Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive203

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.

Peter Lynds

Requesting 3rd-party eyeballs for Peter Lynds. This article has had trouble for a long time with WP:UNDUE synthesis of unpublished work to paint a picture of Lynds as an established physicist. I and another editor have been trying to clean-up the article (efforts summarized at talk), but every attempt is reverted by an account named SamW2, which has only a few contributions (all on this article), but who seems to be an experienced editor (judging from the jargon used). The current version of the article is one that SamW2 keeps reveting back to. For your reference, the "cleaned version" that I believe should be used removes the undue text and adds a source from a peer-reviewed journal reporting that Lynds' primary paper has been preceded by Henri Bergson in his 1896 book Matter and Memory (S E Robbins, 2004 On time, memory and dynamic form. Consciousness and Cognition 13(4), 762-788: "Lynds, his reviewers and consultants (e.g., J.J.C. Smart) are apparently unaware of his total precedence by Bergson"). I hope we may get some opinions as to how to proceed here because the reverting is persistent and bordering on an edit war. Thanks. Agricola44 (talk) 11:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC).

SamW2 has been blocked for edit warring after I warned them to stop. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Is it OK if we revert to the version that Agricola44 and I think is NPOV, or should we wait? We also both think the article should be deleted as not notable, but were going to hold off on initiating that until this process was complete.--75.83.65.81 (talk) 22:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I reverted it. Ya'll might want to try WP:DRN for this, and make sure SamW2 participates. It seems more like a content dispute than a BLP one, and the account in question is probably the subject or related to them in some way. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

What Agricola and user 75.83.65.81 failed to mention is that the original version of the page seems to have worked on by hundreds of editors over the years, and over the past few, seems to have been stable. They want what is already a fairly short page to be cut to a few sentences, making no mention of Lynds' other work, some of which have also received a good amount documentable coverage and discussion, as a google search will show. They also want to the page to be negative. Ultimately they want the page deleted. I've been trying to discuss the issues with them on the talk page, but, to me anyway, they don't seem to be interested in doing this and just have one goal in mind. I understand why I was blocked for edit warring, but I was trying to protect a stable BLP page from two editors who seem determined to wreck it, and they took turns to revert to their version. I think going to dispute resolution is a v. good suggestion. If they really want to, I'd also encourage them to take the page to AfD for a vote. However, I think the page should be returned to the original version why this goes on, both because it has been stable til now, and also because people will need something to vote on if they take it to AfD. Agricola's version is just a short stub. So, as a heads up, I'm going to look to revert the page to the original version and try to work though our respective concerns on the talk page. If we can't make any progress, I'll take things to dispute resolution. SamW2 (talk) 22:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Skylor Page at Clarence (2014 TV series)‎

As of July 3, 2014 there have been numerous accounts of the creator of the show of 'Clarence' having sexually assaulted a woman. Whether these claims are of merit matter not to the BLP policy, especially of WP:BLPCRIME. ...editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. However, the point is that the claims are potentially libelious and may entitle Wikipedia to certain unnecessary legal proceedings, which may be repeat like an allegory of what happened at Yank Barry. I do not wish to omit the information of the person being fired; it's of relevance to show, but to omit the BLP-violating content reason in which they were fired. Here are the diffs of the IP edits:

I have already done my three reverts, and as per WP:3RR states, it's more actionable that I report it here than continue to revert with the IPs. Though I do have to ask; could I? I think the latest edit is one of the more egregious ones. Thank you. Tutelary (talk) 23:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not that's true, it's offtopic at best. And if this was being inserted into the subject's bio, we'd still need a lot more than some tweets and a blurb on BuzzFeed. Reverted and protected for a week. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I've just reverted another instance of an editor attempting to add it. (Per WP:3RR exemption for BLP.) I've referred them to this noticeboard and the talk page. Tutelary (talk) 13:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

To add, there is now a page for Skylor located here Skyler Page in which I think that monitoring for the same issues should be had. I've already added it to my watchlist. Tutelary (talk) 04:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Disappearance of Natalee Holloway, section

Amigoe article. This came up before, and there was removal of 'drugs house' references, but the section still makes various claims about what Natalee Holloway's mother and stepfather did, and were planning to do. These are living people. As far as I can see it all traces back to one one source, and that is an account of interviews said to have been done in the making of a locally made documentary. The section as it stands claims an unlikely degree of inside knowledge about questionable intent in other people's minds. Nothing independent of the account of the interviews that this single documentary made has been drawn on, and BLP assertions in the section about NH's then stepfather interfering with the investigation are certainly the kind of thing that may be challenged. Overagainst (talk) 12:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Claudio Di Veroli

I'm writing because of what I suspect may be a malicious edit on the Claudio Di Veroli article.

I feel the article has been greatly distorted in its meaning, to the point that a renowned musician and musicologist who has received consistently favourable reviews and endorsements is presented as a minor figure.

The current version of the article refers to him having been reviewed unfavourably by 'some reviewers', only citing a single review, the only unfavourable one Di Veroli ever had.

The differences in the last version before 'MusicologyPhD' did a massive edit, make Di Veroli sound much more minor than he actually is, and appears to have an agenda.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Claudio_Di_Veroli&diff=612820382&oldid=593785199

I've spoken to Dr Di Veroli and he feels it is not worth entering an edit war with a malicious, anonymous editor. He'd rather his page were deleted. As the creator of the page, I can no longer delete it since it has been edited by others, thus I am formally requesting that the page be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arielsilvera (talk • contribs) 17:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

We do not delete articles upon request. If Di Veroli meets Wikipedia notability guidelines, an article on him is appropriate - and if he doesn't, the article should not have been created in the first place. As for 'malicious edits', it seems that a new contributor has made substantial revisions to the article - some at least of which seem legitimate, in that they are removing unsourced promotional claims. Quite possibly the revisions have gone too far, but such issues should be settled by discussion, not by deleting the article. You are of course free to propose that the article be deleted (see Wikipedia:Deletion policy), but any proposal will need policy-compliant grounds. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I have taken a look at the article and feel that, once again, we have a failure to find a middle ground. The editor in question was right to remove some overly-promotional claims, but went much too far in the other direction with negative insinuations. I have tweaked the article accordingly. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Behruz Sethna

Please add in the file of Prof Behruz Sethna of being listed as one of the prominent immigrants by the Andrew Carnegie foundation. Source New York times Friday July 4, 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.145.1 (talk) 19:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Rashid Ali Malik

I am not able to edit infobox of Rashid Ali Malik no idea why. Kindly help/guide me? ----Zainkazmi1 (talk) 06:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Is the a BLP issue with it?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Zainkazmi1. Although this is a page for reporting problematic BLP content rather than for general editing questions, I have taken a look at Rashid Ali Malik and see no reason why you can't edit the infobox. I copyedited the article and added a number of wikilinks. Please feel free to ask a more detailed question, either on my talk page, or at the Teahouse, a friendly, helpful place to ask editing questions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Tim Blixseth

Tim Blixseth needs attention for NPOV issues, in particular the lead. I've cleaned it up several times over the past year but CinagroErunam (talk · contribs) keeps coming back with cherry picked details that again create WP:UNDUE emphasis on negative issues. I'm tired of the back and forth so I'll leave it to others at this venue to attend to it as needed. Best,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

That's a primary source and thus unacceptable. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually almost half of the article had citations to primary sources, which the BLP chainsaw has now excised. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for giving it some attention. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Ari Teman

A number of accounts and IPs, which appear based on action and language to be the same person (KLetters, ArtTenak, Demenac234 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ari_Teman&diff=600031750&oldid=600030341 )) have accused falsely Mr. Teman of acting in porn, stealing from charity, not graduating college, inserting false cofounders of companies, etc. One look at the ArtTenak user history and it's clear this is some psychotic stalker dedicated to defame Mr. Teman. They contribute on no other article, and visit Mr. Teman's page multiple times daily to remove positive information and add false negative information. I'm asking (1) that ArtTenak be banned (and ArtTenak's IP address). (2) That the article be reverted to before ArtTenak (3) and that it be fully protected for only accepted administrators to edit. NYClay770 (talk) 14:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Edits by User:ArtTenak have been repeatedly deleted for vandalism, uncited sources, biased language, removing positive accomplishments, and defamation. ArtTenak exists solely to damage the reputation of Ari Teman and that is its sole action. I'm asking user ArtTenak be banned and the article be reverted to pre-ArtTenak. NYClay770 (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Maria Sharapova

Subject doesn't know who cricketeer is and it "effected billions of people". Confused? Read this. Experienced editors have been replying on the talk page but more eyes would be welcomed as offwiki canvassing is happening. [1] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

That is so bizarre. The dogged determination to add utter trivialities to celebrity biographies really amazes me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Woodrow Chambliss

Good evening.

