here oppose inclusion of the disputed content; only you support it, so it stays out absent consensus to include it. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Neither source mentions Rasmussen, so I don't see how we can use the NJ.com ones to support the claim. Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I added text that is supported by the reliable source. QuackGuru (talk) 02:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

"According to the complaint, the association’s president, Scott Rasmussen, told the couple that while the association allows its facilities to be used for both religious and secular activities, it would not permit them to be used for civil union ceremonies."[51] Please read the The New York Times reliable source. QuackGuru (talk) 02:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

So you're going to omit any reference to the only referenced material about the outcome of the case, which indicates his organization won? That's preposterous! In any event, this is contentious, disputed BLP content, and per policy should not be included until consensus is achieved - and right now, the majority of commenting editors oppose inclusion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

According to which reliable source indicated his organization won? What do you propose with what reliable source. QuackGuru (talk) 02:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Reference #5 in the boxed text above, "Finding of No Probable Cause," which in its concluding paragraph states "there is no probable cause to credit the allegations of the complaint". That reference was quite bizarrely used in the original version of the disputed text to support the claim that the complaint was upheld, which was what drew my attention here initially. Until all this can be straightened out, an accurate account of events written, and consensus is achieved that Rasmussen's role in the events justifies its inclusion in the article, it should not be included. This is basic application of BLP policy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, why include this "material" at all? Also, this minor "story" now takes up 3/4 of the subject's personal life section? --Malerooster (talk) 03:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I agee; I believe the material shouldn't be included,and the sentiment here run in that direction by a substantial margin. Unfortunately, there's a determined, disruptive user involved. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that is a primary source. I have a secondary source.

"A state agency concluded Tuesday that an Ocean Grove association discriminated against a lesbian couple by denying their application to hold a civil union ceremony at its boardwalk pavilion."[52] Do you see now that they violated the state Law Against Discrimination. QuackGuru (talk) 02:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Wolfowitz, I'm not trying to be cruel, but you haven't shown any understanding of the sources, and you've edit-warred to the point of being at 3RR. MilesMoney (talk) 03:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

There does seem to be a legitimate question of WP:UNDUE emphasis. Ocean Grove is an interesting NJ shore town stuck in the 19th century. It is a dry town (no alcohol is sold or served) and while recently gentrified it sill is dominated by the Methodist establishment which Rasmussen headed for six years. There were many controversies during his tenure including covering up the big cross when the Great Auditorium is used for the local high school graduation. [53] All of this should be in other articles, for sure. It would seem appropriate to have a brief reference in his bio to his six years as head the "Meeting Association" with wikilinks to the articles the cover the controversies in depth. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

That source fails to mention Ramussen. Even if it did, it would still not be suitable as others have already pointed out because no source establishes that Ramussen was the primary agent responsible for this decision. Furthermore MilesMoney should be banned from every BLP article, as his willful disregard for BLP policy and bickering on the talk pages is like pouring gas on a fire.Two kinds of pork (talk) 13:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

* FYI – A discussion regarding User:MilesMoney & a proposed ban on BLPs has been underway at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal: MilesMoney topic-banned from all WP:BLP content. – S. Rich (talk) 16:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Undue? We're talking taking a medium-sized article and adding 3 sentences, 2 of them short. We can tighten it up to 2 sentences, the first explaining the situation and the second summarizing the resolution. Given that he was president of the association and is quoted in various articles, we're not exactly synthesizing anything. Given the wealth of sources, including the court documents, there's absolutely no question of BLP.

The only thing undue is the viciousness of the opposition to this brief, reasonable mention of Scott's brush with fame. Between the edit-warring and the calls for topic bans, it's completely over the top! MilesMoney (talk) 17:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone have any objections to two sentences about the court case? MilesMoney (talk) 01:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

This was already discussed, and rejected. Unless there is something new to consider, I don't think there's much more to talk about. Roccodrift (talk) 01:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

That's simply untrue. There was agreement that our sources are strong enough to avoid any BLP violation and then a lot of dithering over how much to say. I would suggest closing down the BLPN report because BLP isn't the issue, and instead moving the discussion of how much coverage is due back to the talk page.

Please be more careful not to inaccurately summarize conclusions in a biased manner. It is counterproductive. MilesMoney (talk) 01:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/24/nyregion/nyregionspecial2/24weeknj.html?pagewanted=print&_r=1& - Discusses incident, including Rasmussen's role as president and his statement in support of the church.
http://search.nj.com/ocean+grove+lesbian/ returns extensive coverage of the incident by nj.com, with articles and newsblogs (both of which are reliable). For example, http://blog.nj.com/njv_tom_moran/2007/09/gays_welcome_if_they_know_thei.html has some positive things to say about Rasmussen's actions, while http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/12/judge_rules_monmouth_church_gr.html provides a nice summary of how the case concluded.
We also have links to primary sources, such as court documents, just in case anyone doubts the accuracy of these secondary news sources.

I believe that these sources are reliable for what we say in the article, and are more than enough to allay any fears of BLP violation. If you disagree, please explain yourself. MilesMoney (talk) 03:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

My problem with the sources being presented is that most of them don't mention Rasmussen at all. The ones that do mention him in one sentence (like the NY Times source) and fail to establish his primacy, or even substantial involvement in this event. This brings up questions about undue inclusion, coatrack, and synthesis. If we remove the court document, which I've learned isn't an appropriate source here, we just don't have enough reliable secondary sources specifically discussing his involvement. Safehaven86 (talk) 04:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

His involvement is that he was the president of the organization that was sued, and he's quoted and paraphrased making various statements in support of the policies that were ruled discriminatory.

The fact that multiple reliable sources include him means that there's no truth to any claims of synthesis. The fact that it's two sentences makes it hard to claim it's undue or coatrack while keeping a straight face. These policies simply do not say what you want them to. MilesMoney (talk) 06:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Miles, why don't you propose a specific content addition to the article, with recommended sourcing, on the article's talk page? We can then reach consensus there. I'm sorry you don't believe I can keep a straight face while discussing these matters. I've been civil & collegial with you, trying to work together to improve the encyclopedia. It would be great if you'd return the favor. Safehaven86 (talk) 06:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

It's just negative fodder and less than a tiny aspect in the subject's life. I've seen very little persuasive argument for it's inclusion.--MONGO 12:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, MONGO, and welcome to Wikipedia! You may not be aware of this, but Wikipedia policy does not support the exclusion of well-supported material simply on the basis that it's "negative". For one thing, it would be impossible to define because it's subjective: to some, Rasmussen's stand against the homosexual agenda is heroic. For another, it would violate WP:NPOV, which requires us to reflect the balance of our sources. On Wikipedia, sources are very important!

This page is called WP:BLPN because it's for getting more feedback about potential issues regarding biographies of living people. The goal is to avoid libel, not to paint a rosy or otherwise one-sided picture of everything. If you believe that including a few sentences on this widely-covered incident would be counter to policy, you are encouraged to bring up the specific policy that you believe is relevant. You are politely discouraged from making up policy ("no negs") to support your personal feelings. Thank you and -- once again -- welcome! MilesMoney (talk) 15:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I was doing BLP enforcement before it was even policy. You're completely backwards as to how the policy works.--MONGO 16:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

That's good to know! When you're done beating on your chest, perhaps you could quote the specific policy that supports your "no negs" theory. It is supported by a specific policy, right? I mean, you didn't just make it up, did you?

Gripping the edge of my seat in anticipation. MilesMoney (talk) 16:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't type that I believe in no negatives. I have repeatedly stated that BLP is about doing no harm, and if something negative is in a BLP it needs to adhere to policies about UNDUE and be exceptionally well sourced. Your additions do not improve the encyclopedic integrity of the bio in question, are misleading and accusatory.--MONGO 16:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

You say this needs to be exceptionally sourced, then you act as if the New York Times doesn't qualify. You say you're not claiming negatives should be removed, then you talk about how negative this incident is. You bring up policies like BLP and UNDUE, but you can't quote any part that's relevant. You seem to be making this stuff up instead of following policy.

There is no harm in repeating what the New York Times already printed. It's true, it's sourced, it's relevant. You don't have to like it, but there's no policy that supports you. MilesMoney (talk) 16:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

We strive to be better than a newspaper only after headlines. Your addition is a violation of UNDUE, and just because something can be referenced doesnt mean it belongs in a BLP.--MONGO 17:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The New York Times was not wrong to quote the president of the organization that refused to rent the pavilion. We are not wrong to follow its lead. If you read WP:UNDUE, instead of just naming it, you will find nothing to support your view. The incident is important enough to Ocean Grove that we give it a section with a few paragraphs. It's important enough to Rasmussen that we need to give him two or three sentences in the appropriate section. We have everything from high-quality secondary sources to original court documents, so sourcing and BLP violation are not issues. MilesMoney (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Given that the Times article cited does not quote Rasmussen, this argument is nonsense. WP:V is policy; WP:BLP is policy, and neither allows us to present unverified claims as established facts. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The Times paraphrased him with attribution, which is a distinction that makes no difference. There are absolutely no unverified claims involved; you are completely mistaken. MilesMoney (talk) 20:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

No, you are dead wrong. The Times paraphrased a statement in the complaint, and was careful not to present the supposed statement as established fact. Therefore, it cannot be presented in this BLP as established fact. That is a basic application of BLP policy, not to mention WP:V. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

See, now you're just making stuff up. There is nothing controversial about the statement; everyone agrees that Rasmussen made it. Please stop wasting my time with policies that do not exist. MilesMoney (talk) 20:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

An unsourced "everyone agrees" hardly satisfies our BLP policy. Quotes (direct or indirect) must be verifiable; those sourced only to a complaint in a legal case fail that test. Again, basic BLP policy, which exists. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The New York Times is the source. Your argument ignores sources. MilesMoney (talk) 20:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Provide an actual quotation from the cited Times article that states as fact that Rasmussen said what you want the article to say he said. Not a statement that an opposing party in litigation claims he said it. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Here's the quote:

According to the complaint, the association’s president, Scott Rasmussen, told the couple that while the association allows its facilities to be used for both religious and secular activities, it would not permit them to be used for civil union ceremonies.