This is not a complaint or error notification. In the biography for Woody Chambliss, it would be nice to include the fact that he also played cousin Zadok Walton on The Waltons. It was a memorable performance.

Janet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.209.28.108 (talk) 03:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Jai Prakash Menon

Dear Administrators

The article [[[Jai Prakash Menon]]] violates the 3 core content policies of BLP:Biographies of living persons
1) Neutral point of view (NPOV) - 1 author trying to control the content of article, which is written solely basis public news paper articles.
2) Verifiability (V) - No statement on record, no company statement by Airtel, no legal law-suit in court of law
3) No original research (NOR) - factually incorrect information (Jai Menon developed model for outsourcing network, which in incorrect)

I have been raising the above issues, however Thomas.W is not ready to discuss anything on rational basis.

Article Jai Prakash Menon is factually incorrect. e.g. It states He developed "the model of outsourcing network" used by Bharti and other companies in the industry. However, multiple sources confirm that He developed model for S1 IT outsourcing. REferences below. The author don't even know whether he was in IT function or Network.

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/industry-and-economy/info-tech/jai-menon-quits-vodafone-heads-back-to-airtel/article1628493.ece http://www.informationweek.in/informationweek/global-cio/181177/dr-jai-menon

WallStreet Journal/Mint is not considered a credible source, but others are single handidly considered a credible source.
As junior editor in one of the most prestigious news organization globally, We have performed our primary research on the topic and failed to substantiate 2 facts:
1. there is no named statement on record confirming the rumors or allegations
2. No statement on record by Airtel (even after repeated requests by us, the mails were unanswered)
3. No legal law-suit in the court of law.

I requested Thomas.W to provide either of the 3, however he has failed to produce in any forum. However, in turn he is deleting any attempt to factually improve the article, which puts a question mark on his motives. (Please refer my edits on June 2, 2014 to improve the article)

Look forward to a rational hearing from all assuming that Wikipedia is not a collection of unanimous news paper articles.

Request for BLP Administrators: I have started my professional career in journalism and editorial recently, and may not be able to adhere to all WikiPedia editing guidelines in past due to limited knowledge. This shall not be linked with the intent to improvise.

User:theamigosinc9:51, 5 July, 2014 (IST)

This is just a repeat of previous session here at BLPN: nothing has happened since then, other than repeated disruption from Theamigosinc. The two refs above, particularly the first one, might seem connected to the controversy in the article, Menon's departure from Bharti Airtel, but aren't, since they're dated two and four years before that departure, and so have nothing whatsoever to do with it. Thomas.W ^talk 06:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Dear Thomas.W - the references are provided to prove that article is factually incorrect, and is not linked to Menon's departure from Airtel
Your comments are testament of the fact that you are refraining from discussion with neutrality.
You are deleting sourced content from the Article with valid references, as you have done on 2 June, 2014 deleting my edits containing sourced information.
This article violates all the rules of BLP, which I have been raising repeatedly. e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper which clearly states that:

News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion.

However, you are trying to sensationalize a newsworthy event and has given undue weitage in the article.

User:theamigosinc9:51, 6 July, 2014 (IST) — Preceding undated comment added 02:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

We've been through that too, the circumstances surrounding Mr Menon's departure from Airtel have NOT been given undue weight. The article is well sourced, factual and well balanced, so stop your disruption. Disruption that includes taking the article, which hasn't changed since it was last discussed on BLPN, with no support for your views, to BLPN again. Thomas.W ^talk 10:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Stefan Molyneux

Two users have been altering the lead sentence of this article, trying to implement something which is not sourced. Even though WP:BLPREMOVE reverts for unsourced statements don't violate 3RR, I'd rather not risk it and prefer if others got involved.

The contentious item is the phrase "host of Freedomain Radio", which is the name of a podcast and YouTube channel operated by the subject. The name of the show, and his role as host, is well-sourced within the article. This phrasing has been quite stable in the last few months.

There is a supplemental website freedomainradio.com, and the two users are trying to imply that Molyneux "hosts" this website (which is something only computer servers do), as opposed to the actual name of the show as documented in sources (their edit summaries imply there is some confusion that could arise because people might think Freedomain Radio is an actual broadcast radio show). No sources say he is "presenter of freedomainradio.com", so this is both incorrect and unsourced material. Thanks for taking a look. --Netoholic @ 20:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

The text "and host of the Freedomain Radio online broadcasts." was added here on May 15th. ~~(I do not know when the modifier of "online broadcasts" was removed.)~~ This description suits me fine. We do not imply that we can dial up FDR in our car or via Sirius XM Radio. The only way to listen to FDR is via the website. The recent edits which OP complains about have been an effort to find compromise and consensus. Nothing more. – S. Rich (talk) 22:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

S. Rich I think you offer a moot point. Unless otherwise stated there is no implication that you can tune in via Sirius xm or radio frequency. Though is not to suggest that there is an issue with mentioning that's distributed online. Netoholic could perhaps provide a diff that shows your BLP complaint?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: The original (status quo) version is "host of Freedomain Radio". Here are the diffs: Specifico changes it to "host of the Freedomain Radio website", Srich32977 changes it to "he hosts the Freedomain Radio website show", Specifico changes it to "is the presenter of freedomainradio.com and adds Alexa ratings that are not noteworthy in any secondary source, and so are misuse of a primary source. None of these edits conform to how any sources describe the show or Molyneux role as host. "host of Freedomain Radio" is accurate and compact for the lead. The show is detailed in its own section - Stefan Molyneux#Freedomain Radio - where details are expanded upon and make it clear this is not easily confused at all with a "Sirius XM" or anything like that. These edits are meant to defame and detract, not based on any sources. --Netoholic @ 04:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

So I looked and find the change was made 5 days later here. "Quite stable in the last few months" should read "Quite stable in the last 45 days." The Rush Limbaugh Show is clearly described as a broadcast radio show. For 5 days we had clarity on the point. – S. Rich (talk) 23:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC) And I have suggested that "host of the Freedomain Radio online broadcasts" be accepted. – S. Rich (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd say this matter doesn't really belong here. Y'all should take it to dispute resolution. While no source says he is the presenter of freedomainradio.com, I do expect they are meaning that he is the host of said podcast. That is not well written, but I'd really have to let someone else comment if that is a BLP issue. As far as Rush Limbaugh and clarity goes, that's a separate article. To me is trivial to list or not list that information. What is the consensus on that matter? If there is no consensus at the moment consider opening an RFC.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

You are quite right. (And I shuda' looked at the intro above that says "Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period.") Also, we have a recent edit that should resolve OP's concern. I suggest you close this thread. – S. Rich (talk) 00:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The edits are defamatory in this case because they completely misrepresent the show as being called "freedomainradio.com" when the sources all say "Freedomain Radio". The website (like many, many others related to other shows) is supplemental/archives/community. When you are taking away the name of his main brand/project, you are being defamatory. Also, the Alexa stats were added to defame the website, because it itself is not high traffic. No source mentions any significance to the site rankings of freedomainradio.com, so this is misuse of a primary source in order to defame the site. --Netoholic @ 04:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that as defamatory to Stefan. I don't see a BLP issue. I don't see any indication that the stats were added to defame the website. I personally don't feel is suited for the BLP board. Have you considered dispute resolution?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 05:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

This is defamatory because it removed the primary name of his show from the lead sentence. It'd be exactly like going to Stephen Colbert and changing "host of Comedy Central's The Colbert Report" to "host of colbertnation.com". Its ridiculous. --Netoholic @ 05:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I would disagree with that. But here's what I would like to do. I'd like to go to the talk page and see if I can find both sides of the issue and see if we can come to a compromise that meets both sides desired outcome. You can just leave this open and perhaps another may see your BLP violation. Maybe before then we can actual work this out. You really don't have anything to lose. I've already commented there.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 05:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The statements are not defamatory. They do not harm the reputation of Molyneux. Nor does describing the internet website as an "online broadcast." – S. Rich (talk) 05:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

User involved in this dispute pushes the envelope even further in this edit removing the title of the website from the External Links section. While some websites like Ask.com use their url as the brand name, this is not the case with Freedomain Radio. It is refered by its title/brand almost universally, both on the site itself and extensively in the sources used in the article. Edits to remove the title/brand name of the website from the article are bordering now on vandalism, especially because this editor knows this change is being discussed here and is continue to push this. --Netoholic @ 05:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Pushing the envelope is putting it on a little thick. They offered a reasonable explanation for the change. WP:BRD is a good idea sometimes. Did you ask them why they made this change by chance?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

If BRD applies, then the version of the lead sentence should be revert to the status quo from before they made the changes. They explained "why" in their edit summaries, they haven't given any rationale though. Their edits disagree with the sources, so I think its just that they don't have a rationale that fits any policy. --Netoholic @ 06:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

BRD is an accepted practice. Take a minute til you are less annoyed and take that to the talk page.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I tried twice already to revert it to the status quo version, and they reverted back, which is why I'm on this page in the first place to ask for assistance. --Netoholic @ 06:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Again I don't see this as a BLP issue. That BLP revert exemption only applies if you are right. Do be careful. Consider using some other form of dispute resolution such as an RFC. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Whether its a BLP issue or a BRD issue, the article should be reverted to the status quo version ("host of Freedomain Radio"). I think its BLP, since the change is unsourced and obviously contentious. --Netoholic @ 07:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Gonzalo Lira

Anonymous IP address keeps inserting a one-sided, possibly libelous claim about a business dispute involving Lira. IP address is 98.113.143.89.

The business dispute does not involve either civil or criminal courts, and appears to be a private affair. Nevertheless, the anonymous IP user keeps reinserting the disputed material. The anonymous IP address might be the person Lira is in dispute with, as they mentioned information in the dispute resolution that I opened that is not publicly available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MILH (talk • contribs) 15:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

You are right that the material being inserted is wholly inappropriate, although it was probably a bad idea to open a mediation case over it... reporting it here would have been enough. Nevertheless, the IP has now been blocked for 72 hours. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I cannot find any secondary coverage over this. Yet. I suspect there may be some from other blogs in a couple of days which still mostly likely won't meet RS requirements. Ravensfire (talk) 19:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

@Ravensfire, This dispute started in May 2013, and from what I researched, it's a dead-letter. @FreeRangeFrog, sorry, you are right, I should have reported it here, rather than open a mediation. Thank you. MILH (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

James Frenkel

Talk page discussion: Talk:James_Frenkel#.22Rumor_of_Sexual_Harassment_28_June_2013.22

There are previous discussions of this in the archive: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive180#James_Frenkel Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive181#James_Frenkel

On June 30th, Wiscon released official statements which were reviewed by lawyer, confirming that an official complaint against James Frenkel was made. I made changes to the article which were reverted without explanation as to why these were not acceptable sources.

A previous article, published on i09, was also removed. BLP says that articles with editorial review comply, but this was reverted with the complaint it was a not a primary source.

Given that we now have a primary source stating that an official report of allegations were made, which was reviewed by an attorney- greatly reducing the risk that this would fall under "libel"- in addition to a secondary source that meets the qualification an article under editorial review, I believe that the weak statement that an official complaint was made against him at the conference complies with BLP. Thanks. Lepidoptera (talk) 19:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, please see WP:BLPPRIMARY. And while you're there, WP:BLPCRIME will be useful too. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I did think secondary sources were preferable, but that was the reason given for why the i09 article needed to be removed.

Sexual harassment additionally is considered to be a crime in many jurisdictions, so I think that WP:BLPCRIME would inevitably be invoked to omit the content. Unless he's been convicted of it, then we can conclude it. I went through this with a similar subject, you can see it at 'Skylor Page' section. Tutelary (talk) 19:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The statements made don't mention sexual harassment, and as you can see I only said "a complaint" was made, and not the nature of it. Lepidoptera (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Similar notions of anything 'sexual X' whether sexual assault, sexual harassment, sexual misconduct are all crimes in many jurisdictions, we should err on the side of caution to exclude in this case. Unless he's been convicted in a court of law, we can't accuse or say there were 'allegations that he did a crime' and what not. Tutelary (talk) 23:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, no. First, not all sexual harassment necessarily rises to the level of a criminal offense, depending on both the nature of the misconduct and the jurisdiction in which it occurred. In this particular instance, the behavior had a number of witnesses who have commented publicly; so this particular case doesn't even get stuck in the usual quagmire of he-said/she-said. Second, we regularly mention sexual harassment even when it doesn't lead to criminal charges when that misconduct leads to significant effects on an individual's life and career. (See, for instance, Anthony Wiener.)

The difference between this figure and Anthony Weiner is that Anthony Weiner is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE, more specifically, a politician, and specifically excludes WP:BLPCRIME for mentioning allegations. However, BLPCRIME is a good standard to follow in this regard. I am not saying that it had risen to the degree of a crime, but WP:BLPCRIME is unambiguous on whether to state any person had been suspected of comitting a crime, sexual harassment is a crime, so we can't state that unless there's been a conviction. Tutelary (talk) 14:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The (self published) source cited does not state that " an official complaint against James Frenkel was made". Lepidoptera's edits have clearly also violated WP:SYN in connecting such allegations with Frenkel leaving Tor. And regardless of sourcing, per WP:BLP policy, we should not include unsubstantiated allegations in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

We can remove the connecting statement as per WP:SYN. However, the source does in fact state that an official complaint to the wiscon organizers was made. "Everyone in WisCon Safety and WisCon leadership from WisCon 37 through WisCon 39 understands that Elise made a formal report; this has never been in doubt. Her report was treated with extreme seriousness at the time, including follow-ups by Co-Chairs with both Elise and with Jim Frenkel. " Lepidoptera (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

That isn't even a statement that Elise's report was about Frenkel. Not that it matters, since WP:BLP policy precludes inclusions of unsubstantiated allegations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I was asked to comment here. James Frenkel is a living person and a science fiction editor. The question here is whether the article about him should contain material to the effect that he left his last place of employment because of allegations of sexual harrassment that were made against him. An article by Charlie Anders on io9 states that "On a day when an editor at the U.S. version of Tor, James Frenkel, has left the company over issues involving alleged sexual harrassment (...)" Io9 is an online science fiction publication that, per its article, is professionally edited. I am therefore of the view that it is a reliable source for BLP purposes. The removal by an IP of material added by me and cited to the io9 article was therefore mistaken. I am of the view that WP:BLPCRIME does not apply because the alleged conduct at issue does not appear to have risen to the level of a criminal offense.