This was never disputed, and the court ruling confirms it (as well as the fact that it was a violation of the law). MilesMoney (talk) 20:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Note the verbiage "According to the complaint". NYT is simply reporting that the claim was made by an opposing party in litigation. The NYT didn't report it as fact, and we have no source to back the assertion that it was never disputed. Roccodrift (talk) 20:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

If you can find a source saying it was disputed, you can overrule the New York Times. But the court documents make it clear that the church never disputed that they refused to allow the wedding. Rather, their argument was that it was legal for them to do so. The court did not agree, however. MilesMoney (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The BLP problem I see in this is that the phrasing now tends to imply that Rassmussen was supposed to use (or at least was at liberty to use) his personal discretion rather than act as an agent of the organization (and by extension of their reasoning at the time, the UMC). I'm not utterly opposed to mention of why his presidency of OGCMA caught people's attention, but the current phrasing implies a level of personal responsibility which is not a neutral POV. Mangoe (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Not at all relevant to this man's biography; Rasmussen is mentioned in passing as the organizations president if he is mentioned at all. Worth a mention in the town's article and at Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association if the org itself ever satisfies the project's notability requirements to become a standalone article, but that is the extent of it. Tarc (talk) 18:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

So Miles gives quote above, here is were that comes from "The New York Times UNDUE? The Week in Jersey Darkness Shines (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and others have put their finger on the sore spot: the NYT article reports (reliably) that a complaint alleged something about the subject. That's not enough to make it into a statement about the person, without any "alleged" in there. The material should be kept out. Drmies (talk) 22:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Moreso; the incident and complaint is apparently not notable enough for an article on it; the Reverend who runs the organization has no biography; the organization has no article on it. UNDUE is entirely relevant. If this incident were seen as a seminal incident in gay rights, having extensive independent reliable media and critical coverage, and articles on all aspects of it here in WP, we could rightly reflect that in the bio. Lacking any of that other coverage, lacking any other notation in the Rasmussen article as to his being notable for anti-gay-rights activity or commentary, the basis for including is very weak. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

George, I'm sorry, but you're just wrong on the facts. The OGCMA is synonymous with Ocean_Grove, New_Jersey, which is why it takes up a Grove, New Jersey#Ocean_Grove_Camp_Meeting_Association over a third of the article, about 1800 words. This is so large that it could reasonably be forked out. The coverage of the pavilion incident is sloppy and inadequate, but it's still over 500 words long, which nearly a third of the entire OGCMA section. If it were covered adequately - something I've considered doing -- then it would need to be forked out.

As for the incident, there is "extensive independent reliable media and critical coverage". It went national and even got coverage in my home town of Toronto. Our sources put him at the front and center of the incident, acting as president of OCGMA and personally refusing to allow the couple to use the pavilion. I see no reason why it might be undue to give this a sentence or two in Scott Rasmussen, as this is precisely the sort of detail that adds value to an article.

Also, please don't claim he's politically neutral. He's a political pollster known for favoring a particular party, the same party that happens to oppose gay rights in America. I don't want to draw any connections in the article -- that would be WP:SYNTH -- but let's not pretend he's just Joe Public going about his personal life.

Look, this has to come down to the facts, and if you don't know the facts, then you're entitled to your opinion, but nobody should listen to you. MilesMoney (talk) 22:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

First - You are borderline personal attacking an uninvolved administrator commenting on a public noticeboard. This is not a smart career move.

Second - A wikilink there would have been nice at the start of the discussion and in the biographical article so that those of us coming into this could actually find all relevant information easily and review it conveniently.

Third - You are asserting extensive facts not put into evidence, in the form of alleged national media coverage of the incident. I count five sources - four local to New Jersey and the NY Times local events column, plus two primary sources to the NJ official record. Without questioning your honesty or integrity, please provide citations to more widespread national coverage.

Fourth - Regarding his politics, any rational observer can see what he himself claims his political beliefs are, and that is in accord with the coverage here. His conservatism is not in question. It is however WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to draw a connecting line between someone being politically conservative or a US Republican and them being anti-gay-rights or anti-gay-marriage. Support for gay marriage is exceeding 50% among Republicans in the 18-49 age range [54]. I certainly believe it's possible he opposes gay marriage or gay rights; this incident would suggest so to at least some degree. But WP:CN. Sources, evidence, reliable third party coverage of that opinion.

Fifth - Again, the reason we are here is that this is a BLP article. BLPs are handled more carefully. You are not handling this more carefully. You are attempting to tag this guy as anti-gay by including this information. That is clear and evident from the long long sordid history of your edits. It is possible you are correct in that, but it being a BLP means you have to show your work and reliable sources and be extra careful with neutrality. You are transparently well past that point here. You're not being nearly as careful as you think or assert you are. I strongly urge you to back off and let other, uninvolved editors review the situation. If you can provide citations for the issues I noted above feel free to contribute them, but your editing in this is no longer safe or neutral. Please back out of the content area. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Point by point:

You are not uninvolved. I remember how you urged MONGO to file a spurious SPI against me in an attempt to get me indef'ed. You're allowed to do that, but you can't claim afterwards to be neutral. Pretending to be neutral is a bad career move for admins.
A wikilink might have been nice, but slipped my mind since it was discussed extensively on the article talk page, of which this is a continuation. Anyhow, now you've seen it.
NPR covered it here. If I understand correctly, the "N" stands for "National".
As I said, "I don't want to draw any connections in the article". I bring it up only to refute what you said about him not being notable for political views.
The "attempting to tag this guy as anti-gay" thing is false, but it does explain why the Conservative Cloud has come down like a fog bank. They're afraid that someone might infer such a thing -- although I've explicitly stated that we shouldn't say it -- and that's why they're claiming that the NY Daily News isn't a reliable source. Look for yourself at the proposed material and you'll see that it's both neutral and highly compliant to our sources.