But the material added by Lepidoptera was correctly removed, because, apart from concerns about its reliability (being published on Livejournal and Twitter), it does not directly associate Frenkel with the harassment allegations at issue, and therefore cannot support article text to that effect. Sandstein 20:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I would have to suggest that a comment made in passing on io9 is questionable as a source for what is a serious allegation, whether of a criminal offence or otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not a comment made in passing, it's part of a normal article. It's just not the focus of the article, but that's not required. Sandstein 21:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

This is one of those cases where really 'big-name' sources are going to be hard to come by. Frankel isn't a U.S. senator or major league baseball player or Hollywood actor; CNN isn't going to pick this up. Frankel isn't even an author—fairly or not, outside the relatively close-knit world of SFF publishing and its most-devoted fans, editors like Frankel just don't get talked about. It's inside baseball. (Look at the sources for our biography of him—there's just one news column that's actually about Frankel and his work instead of mentioning him in passing, and it's from 1984. Three decades in the biz later, and he hasn't gotten another mainstream media mention.)

Given the paucity of sources, it could be argued that we shouldn't have an article about him at all, since we can't find enough independent coverage to build a proper biography. However, if we do have an article, then we have to be willing to accept material from knowledgeable people and sources from within his field, where his actions are going to be covered. If we're only going to print stuff that comes from the New York Times...then we're not actually going to be covering the topic, and we shouldn't be pretending that we do. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

FGS, rumours and allegations are exceedingly rarely of encyclopedic value - whether or not they refer to a "crime" per se. Collect (talk) 13:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree. But did you want to comment on whether or not this is one of those 'exceedingly rare' situations? Stating a rule of thumb is all well and good, but have you examined this particular instance to see if it applies? This was a case with a major career impact – Frankel's long-term employment ended – and Frankel himself was a major name in his field. There's a very public complaint, and his publisher parts ways with him two weeks later; io9 connected the dots explicitly, and lots of others did so implicitly. (See, for instance, Mary Robinette Kowal's comments: Why Am I Afraid to Name the Editor? She describes the circumstances of the case, names the editor, and links to the tweets from Tor editor Patrick Nielsen Hayden indicating that Frankel was no longer employed with them. For context, MRK is a past vice-president of SFWA; she doesn't have any personal axes to grind, and would be expected to be more-than-usually aware of goings-on in the SFF community.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

So far, I do not think any case that he is one of the "exceeding rare" situations has been made. Editors get fired for many reasons -- IIRC, Tor is owned by MacMillan, and many imprints from many publishers have had changes in the past few years. And, AFAICT, that an employer fires someone does not mean there is any strong basis to the actual complaint - at most it means the publisher does not want any remotely negative publicity. Collect (talk) 14:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that allegations are often not of encyclopedic value, but an article subject being fired from their job is - and then we should be able to name the reasons for that if they are reliably sourced. Whether or to which extent the allegations have any basis in fact is beside the point, that has nothing to do with whether or not they should be mentioned in the article. Compare also the case of Marion Zimmer Bradley#Child sex abuse allegations, where allegations against a now-deceased SF author are relatively prominently featured in the article because of the publicity they received.

Apart from this, the argument that James Frenkel may not even be notable enough for an article appears reasonable, and this should maybe be tested by way of an AfD. Sandstein 15:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Adrian Rollins

Good day, I hope that this finds you well.

My name is Adrian Rollins (the actual Adrian Rollins who is referenced in this page!) and I was very disappointed to find out from a friend that my Wiki page has been tampered with by a "Faren Price". I have now re-edited the article and have made the adjustments that actually match who I am. On my page it said that: 1. I died yesterday; 2. I am know by an alias (Big Faz). The concern is if one of my family members had seen this (I do not live close to my family and present and such information appearing on Wikipedia could cause major distress).

Please can you not allow ANYBODY to edit this page apart from me? I do not feel that it is fair or just to put misinformation on a website, particularly regarding my mortality!

All the best

Adrian Rollins — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrianrollins (talk • contribs) 17:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Just silly vandalism unfortunately, I have warned the user and if they continue they will be blocked from editing. Unfortunately we cannot protect the article so that only you can edit it. Giant Snowman 17:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Craig Wolff

I am the author and journalist, Craig Wolff.

My age, as it shows up in the Wiki bio box when my name is Googled, is wrong. Can my age be corrected, or better, deleted? I've noticed that many other author pages and the like do not provide an age.

Thank you. Craig Wolff — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonahrosa (talk • contribs) 22:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't now where Google got the year from, but it wasn't us. The year on Google doesn't appear to have ever been in the article Craig Wolff. I notice that article has been edited by the accounts Jonahrosa5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Jrosa9501 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who have similar names to your current account. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you by any chance referring to a photo or text shown to the right of a Google search? Google's Knowledge Graph uses a wide variety of sources. There may be a text paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" to indicate that particular text was copied from Wikipedia. An image and other text before or after the Wikipedia excerpt may be from sources completely unrelated to Wikipedia. We have no control over how Google presents our information, but Google's Knowledge Graph has a "Feedback" link where anyone can mark a field as wrong.--ukexpat (talk) 00:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted the DOB since A) it is unsourced and B) the request made here is a reasonable one, and I see no reason not to AGF that the requester is the BLP subject.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Avigdor Lieberman

I would like to direct the attention of editors to Talk:Avigdor Lieberman#Allegations of Anti-Arabism section for a discussion about a section in subject's bio with some BLP concerns. Thanks. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

New article

Request review of whether GNG is met for (primarily) one event / negative coverage. Dru of Id (talk) 17:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks like a clear WP:BLP1E to me, even calling him a "politician" looks dubious. Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Kuhn (politician).--ukexpat (talk) 19:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

EVA MENDES

POOR AND RUDE EDIT ABOUT EVA MENDES BOYFRIEND AND ABOUT HER PREGNANCY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.128.122 (talk) 19:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks like relatively ordinary (alas) vandalism at Eva Mendes. I've rolled back to an earlier version. —C.Fred (talk) 19:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Paul Wayne

A user on the talk page of this article claims to be the subject and that there is incorrect information. How should we proceed? (ping to George Ho) Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

If this counts as a reliable source, it confirms the year and birthplace. I've trusted the talk page poster on the birthday, just for completeness. It could be wrong, but doesn't seem like a major error, if it is at all. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Korotangi Paki

Korotangi Paki, the non-notable teenage son of Tuheitia Paki, has recently been taken to Court for allegedly being, basically, a teenage arsehole, and was discharged without conviction. A number of editors have been trying to insert more or less slanted commentary about the alleged incident into various articles (sample here [2]) including Tuheitia Paki and Māori King Movement. There have been discussions here [3] and here [4] about this matter, with at least a majority of users not supporting mention of this alleged incident, but eyes of experienced outside editors would be welcomed. Thanks. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Huh. I would argue that this definitely merits inclusion, since the defense argued that a conviction would make it difficult for the guy to succeed his daddy. Now of course the way the material by IPs and SPAs was added was completely inappropriate, but that doesn't mean it should not be included. I'd say it's very much relevant. Not sure what other BLPN regulars think. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Or come to think of it, it would be much more very relevant at Māori King Movement. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Succession in this line is by consensus at the tangi (multi-day funeral event). Historically succession has been from among the incumbents children. It's unclear how much weight a QC's voice will have in this matter. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Slender Man

The Slender Man article includes the names of two 12 year old girls who are accused of severely stabbing another child in an effort to honor the "Slender Man" internet meme. WP:BLPCRIME suggests giving "serious consideration" to not giving the names of otherwise unknown persons who have not been convicted of a crime, and in the case of accused children it is surprising that their names are so prominently given, as opposed to just mentioning that "two 12 year old girls" are so accused. Edison (talk) 20:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the names should be removed. Sandstein 20:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I removed the names and commented on the talk page there. Editors who work on fictional topics may not be familiar with the importance of BLP policy, so other comments there may be useful. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Some fans of fictional topics that crawl from the bottom of the Internet may simply enjoy violating the rules because they're there. If you meet a troll, careful not to put anything up its nose.

In my opinion, once you stab someone to death ("allegedly" or not), your "But I'm just a kid!" card should be revoked. Still innocent until proven guilty (or somewhere in between), but subject to the same "serious consideration" adult living persons get around here. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME covers the general population (not just minors) meaning the policy would have called for removal of the the names if the accused were adults. The I'm just a kid card has nothing to do with this.--67.68.162.111 (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so, either. But the way Edison said "...in the case of accused children it is surprising..." suggested he might think they're special. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Regardless, even if that were the case the policy in question does not specifically deal with minors so whether or not Edison believed that is irrelevant in this case--67.68.162.111 (talk) 18:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC).

Irrelevant to the policy itself. But the logical application of policies is often complicated when we think of the children. If we're omitting the names purely because they're unconvicted, that's good. If it's akin to how death tolls sometimes end in "including x children", that's bad. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

To avoid any confusion are you talking in general or are you suggesting that in this case that you view that Edison made a think of the children argument somehow means that BLP (which treats adults the same way) no longer applies? I would strongly disagree with the second idea because even if we acknowledge that this particular aspect of Edison's arguement was weak the policy sited supports the removal even if the think of the children argument is disregard.--67.68.162.111 (talk) 04:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

In general. The "serious consideration" certainly applies here, regardless of motivation. If I have two neighbours cooking equal amounts of meth, and rat out only the one with the unlikably cut jib, she's still guilty. I'm not calling any procedural error nonsense, or attacking Edison in particular. Just a reminder to anyone reading that adults (even ones plastered on tabloids) can be precisely as innocent as anyone else. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Norman Golb

Certain academics, one of whom was involved in the prosecution of Norman Golb's son in New York (and the charges pertaining to that individual have now been dismissed by an appellate court), have been repeatedly inserting a biased description of this case into the article, the visible aim being to smear Norman Golb.

Editors should note that there is no proof Professor Golb knew his son had "impersonated" any academics. They should also note that the other contributors are either friends or sockpuppets of the academic who originally inserted the paragraph.

The junk that is being repeatedly inserted relies on suppositions about the intent of Norman Golb's son and on a previous smear campaign purveyed in certain newspapers. It should be removed from this article ASAP.

I repeat, it was originally inserted by one of the parties involved in the Raphael Golb prosecution. The appeal of the case, incidentally, is still pending, as can be seen from the documentation posted at the website devoted to it.[5]

The moral consequences for Wikipedia are enormous, particularly should the remaining charges ultimately be dismissed by a higher appellate court (and, just my opinion: judging from the appellate briefs, there is no reason to believe they will not be dismissed).

In view of the paragraph's repeated insertion into the article, I have done my best to make it more neutral, but it should be deleted in its entirety and the article should be blocked in a form without it. If Norman Golb's adversaries wish to use his son's legal problems to smear the father on Wikipedia, they should simply create a Wikipedia page on the Raphael Golb prosecution.

On the George W. Bush page, for example, there is not a single word about the arrest of the former president's daughter. If the policy of these contributors is followed, biographical articles will regularly become weapons in smear campaigns. No encyclopedia would follow such a policy, and Wikipedia should take steps to ensure it is not followed in this instance. Polo244 (talk) 04:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment, Polo244, and have removed the two paragraphs about his son's legal problems. I encourage other editors to put this BLP on their watch lists. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Cullen I don't think that removal of the entire text is warranted. It seems that Golb's son did what he did in connection with a dispute that Golb had with other historians, so a short mention of this should be included. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I see total take down from the life story as a good action - I removed Cwobeel's story - I really do not agree with his use https://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/Decisions/2014/May14/72opn14-Decision.pdf of a fifteen month old legal doc primary pdf to add content to the story here Mosfetfaser (talk) 03:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

There are other sources. I dont think it should be scrubbed entirely, as its clear his son's actions (some of which are not in dispute - only that they were 'criminal' were of relevance due to the father's work. There is probably scope for a mention here that does not violate BLP. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, no. It's not part of Norman's biography that his son did something wrong, unless there's clear and unambiguous proof that Norman was involved. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Well thats a better argument and one I use often myself so I am happy if consensus wants to go that way. However his life's work was central to his son's actions - it doesnt matter if the sons actions were 'wrong' or not. As a consequence of his work and his son's actions he ended up embroiled in a fairly newsworthy (well, slightly newsworthy unless you are into that sort of thing) incident. Although arguably it actually belongs in the dead sea scrolls article as an aside rather than on his father's BLP. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Investigative Project on Terrorism

Unresolved

A combination of WP:NOR, and WP:Defamation at the Investigative Project on Terrorism and Steven Emerson. I have repeatedly tried to delete the violating statement, but User:Serialjoepsycho keeps reverting it. See the following diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Investigative_Project_on_Terrorism&diff=614596007&oldid=614567674. Also, the article itself is inaccurate, and I have initiated a proposal to merge in an attempt to provide accurate information about the actual entity, The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation, rather than perpetuating all the confusion involving Steven Emerson as an individual, and/or as an individual heading up a think-tank called The Investigative Project. Editors appear to be confused over the identity of the non-profit foundation which was formed in 2006, and Steven Emerson, and Steven Emerson's work under The Investigative Project think-tank. Since it is not an actual BLP, but still violates BLP policy, I thought it best to bring it here for potential action. You can see the OR here in the info box where the editor attempted to combine all three entities into one. [6] Perhaps some editors feel they have more freedom to violate BLP when the information is under an entity, and not an actual BLP. Finally, the statement misquotes, and/or misintreprets what the sources actually said, and what Steven Emerson actually said. Atsme☯^Consult 17:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I as well as Sepsis II have reverted it. We have both stated the position that we do not feel there is a BLP violation. I suggested multiple times that Atsme use some form of dispute resolution, including suggesting BLPN if they disagreed. This is on the IPT talk page. Any other charge above unrelated to BLP I feel no need to respond to on this BLP noticeboard.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Policy states that in the event of a BLP violation, the offending statement should be deleted immediately, which I did only to have it reverted. As noted above by Serialjoepsycho, he and Sepsis don't consider it a BLP violation. Perhaps the reason they don't is because they don't understand the IPT article itself is ambiguous, misleading, and involves 3 separate entities as stated in the merge rationale. The diffs point to a blatant violation of BLP because the statement in the article includes the editor's own POV which differs from what the sources actually state. Serialjoepsycho's response; i.e., "no need to respond" - is the attitude that caused me to bring the offending diffs here. He refuses to acknowledge there is a BLP violation, much less the Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis_of_published_material violations that have been committed by the existence of the article itself which is nothing more than a combination of information from different sources conglomerated to create the IPT article which creates the WP:BLP violation. Atsme☯^Consult 17:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Two editors have commented that this was not a BLP. Atsme the only other editor to comment has undertaken a pervasive effort to whitewash the page. Two editors disagreed with his claim. I recommended he come here if disagreed. Noting the response above I'll go ahead and comment what I've already commented in the merge discussion. There is no reason to merge. He uses Cherry picked sources to make a case for merger. His sources do not differentiate IPT pre-incorporation from IPT post-incorporation. IPT as well as a number of other sources make the claim that IPT was founded in 1995. His case is solely original research. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The disputed diff[7] cites two sources. The first source[8] doesn't mention anything about the Oklahoma bombing and the second cited source[9] is a press release and therefore not a reliable source. Unless I'm missing something, this seems to be a pretty clear WP:BLP violation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Since neither cited source supported the content, I've (temporarily) removed it[10] until consensus can be established. A Quest For Knowledge from the article. (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)<br /

After spending a little more time reading the article, it doesn't appear to be particularly well-written or well-sourced[11] and may contain copyright violations.[12] This might be one of those articles that's easier to fix by rewriting from scratch. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