That's it. MilesMoney (talk) 23:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I note with amusement that NPR also does not mention Rasmussen. Roccodrift (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Not every source does. However, we only need one source to avoid charges of WP:OR, so this changes nothing. MilesMoney (talk) 00:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, remember that verifiability isn't the only criterion for inclusion - if you have only one source, it will probably be undue weight. St Anselm (talk) 00:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Original research is, however, sufficient for exclusion, so we absolutely must have a source that makes it clear how Rasmussen is connected, allowing us to avoid making the connection ourselves. As for undue weight, we're still talking about 2, maybe 3, sentences that mention the incident and link to the large section of the Ocean Grove article that has deeper coverage. MilesMoney (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you're talking about when you say "we're still taking" about 2 or 3 sentences. There are now no less than 15 editors who have expressed opposition to including this material in Rasmussen's bio. This was a dead letter two days ago, when there were only 5 in opposition. Consensus is mounting for exclusion, and it is unlikely there will be any mention of the event at all once the article is out of protection. Roccodrift (talk) 00:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I am not involved in any sense that WP policy cares about - administrator interest in your activity is not involvement. I am not editing content on any pages you edit, and have not been engaged in conflict with you on talk pages or noticeboards. The SPI was related to behavioral review, which is ongoing.

Regarding the link - this is a noticeboard. Admins and editors not involved in the talk page discussion are going to join here. Assuming we can suss out every detail from every post and link in the talk page and extensive edit warring is unwise. But, that said, yes, I have seen the link now.

As noted by Roccodrift, the NPR source you listed does not include the person whose name you're trying to use it to support. You are clearly violating WP:SYNTH of sources to claim his participation was notable enough for widespread coverage, given sources you have provided so far.

I am not saying he's not notable for political views. He's a political commentator and author. Of course he is. That's obvious and does not need any further discussion. I am saying I haven't found any reliable source claiming he's notable for any anti-gay activity, in some quick poking around, other than this one incident which does not seem to have risen to the level of national notability.

The incident is not important enough to include in the bio as part of his life, as evidence has been presented so far. You are absolutely committing WP:SYNTH here and substituting your own opinion for reliable, independent third-party sourcing with secondary sources supporting the significance of what you want to include. (I do not exclude the possible existence of such sources, but haven't seen them included yet in discussion).

If his political or personal views on gay rights or marriage were exposed by this in such a way as to garner widespread coverage in reliable secondary sources on a national level, this would absolutely be appropriate in the article. The mere fact that it happened, absent any interpretative or contextual sourcing tying him in more clearly or exposing his beliefs, is not good enough.

This is not about some imagined Conservative Cloud. I am pro gay marriage, personally, and it's something I believe to be of note in current affairs which is relevant to include in biographies of notable actively outspoken for-and-against personalities, commentators, figures. You are not providing sources that make the case that this biography is about such a person. This is absolutely fundamentally what WP:BLP is all about. You have to substantiate the relevance.

Your weasel-worded "They're afraid that someone might infer such a thing -- although I've explicitly stated that we shouldn't say it --" is missing the point. It's only relevant to the article if it's not just inferrable - if it's notable, cited, sourced, etc.

I don't agree that we've established reliable sourcing including both primary and secondary sources as to the event having happened, and consistent agreement on the facts. But the relevance to the bio is unsupported. Support it, or back away from it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Here we go again:

For the purpose of understanding your motivation, you are not neutral, you're hostile. While I will keep my temper, I won't overlook this fact and I will not allow the initial assumption of good faith to blind me to incidences of apparent bad faith.
Speaking of which, I don't take kindly to how you moved the goalposts. First, you ask for "national media coverage of the incident". When I provide this, you shift to demanding articles showing that "his participation was notable enough for widespread coverage". Did you think I wouldn't notice?
National coverage isn't necessary for inclusion, but it's sufficient for establishing notability. The key is that the NPR article is not being combined with anything to create a "conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the source", as SYNTH violation requires. You may be an admin, but you can't expect to throw around [[WP:TLA]]'s without having them checked for applicability.
As I've said a few times now, the proposed material does not accuse him of being anti-gay or whatever. At most, it shows that he was the head of and spokesman for an organization that broke the law in NJ by discriminating against gays. This is an unquestionable fact, and is sourced more than adequately to rule out any risk of BLP violation. NPOV does not allow us to censor simply because it might be considered negative.
In fact, one of our sources quotes or paraphrases him as explicitly saying that he is not biased against gays and another (a primary court document) says that there did not appear to be any intent. I'd be fine with including mention of either or both of these facts, even if it forces us to swell the material to a 4th sentence. NPOV is key, again.
Do you actually have an argument for exclusion? It can't be WP:UNDUE, because it's such a small part of the article. We know it's not WP:BLP, because the facts are fully established. It's not WP:RS, unless you think NPR is a tabloid rag. What do you actually have? WP:IDONTLIKEIT?

MilesMoney (talk) 01:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Miles continues to overlook the single best argument for exclusion: 15 other editors say to exclude it. Sources don't matter. Notability doesn't matter. National coverage doesn't matter. It also doesn't matter if you are right or wrong, Miles. The community has spoken. Stop the WP:FILIBUSTER and just accept that this material won't be in the article. Roccodrift (talk) 01:11, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Any mention of this trivial story in Rasmussen 's bio runs afoul of WP:UNDUE as far as I'm concerned, so resting the argument on that one alone will suffice. The NPR piece does not mention Rasmussen at all, and the NY Times "this week in New Jersey" blurb contains a single name-drop. This is simply not a significant or notable event in this man's biography, and thus it will not be appearing in his article. Tarc (talk) 01:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem with your argument is that GWH's fear-mongering about making Rasmussen look like a bigot, while wrong, does reveal that he doesn't see this story as "trivial". So, is it trivial or do you just not want it because you are trying to violate WP:NPOV by keeping his bio lily white? Even with AGF, I have to ask. MilesMoney (talk) 04:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Nothing you actually said there really has anything to do with my argument, unfortunately. This project functions by consensus, and the consensus has come down squarely against your and your opinion on this matter, is where we're at right now. Tarc (talk) 06:00, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The yellow text is UNDUE twaddle. Apart from what has been explained, the president of an organization is more or less compelled to follow directions from that organization, and it is pure WP:SYNTH to decorate the subject's article with such a cherry-picked attack. I see that Georgewilliamherbert has been reprimanded for offering an opinion on a noticeboard, so I had better reveal that I have encountered MM before—in this diff we see negative commentary inserted into a heading on a BLP (and repeated). Both cases seem to be using Wikipedia to attack a person for making some unfavorable LGBT comment. Johnuniq (talk) 02:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

As I pointed out earlier, if I were president of the org and ordered to do something illegal and immoral, I would refuse. If this was unacceptable to the org, I would resign over it. Scott did neither; he supported the org to the very end, even after it lost the court case. So, no, you can't claim that its unfair to mention this issue because his hands were tied. Nobody tied his hands; he chose to be president, he chose to support the views of the org, and he chose to remain president. It was voluntary all along.

Note how your concerns completely refute the idea that it's "trivial". Thanks! MilesMoney (talk) 04:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

You would do this, he chose that, what I said proves something—such comments demonstrate profound misunderstandings about Wikipedia, yet I can see how the many forums discussing MM have failed to achieve anything. How could the community eject someone merely for enthusiastically righting great wrongs? Johnuniq (talk) 05:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I find it hilarious that you keep trying to make my proposal seem radical, when all I want is to reflect what our sources say. You ascribe motives to me that exist only in your fevered imagination, violating WP:NPA in the process. MilesMoney (talk) 05:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete material. Complete violation of WP:UNDUE. Not even clear it's "Personal life" and certainly insignificant detail of a nature intended to portray his action in a negative light. It's certainly less "personal" than his house burning down and even that's unnecessary/undue weight minutiae that should be deleted. The material in yellow above should nor be re-added to his bio. It's questionable as to whether it's relevant to any article as minutiae coatrack material. --DHeyward (talk) 05:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- It looks to me like we have strong consensus against including this material. A simultaneous discussion about inclusion is occurring on the article's talk page. That discussion seems obsolete in light of the consensus reached here. Is there anything else to be said here, or can we close the book on this for now? Safehaven86 (talk) 07:17, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

It looks to me like you're confusing BLP with UNDUE. MilesMoney (talk) 07:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

This discussion has been over for more than 24 hours. We have a very strong consensus to exclude. I support archiving. Roccodrift (talk) 07:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Miles, it's apparent there is nothing any number of other editors can do or say to convince you to stop beating the WP:DEADHORSE. You have repeatedly refused to accept community consensus. Let's drop it so we can all move on. Safehaven86 (talk) 07:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. All they have to do is come up with an argument grounded in policy and sources, as opposed to personal distaste. It doesn't matter how many bad arguments I hear; all it takes is one good argument. MilesMoney (talk) 07:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