This actually does mention the Oklahoma City bombing. In about the middle of the page. "Emerson is unapologetic. But he has made mistakes in the past. In an interview after the Oklahoma City bombing, Steve Emerson confidently pointed his finger at the wrong culprits at Muslim terrorists. As everyone now knows the bombing was the work of an American Methodist, Tim McVeigh."Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

As to the copyvio issue. I agree. I went to the youtube video in question no indication they had rights. I also note that the rights they released it under Standard YouTube License. I'm unsure of the specific copyright holder but even if it was released under some type of copyleft license it would be inappropriate for someone else to release it under the Standard Youtube license. I went ahead and removed it.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

~~@A Quest For Knowledge:~~ as pointed out above does in fact mention the OKC bombing. Your argument above is based off it making no mention so I would have to ask for further response.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: Yes, you are correct. The CBS article does mention the Oklahoma City bombing. My bad. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

~~@A Quest For Knowledge:~~I don't wish to misinterpret you. Are you indicating that you have no BLP objection to the use of that source for the part of the statement that it validates?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: It's a partial withdrawal. I was clearly wrong when I stated that the CBS news article didn't mention the Oklahoma City bombing. But we shouldn't be using press releases as sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@A Quest For Knowledge: I concede to your point in this case on the use of a press release. However I disagree with your statement that press releases can't be used as a reliable source. Of note would be that public corporations may use press releases from groups like to PR Newswire to meet SEC Regulation Fair Disclosure requirements. Determination of wp:rs standards should probably made case by case.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I did a partial revert on the page based solely on the 48 hours source that includes only the information that source validated.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: Thanks for your partial revert. Just to clarify something, press releases undergo no editorial supervision and are treated as self-published sources. Self-published sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
it does not involve claims about third parties;
it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
the article is not based primarily on such sources.

In this particular case, the press release is not being used in an article about the organization that made the press release (or its activities) and even if it was, it fails conditions 1 and especially 2. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

It is case by case that these rules should be applied and very likely in most BLP cases that these sources would be unreliable. In this case as I said above I completely agree.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Other sources include, Cair, Nashville Scene, Media Matters, Media Monitor Neywork, FAIR, and the list can really just keep on going.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, WP:POV. Emerson never "pointed his finger", and never said the words, "Muslim terrorists" as was incorrectly stated in the IPT article. WP:BLP specifically states:

Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies:
Neutral point of view (NPOV)

Verifiability (V)

No original research (NOR)

We must get the article right.

Scroll midway down the following archived article in American Journalism Review to the paragraph directly under the header, "CBS officials did not return calls".[13]. After reading that paragraph, please note that there was no actual "finger pointing" by Emerson, and no use of the word "Muslim". WP:BLP specifically states Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives;. And now Serialjoepyscho has again violated WP:BLP by adding the same contentious, sensationalized statement here. Emerson's actual statement as quoted by reliable sources was a likeness, or comparison using the following words, "Middle Eastern trait". If editors are following BLP policy, they are not supposed to use inaccurate information, and "must take particular care". Emerson never actually said what the referenced source claimed he said. Furthermore, Emerson was not associated with IPT(F) at the time because IPT did not exist which further adds WP:SYNTH, WP:NOR, Wikipedia:BLPPRIMARY#Avoid_misuse_of_primary_sources to the WP:BLP violation. Deleting the statement from the IPT article was the proper action, especially considering Emerson was a freelance writer and producer at that time, 11 years prior the organization of The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation in 2006. Atsme☯^Consult 14:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

To put it simply, there is only one IPT. Your case for differentiation is original research. It doesn't matter where you post or how many times you post it because that does not change it from synthesis. Your position depends on your conjecture as much as if not more than the sources. If your comments were to be deleted your case would disappear. To put it in simpler terms, your argument can't stand on sources alone. Regarding my so called original research, I don't work for CBS nor have I been on 48 hours. The rules on original research don't apply to sources. They apply to editors. I'm unsure if members of CBS or 48 hours have edited wikipedia but there is no indication they have edited this source. 48 hours is not a primary source or a tabloid. Contenious statement? Which one? Are you saying that me quoting 48 hours, "Emerson is unapologetic. But he has made mistakes in the past. In an interview after the Oklahoma City bombing, Steve Emerson confidently pointed his finger at the wrong culprits at Muslim terrorists. As everyone now knows the bombing was the work of an American Methodist, Tim McVeigh." Is contentious and a violation of the BLP? I disagree. But I notice you are the only one who has suggested this.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Serialjoepsycho is simply trying to shift the focus away from his BLP violation onto me with his false allegations. His behavior is very disruptive. The IPT article has major issues, but the focus needs to stay on the issue that was initially presented here - a WP:BLP violation. As I stated above, I attempted to delete it, but was reverted by User:Serialjoepsycho, and User_talk:Sepsis_II, the latter of whom I thought was blocked from editing, so I don't understand how he was able to revert. See the diffs here: [14] [15] BLP violations do not require consensus. They require immediate removal. Serialjoepsycho refuses to acknowledge the violation, and has twice posted the same violating statement on this noticeboard. Atsme☯^Consult 07:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

He wasn't blocked at the time and that is how he reverted. Why? I've had one user other than you to comment on it. They gave a different reason than you. As noted above one of the reasons they gave was incorrect. As noted above I did request that person comment further. I don't see that as a violating statement. No experienced editor has commented on it yet. But allow me to direct you to WP:BLPTALK Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate. I question if this poorly sourced being from 48 hours. I also don't agree that is a BLP violation. Here's a good place to answer that question. You know they may have created BPLN just for that. The quote in question is about making a content choice. I'm sure @Sepsis II: might have a response when he gets back.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

In response to Serialjoepsycho's question, "Why?" - because he was involved in a dispute that resulted in his being blocked the day after he reverted the BLP violations at IPT. According to his Talk page, he has been blocked on more than one occasion, so I consider it rather odd that he would make yet another disruptive edit in light of it being a BLP violation. I don't consider his edits at IPT to have been made in good faith, and the fact that he supports Serialjoepsycho's position speaks volumes, not to mention their combined efforts in "taunting" me for proposing a merge as evidenced in the following diff: [16].

With all the taunting and bullying aside, my primary concern is maintaining accuracy, and respecting policies when editing Wikipedia articles. Verifiability, and exercising extra caution cannot be over-emphasized when writing about living persons, yet based on Serialjoepsycho's earlier comments wherein he stated, I feel no need to respond to on this BLP noticeboard, I am inclined to believe there is a serious lack of concern. Perhaps he believes that citing a single source without verifying accuracy is ok, which may explain why he and Sepsis II reverted my edits. Such disruptive behavior in light of the BLP violation I brought to their attention is why I believe this is a serious issue, and why I decided to bring it here for discussion. The information that was added about the Oklahoma City bombing is not relevant to the IPT article because it involved an interview with Steven Emerson as an independent reporter, long before the IPT Foundation was organized. If the statement does not violate WP:BLP, why wasn't it added to Steven Emerson where it belongs? It actually does violate WP:BLP which I've verified because of my concern over keeping Wiki articles accurate. The verifiability of the statement that was made according to the source that was cited has been challenged, and for good reason. Reliable sources verify that Emerson did not make the comment(s) as stated in the IPT article, with the exception of a few words he used during one interview with CBS. There is no validation for an editor to take an out of context statement even further out of context, and include it an article where it doesn't belong. The results are violations of the following policies - WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:BLP. Instead of collaborating in an effort to fix the problem, Serialjoepsycho dug his heels in deeper, countered with false allegations against me, antagonized, bullied, baited, and dared me, and is still holding onto the belief that Emerson made the alleged statement, further refusing to accept the fact he violated WP:BLP policy. If that isn't bad enough, his only support in this debate has been from an editor who was blocked for disruptive editing on a different article the day after he reverted my edit. Atsme☯^Consult 21:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Sepsis II block was unrelated to this situation here. He was blocked for a 1RR violation under WP:ARBPIA He can comment further later. Your intention to diminish his standing over that is ridiculous. The comments that I felt no need to respond to were your entire case about Pre-incorporation and post-incorporation IPT being separate. You provide no reliable sources to show that they do and follow your conjecture would require ignoring reliable sources that suggest they are the same. Further you left an important part of that quote. Let's go with the full quote shall we? Any other charge above unrelated to BLP I feel no need to respond to on this BLP noticeboard. That confers different meaning than your POVpushing attempt at paraphrasing. Both I and Sepsis II agreed that it was relevant to the IPT article. At further complaint it was suggested that you take it here. The offending statement has been removed from the article pending further comment here. I'm waiting for further comment here from the one editor who has commented other than you. The alleged statement is commented that OKC bombing had a "middle eastern" trait. The meaning of that as interpreted by reliable secondary sources is that was commenting on Muslim Terrorists. It may not be his or your choice interpretation of Islamic Extremists but it's a fair interpretation. I'm not interested in collaborating with you to whitewash an article. I'm not interested in Collaborating with anyone to whitewash a page. Your previous effort to whitewash IPT is still documented on the IPT talk page. Your recent tenditious edit on the IPT article reinforces the thought that you are trying to whitewash the article. Removing the template that was discussed in depth against the consensus. You drop it on March and then comeback to it in June. Who are you trying to play here?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not interested in collaborating with you to whitewash an article. I'm not interested in Collaborating with anyone to whitewash a page. Your previous effort to whitewash IPT is still documented on the IPT talk page. -- You are propagandizing this noticeboard with more of the same rhetoric, and it needs to stop. If you think it is appropriate to skirt BLP policy by using IPT to defame Emerson using "interpretations" from biased sources that point back to the CBS report, you might want to rethink your position. The statement you keep including is a BLP violation because it is an interpretation which you just admitted. It was not a statement made by Emerson. It is a BLP violation to include it because it is inaccurate, defames Emerson, and does not belong in the IPT article which is nothing more than a stub about a non-existent organization wherein you violated WP:NOR to make it appear as a non-profit organization that was founded in 1995. Worse yet, you opened an Rfc before this issue was resolved. Atsme☯^Consult 03:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

That's not propaganda. I'm also curious to know how I'm trying to skirt by the BLP policy. I did after all send you to the BLP noticeboard. I find 48 hours to be a reliable source. And yes interpretation but sans the scare quote. This is a secondary source. I don't find the truth to be defamatory. And IPT was founded in 1995. IPT makes this claim. There is nothing controversial about this claim. The sources you provide do not disprove this claim. IPT has not been the only source to comment on their 1995 founding. Your case is nothing more than original research. It's completely subordinate to your commentary. I'm not going to whitewash the page on your commentary. You have already made your ulterior motives clear. This conversation between us is over. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The BLP violation has not been properly addressed, and feedback from one editor does not constitute consensus, or validation for closure of this incident. There is a clear violation of WP:BLP, and blatant misuse of original and self-published sources including the CBS 48 Hours report in the IPT article. See the information under the heading "Unusual arrangement" at [17] wherein it states Emerson incorporated his for-profit company, SAE Productions, in Delaware in 1995. He launched the nonprofit Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation in Washington, D.C., in 2006. But he doesn't make that distinction on his website, [www.investigativeproject.org], which describes the Investigative Project on Terrorism as "a non-profit research group founded by Steven Emerson in 1995." And today, the two groups share the same Washington street address, which is published on Emerson's personal website. Other sources also validate the fact IPT was non-existent in 1995, and that the statement CBS took out of context was made by Steven Emerson as an individual terrorism expert/reporter, and not as a representative of IPTF. The following links validate IPT's non-existence in 1995: [18] [19]. It is also evident at the bottom of the following article at the self-published IPT.org website [20] with the following closing credit stating the name, "The Investigative Project, a think-tank, not a legally formed foundation as is the IPT Foundation that was formed in 2006: Matthew Epstein is an attorney and senior terrorism analyst at the Investigative Project, a Washington, D.C.-based counterterrorism think tank established in 1995. Ben Schmidt is a terrorism analyst for the Investigative Project. The aforementioned further substantiates WP:BLP and WP:NOR violations, and also WP:Undue against Emerson in the IPT article, not to mention the fact it was improperly quoted showing a clear bias. In closing, WP:SYNTH is also at work here with the attempt to include Emerson as an individual terrorism expert, The Investigative Project think-tank, and The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation into one misaligned, inaccurate, improperly sourced, questionable stub which is what IPT represents. Atsme☯^Consult 16:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

No you misunderstand. This case isn't closed. The conversation between me and you is over. I've already read your original research. I've already responded to it. You only have one actual claim here and I'm waiting for further response. CBS 48 Hours self published? This being just one of the reasons that the conversation is over between us.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Unbelievable - now you are blaming me for misunderstanding what you misunderstood, which may explain some of your disruptive behavior. I had already resolved to the fact that you had no defense, therefore no reason to respond. The self-published source I was referring to is not CBS 48 Hours which is the "original source" you cited. Read my statement again - misuse of original AND self-published sources - plural. Surely you understand WP policy enough to know that CBS is considered the original source - they conducted the interview, and published the transcript from their POV, including taking things Emerson said out of context - and that IPT.org is the self-published source you cited for your inaccurate, unverifiable information regarding the founding of the Investigative Project on Terrorism FOUNDATION which ultimately created your WP:SYNTH violation on top of everything else. The WP:BLP violation still needs to be addressed, but considering your disruptive behavior, I was forced to take this incident to ANI. Hopefully it will be resolved at ANI once and for all considering only one other editor has responded here. Atsme☯^Consult 23:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I have plenty to say but you have used many words to say nothing. There's no point in saying anything else. Your a POV pusher. The record shows this. You want to whitewash wikipedia of anything related to Islamophobia. The record shows this. What more do I actually need to say? Let's quit wasting peoples time bickering back and forth here.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for close

Since this has been moved to ANI I do wonder if it should be closed?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Chuckie Dreyfuss

Good day... my name is Chuckie Dreyfus. My wikipedia article is currently being updated by my wife (username on Wikipedia: Marilenelbee) to correct all inaccuracies and to add new information about me. My concern is that the main page name is spelled as "Chuckie Dreyfuss" instead of "Chuckie Dreyfus" (only single "s" on the surname). It has been a common mistake ever since I started my acting career that my surname has been spelled with a double "s" similar to Richard Dreyfuss'. I would like to correct this by placing the correct spelling of my surname but I couldn't find any way to do so. I need help. Thank you very much for your attention in this regard.

-Chuckie Dreyfus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chakong (talk • contribs) 15:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Done I've moved the article to the name you suggested.--Auric talk 20:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

shabazz napier

it says desperate as FUCK to resign lebron james — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.157.46.196 (talk)

It's been removed already.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Tim Cook (again)

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

With some regularity, editors add material to the Cook article that says he is gay. Sometimes they use questionable sources. Sometimes whatever sources they use don't support the material. The issue of whether to include the material, of course, in typical Wikipedia style has been discussed to death. In my personal view (without regard to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines), his sexual orientation, just like his religion, is unimportant. But he's a famous guy and Wikipedia likes to label people regardless of whether it's encyclopedic or important to who they are.

Putting aside my own views, the latest salvo are these sentences: "Cook's sexual identity as a gay man has long been considered an open secret among industry insiders.[35][36][37][38][39] In June 2014, a CNBC co-host outed[40][41][42][37][43][44][45][36][46] Tim Cook during a discussion on gay CEOs."

I intentionally left in the numbered refs to show how many the editor used. Although I haven't reviewed all of them (god help me), they appear to all be derivative of one event, the last part about the "outing" on television. Certainly, Cook hasn't acknowledged it, and I understand that acknowledgment is only required to include a category about him, not to include material, but just because a reporter outs someone, either intentionally or inadvertently (my guess is intentionally), doesn't mean we have to report it, no matter how many other sources pick up the juicy story.