You're speaking as if you, MilesMoney, are the sole worthy arbiter of what should and should not be on WP. No one has to convince you of anything. The community has reached consensus. You lost. Tough cookies. Me, and many other editors, have made numerous policy arguments here. You may not have liked them, but we've made them. You seem to want to drag this process out until someone convinces you, oh worthy one. You do not have veto power over consensus. This debate has reached its natural end. You can't keep holding it up until its outcome pleases you. That's not how WP works. Safehaven86 (talk) 07:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Funny, I was just going to say that Rocco and you imagine that you constitute the community, when you're just the cloud. MilesMoney (talk) 07:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Miles isn't going to give his permission to close this, so there's no point trying to cajole him into recognizing what the community has decided. Somebody just needs to do it. I can't; I'm the OP. But somebody should. Roccodrift (talk) 07:49, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Miles, it looks like you've run out of content or policy related comments and have resorted to unrelated ad hominem attacks and strange conspiracy theories ("the cloud...?") Please, just stop. Safehaven86 (talk) 07:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks like you're projecting, actually. Remember, you were the one who decided you spoke for the community, and you were the one who attacked me with the "sole worthy arbiter" nonsense. The policy issue that remains unsatisfied is the unsupported claim that it would be undue to mention Rasmussen's role in the lesbian pavilion lawsuit. I got an earful of WP:IDHT, but nothing that can support a consensus. Ironically, you act as if I'm obstinate while dragging your feet and refusing to answer. Can you also make bat-shaped shadows with your projector? MilesMoney (talk) 07:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't decide, nor do I think, that I speak for the entire community. What I'm trying to point out here is that 17 editors have come out against including the material at hand, and two editors, including yourself, have supported inclusion. That looks like a strong consensus to me. Do you disagree? Do you believe all 17 editors are part of this "Conservative Cloud" that you believe is chasing you down? A true martyr, you. It does seem like you think the content needs to be included unless you, MilesMoney, decide you don't like it. You won't drop this until you get what you want. You may say what you want is a compelling policy argument. I believe several have been made here. You do not. That's subjective. We can't keep discussing this until you are placated. And what am I refusing to answer? I think I've made my thoughts clear. Most of the sources don't mention Rasmussen; the ones that do mention him in passing. We have no sources stating that Rasmussen was a key player in this incident. We have no sources describing the role of the president of this group. It's undue to include anything about this incident, which, according to our sources, is tangentially related to Rasmussen, at best. It's SYNTH to say "Rasmussen was president," "the association had a complaint filed against it and lost," therefore "Rasmussen was the key decision maker and he personally decided what happened in this situation," etc. That is conjecture, and not supported by sources. No major news source has made a claim that Rasmussen was the key player here. NY Times said he was president, but do we know what authority the president of the group has? We do not. For all we know, the president reports to the trustees or chairman, etc. I've made all these arguments before, so I don't expect you to support them. But the disputed content and sourcing is tenuous, and I sincerely believe it would violate BLP and NPOV policies, among others, to include it. Safehaven86 (talk) 08:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Concepcion Picciotto was born January 15 1936 - not 1945.

I worked with Concepcion Picciotto for many years and helped her sign up for Social Security. Her birthday is January 15 1936 -- not 1945. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.94.197 (talk) 17:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The 1945 year was based on an inadequate source and has been removed. In order to insert a different year, we need some published source for it. Can you find one? Zero^talk 01:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

There are reliable sources from this year that suggest she is 77 years old, which would place her year of birth as either 1935 or 1936. [55][56] Hack (talk) 19:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Rupert Sheldrake

There are two BLP-relevant issues with this article presently. One is the insertion of a statement in the lede that biologist Jerry Coyne has called the subject a pseudoscientist, although the article notes right before this that his views are considered pseudoscience. It is stated to be a "piece in The New Republic" and the post is indeed on their site, but it was actually a self-published blog post on Coyne's personal blog that has been republished on TNR. There is no questioning that the piece is strongly opinionated and negative in tone, referring to the subject as a "misbehaving woomeister" and using other colorful descriptions of the subject and his ideas. Only alterations were some additional commentary criticizing the subject and one of his supporters and minor changing of one early paragraph to reflect the wider audience, who are not as likely to know the suject as would be the readers of his blog. In a follow-up piece TNR explicitly say they simply "republished a highly-critical blogpost" and there is no indication given that the piece was subject to the regular editorial policies. I argued that this should be removed per WP:BLPSPS, but in subsequent discussion a few editors insisted that the mere act of being republished by TNR meant it was now acceptable to use in a BLP for this purpose. My impression is that this is a bit like exploiting a loophole as the post is not substantively different from the original, which would have been unacceptable as a self-published source.

Another issue on a finer point is the insistence on describing the subject's views regarding conservation of energy and perpetual motion as questioning facts. Initially arising in this edit where originally it referred to the law of conservation of energy, it had been subsequently restored here, but an editor removed the description entirely to try and resolve it. It was brought back with a slight redo that preserved the essence of the original edit that makes no mention of the subject. At this point another editor noted that the source did not support this description of the subject's view and so I removed it noting it was unsourced. Yet another editor restored it with no specific reason raised and I removed it again, but then introduced some compromise wording. Several days later one of the previous editors made this change, which is different, but has similar intentions. The source, a student newspaper, quotes the subject referring to "laws of nature" and this is used as the basis for stating the subject advocates questioning "what he describes as 'laws of nature'". Although claiming the source supports this, it makes no mention of perpetual motion or conservation of energy and is presented in a way that implies his view of these things is peculiar to him. In fact, conservation of energy is widely known as a law of nature and is referred to as such in the editorial voice in the very piece being cited, no scare quotes as in the edit. The editors supporting it make it clear that these insertions are about communicating "the truth" about the subject and his ideas, quietly acknowledging a lack of explicit support from sources.

I feel in both cases these edits are in violation of BLP policy and should not be allowed in the article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I take issue with the contention that there those of us "quietly acknowledging a lack of explicit support from sources." The sources already in the article do support the text as written, though it seems TDA may have some reading comprehension issues. jps (talk) 00:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything with using Coyne/TNR as a reference for the claim that Sheldrake's ideas are pseudoscientific. The prior publication as a blog entry is irrelevant. I do have an issue with the text which singles out Coyne as though there was something especially notable about his condemnation. Mangoe (talk) 03:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

the second of TDA's complaints is purely specious- the content is NOT BLP to begin with, but Sheldrake himself is a reliable source for the claims about what he says [57] and that is merely the 15 minute condensation of what he says in his most recent book "The Science Delusion" which is entirely about questioning the basic tenants of science because they are "materialistic"-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

@TRPoD, claiming that a person says or advocates something is subject to the policy on BLPs. If a person's statements are characterized a certain way and that characterization is not supported by any reliable source, then it is a BLP issue.

@Mangoe, the issue is not saying his views are pseudoscientific but throwing out the label of pseudoscientist.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 10:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Right, so we're not arguing whether he's a pseudoscientist, we're arguing whether we should describe him as a pseudoscientist in order not to further upset him. I agree there are subtleties here, which isn't helpful when people take entrenched views. My view is that perhaps you are right - we maybe shouldn't describe him as a pseudoscientist, but we should make clear that his core ideas are considered pseudoscience by those who matter (which we do). The word pseudoscientist is only directly linked to one source, albeit a reliable one which is broadly consistent with other sources. The point I have made elsewhere that we shouldn't call him a biologist (because it's not accurate, and pro-POV), means that perhaps we shouldn't call him things like pseudoscientist or crank either (even though they are accurate, it's anti-POV). There are subtleties here, which pro-Sheldrake fans do not seem to be able to appreciate. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I rewrote this section, and nobody thus far as complained. Can we put this to bed? Mangoe (talk) 21:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Your change is acceptable and I see David in DC has voiced support on the talk page for undoing the other change to the lede that I mentioned. Should that edit also be undone then I would have no issue with closing.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I assume the "other change in the lede that I mentioned" means describing someone not current studying biology using the scientific method as a "current biologist/scientist". This isn't happening, because it obviously isn't accurate, is a pro-FRINGE POV, and fails to explain why he's notable. Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Dronamraju Krishna Rao

The personal page is poorly cited and lack evidence except for one article source which is not verifiable. This section should be deleted. Dr. Angel DeCegama (talk) 01:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC) Dr Angel DeCegama

This matter was subsequently discussed at the article's talk page, and some potentially libelous material was removed from the BLP. So, the BLP issue seems to be taken care of.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Acharya S

I initially came across this article via an OTRS complaint. The issue at this page is the inclusion of the author's supposed real name. I reduced the name to initials because I felt that there were no substantial reliable sources for the first name. I was reverted and referred to the talk page (where I should have looked first) and made aware of a recent Request for Comment as well as an older BLP Noticeboard report. I believe that the recent RfC is lacks enough substantial input to be a reliable source of consensus while the older, but more developed and fleshed out, BLP/N post presents (in my eyes at least) no consensus to include the first name. The recent RfC consists mainly of short, terse replies citing aesthetics and semantics based policies without really addressing the sources and BLP. The arguments at the old BLP/N post address the deeper concerns here. -- John Reaves 04:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

See also: Talk:Acharya_S#Delete actual name

The recent RfC began with and specifically referenced the previous (2010) BLP/N discussion, The previous many months discussion have centered around RS for the author's name and appropriate policy. There was significant input into the RfC and consensus. The RfC was closed with the consensus to include the author's full name. Capitalismojo (talk) 06:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

- As above, the recent RfC began with and specifically referenced the previous BLP/N alongside MOSBIO and WP:FULLNAME. There are four print sources for the authors name of which only 1 is self-published and 1 was actually linked by the author as credentials on their webpage. An invisble comment has been added into the article text to prevent a constant stream of new editors canvassed by OTRS or email from reverting the result of the RfC. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no "significant input" at the RfC, that is a bogus claim. It was biased with a predetermined outcome. Linked by the author? Where? And your other sources are not reliable, therefore, they are invalid for making this claim. -- John Reaves 14:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

John, I'm sorry but you received a personal message, you acted on it without reading the Talk page, you then misread the source you looked at, and now you're asking above a question which s answered in the archive and again on the page. Please WP:AGF. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Predetermined outcome at RfC? Really? How? Global conspiracy to add the author's full name as per RS refs? Simon and Schuster, and two academic sources seemed plenty RS for all the other editors who weighed in on this specific point.Capitalismojo (talk) 14:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

RfC and the other discussion at BLP/N did not mention WP:BLPNAME: When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. Acharya has said at [her Facebook Page] that she has been harassed and that the "real name" is wrong. I did not partake in the previous discussions because I was unaware as to why she uses her initials instead of her "real name" until I read her FB page. Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Being published by well known publisher does not make a book a reliable source. You're other sources are not linked from her wbsite as claimed and are valid anyway as they are primary sources. That leaves one potentially reliable source about a fact that has no bearing on the article. We are talking about someone's name here. The use of a first name has been claimed as unwanted and, in the first place, incorrect by the subject. This a BLP issue ~~and for whatever bizarre reason, you two are grasping at straws to include it~~. Here are two relevant quotes from the BLP policy:

With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object. If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year. In a similar vein, articles should not include postal addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons, though links to websites maintained by the subject are generally permitted. See above regarding the misuse of primary sources to obtain personal information about subjects.
— WP:BLPPRIVACY

Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.
— WP:BLPPRIMARY

-- John Reaves 02:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

D.M. Murdock's page http://www.truthbeknown.com/credentials.html is still online, "modern Greek, the latter of which I taught myself while studying in Greece with the Lake Forest College Program under the direction of Professor Emeritus of Religion Rev. Dr. Dan Cole. During that semester abroad, my Greek became good enough that when I answered the phone, people thought I was a Greek boy! " and website of "The American School of Classical Studies at Athens". D. M. Murdock does not now link to the actual url given as source in Xulon Press (i.e. self published) James Patrick Holding Shattering the Christ Myth 2008 - Page 263 Which cites "http://campus.lakeforest.edu/academics/greece/Partic-OtherSchools.html Accessed April 12, 2008. "Acharya S" is a writer's pseudonym, but recently Acharya has publicly reverted to use of her given name, Dorothy Milne Murdock, as it ..."

Lake Forest College: That source is still online and still lists "Dorothy Milne Murdock: Franklin & Marshall, '82 Classical Studies" although the link has been taken down from the author's website credentials section
American School of Classical Studies at Athens Annual Report - American School of Classical Studies at Athens 1983 "... Dorothy M. Murdock "

However sources 1-2 where not used in the RFC, source 3 was only referenced as "this is simply a program which the author's website makes mention of http://www.truthbeknown.com/author.html

The RFC was based on only 2 independent reliable sources 4-5:

Simon & Schuster Lynn Picknett, ‎Clive Prince The Masks of Christ: Behind the Lies and Cover-ups 2008 "... and other books); “Acharya S.,” or Dorothy M. Murdock (The Christ Conspiracy, 1999); and philosopher and filmmaker Jay Raskin (The Evolution ofChrists and Christianities, 2006). "
B&H Publishing Group Paul Copan, ‎William Lane Craig Come Let Us Reason: New Essays in Christian Apologetics - 2012 Page 170 "The basic thesis of this argument is well stated in The Companion Guide to Zeitgeist: Part 1. The book was written by Acharya S, the periodic pen name of Dorothy M. Murdock, who was a primary consultant for the film and whose book, The ..."

If there is interest in a second RFC by all means someone propose one, but the relevant sources are Simon & Schuster and B&H Publishing Group In ictu oculi (talk) 04:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Imany

Imany biography clearly written by publicist/P.R 'gems' 'slender and regal', I could go on! Totally subjective and non-encyclopedic.

Check out this full sentence from the wiki page: "Imany’s first album, “Shape Of A Broken Heart”, offers twelve gems written in English and reveals a singular performer. In her sensual, unique voice, pungent ginger melts with the sweetness of honey." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.92.42.133 (talk) 12:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Puffery has been removed by other editors.[58]Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Marisa Ingemi

This biographical article was almost assuredly written by the subject themselves. The originating user is "Laxfan16" and the subject was 16 at the time the page was originally created. This is a pretty clear textbook conflict of interest designed to further/promote their own interests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.182.106.22 (talk) 21:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Subsequently proposed for deletion by User:Thargor Orlando.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Ashley Spurlin 2

Article references do not exist, this page can no longer exist. Delete as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.205.150.75 (talk) 01:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Subsequently taken care of by User:Secret.[59]Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Dustin Lance Black

Please would experienced BLP editors look at this article and its talk page where various references to a putative male partner have been redacted by me and others as BLP violations. The name of Mr Black's partner has not been released either by him of by his putative partner. Please consider whether the various revisions of the talk page and the article mentioning the putative partner's name require formal suppression of the details. Fiddle Faddle 14:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

More information on John Cramer, Announcer, born July 3, 1955

While this site might be advertising for booking John, you can grab anything from it. It's all true. It's a little outdated. Seems to be at least as old as 2009 ~ http://www.voices.com/people/johncramer?lang=en ~

Thanks for editing his birth place (removing, actually; words that said he was born in Glendale, CA) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.21.31.0 (talk) 01:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Glenn Jacobs - Kane

On his page on your list it states World Heavyweight Champion 2008-2011 however this is incorrect as he was not world champion until 2010 and was only ECW champion in 2008 and I have now corrected the page, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.243.74 (talk) 16:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

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

John J. Maalouf - Attorney

John J. Maalouf - Attorney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

New bio, with hints of conflict of interest and NPOV issues. more eyes on this would be appreciated. Thanks, 2601:188:0:ABE6:B41B:4FC1:242D:5468 (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

See also [60]. I've asked for help at AIV as well. 2601:188:0:ABE6:B41B:4FC1:242D:5468 (talk) 21:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

[maine_ahead-1] Cite error: The named reference maine ahead was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[2] Scheller, Christine (12-11-2011). "Lifelong Ocean Grove Resident Takes Helm of Camp Meeting Association". Manasquan-Belmar Patch. Retrieved 19 December 2013. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[3] "About The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association". Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association Website. Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association. Retrieved 19 December 2013.

[4] Schwebber, Nate (6-24-2007). "The Week in New Jersey". New York Times. Retrieved 19 December 2013. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[5] "Finding of No Probable Cause" (PDF). Department of Law and Public Safety. State of New Jersey Office of the Attorney General. Retrieved 19 December 2013.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]