Unlike my old days, I rarely get into BLP frays anymore unless the policy violation is clear and I act administratively. Therefore, I leave it to others to come to a consensus (not easy) on this issue. I've reverted the editor and told them to take it to Talk. They added the following sentences to the talk page and then restored the material without further ado: "I have added a section to "Personal life" that expands on Cook's sexuality. The speculation, as noted by a number of reliable sources, is encyclopedic."--Bbb23 (talk) 13:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the material. Giant Snowman 13:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Victor Krylov

Hello, could one or several editors please weigh in on a dispute regarding the article Victor Krylov? In my view there are three issues:

Content: Resume-like tone, unsourced non-neutral statements, only one third-party source
Likely conflict of interest of main editor, User:Eep07
Behavior issues: no use of talk page after massive reverts, removal of "like resume" banner, aggressive edit log ("malicious", "vandalism")

I would gladly welcome the input of more experienced editors on this issue. Thanks, Ariadacapo (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I noticed user:Bbb23 took care of most of it, but even what remains has only two sources, both of which are links to the university he works at. I do notice that there is a very large list of publications and our notability requirements for professors (while I am not that familiar with them) I understand are fairly low, but I wonder if the page should be deleted entirely. CorporateM (Talk) 17:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of anything else, doesn't he satisfy WP:NACADEMICS, item #2?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, he meets the guideline one way or another. I suspect the awards do it for #2, but he also has 2500 citations in gscholar and an hindex of 25 - and gscholar is not good at foreign language publications, so his true influence is likely higher than that - which means he'll meet #1 as well pretty certainly. The combined cite count/hindex/awards also means he'd likely meet a number of other notability standards. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Now that we agree the subject is notable, perhaps someone could help me convince the editor with the acknowledged conflict ("friend" who says he owns various copyrights relevant to the subject) that their edits are non-neutral and inappropriate. Last thing he did was call me a vandal. Of course, I've been called worse.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I spend quite a bit of time cleaning up promotion, much of it is literally copy/pasted from the company website. I've completely eliminated some pay for play awards from Wikipedia alltogether. In comparison, the promotion in this diff like "pioneering paper" is well... certainly not the worst I've seen and easy to trim, but it is completely unsourced so... CorporateM (Talk) 01:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

A very warm thank you to all of you for your quick and efficient support. I’ll keep an eye on the said article but I believe the problem is now mostly resolved. Ariadacapo (talk) 07:33, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

– Input from other editors did a great start towards settling the conflict. Ariadacapo (talk) 07:33, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Cheryl Cole

It seems that Cheryl Cole‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) got married this weekend. So far no WP:RS have been added by the flurry of people editing her page. If any of you can find one that would be great. Also, per Talk:Cheryl Cole#Re-marriage to Jean-Bernard Fernandez-Versini there may be attempts to move the page so if some of you can watchlist the article that would be helpful. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk

Editor constantly adding unsourced negative material into BLPs

I've left a warning[21] at User talk:Veto118 because of unverified BLP attacks like these: [22] [23][24][25][26] I'll be travelling for the next week. Could someone make sure that he stops? Darx9url (talk) 10:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I saw this as well. I would try to assume good faith, since not all his edits are problematic, but a lot are, but time will tell. I removed some added "material" from Marco Rubio's bio about credit card miss use sourced to the Huff post blog and started a thread on that talk page. --Malerooster (talk) 15:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Paul Singer (businessman)

I am not here to report a BLP violation, but rather to raise for discussion material that is being improperly deleted from a BLP using an incorrect interpretation of the BLP policy. The article in question is Paul Singer (businessman). Mr. Singer is most notable for being the proprietor of a hedge fund called NML Capital, which is widely described in reliable sources as a Vulture fund, and is in the middle of the present controversy over vulture funds and Argentina (see Argentine debt restructuring#NML Capital.)

User:Meatsgains has repeatedly deleted references to NML Capital being described as a "vulture fund" from the article (diff,) arguing that any material that could put the subject in a negative light is a BLP violation. On the talk page, I called his attention to WP:PUBLICFIGURE, which says that "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." I also provided a partial list of reliable sources which apply the term "vulture fund" to NML Capital, and discuss Singer's involvement, including his dislike for the term:

I also rewrote the section with what I consider to be unchallengeable sourcing. Meatsgains reverted again today(diff), so I am bringing the matter to this board to solicit input from uninvolved editors. Joe Bodacious (talk) 22:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

The reason I removed the content is because Singer's "hedge fund" is being mislabeled with the misleading term "vulture fund," which is a pejorative and is slang. Words or phrases such as these are in violation of WP:TONE. An article should not be written using unintelligible argot, slang, colloquialisms, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon.

Not once did I argue, "any material that could put the subject in a negative light is a BLP violation," so I'm not sure where Joe Bodacious got that from...

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act isn't referred to as Obamacare throughout the article. Isn't this the the same situation? I'd like to hear what other editors have to say. Best, Meatsgains (talk) 07:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

You say "mislabeled" and "misleading" -- but those words seem to emerge from your own views on NML. What matters is that the term is used by numerous reliable sources. The fact that there's an entire article on Vulture funds also reinforces the case for using the term where sources describe a particular fund as such. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources describe the term "vulture fund" as "mislabeled" and "misleading," not me.

Financial Post and Huffington Post Although the creditors are often referred to as “vultures,” the pejorative is highly misleading.
Panam Post These creditors have been mislabeled “vulture funds,” a pejorative nickname that the defaulting debtor uses to qualify those who justly and legitimately demand what is rightfully theirs.

What is your response to the ACA vs. Obamacare example I posted above? I don't see how the pre-existing Vulture fund article reinforces the use of the term on Singer's personal page. Meatsgains (talk) 09:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Those sources fail WP:NEWSORG for this purpose. I note that you are choosing to edit-war over this issue. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I also added to the article sourced material indicating that there are objections to the use of term, including from Singer himself. NPOV means that all notable viewpoints are included. Edit warring to remove any reference to vulture funds is a violation of NPOV. Joe Bodacious (talk) 14:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity, you stated that because there's an entire article on Vulture funds, the case for using the term "vulture fund" is reinforced on Singer's page, yet in the article for vulture fund, the last sentence of the lead paragraph reads: "The term is used to criticize the fund for strategically profiting off of debtors that are in financial distress." It is not a descriptive term and does not improve the BLP. It's a derogatory term.

WP:BRD states that to break deadlocks, editors must "discuss the edit, and the reasons for the edit" (which we are currently doing). "Do not continue to revert, which is the beginning of edit-warring. Leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made." Joe Bodacious was the first to make the bold edit by adding questionable material to Singer's BLP. The content should be removed first and discussed. I am removing the information to return the page to status quo ante, not engaging in an edit war as Nomoskedasticity posted on my talk page. Nor did I violate the three-revert rule. I did not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Meatsgains (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

But on the other hand, you are refusing to engage in any meaningful discussion of policy. You are simply stating your personal dislike for the term, which you call "negative" or "derogatory," but as has been pointed out numerous times to you now, this is covered very specifically in WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Wikipedia policy is very, very clear on these matters, and you are trying to evade the rather obvious points being made, so your continued reverts do constitute edit warring. And the NPOV-based argument for using the term is getting stronger by the hour. Here are major news stories that have appeared in the past week on Singer and vulture funds -- it is his claim to fame:

Joe Bodacious (talk) 01:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused on how this is not considered a meaningful discussion of policy. We are both communicating civilly to reach consensus on an issue.

I am not stating my opinion on the term vulture fund. Again, you are putting words in my mouth. The following links define "vulture fund" as a "derogatory" and "negative" term: [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]. Even the Wikipedia article on vulture fund describes it as a term "used to criticize". A criticism is "negative", an opinion, and clear POV. We want to "avoid stating opinions as facts" as per WP:YESPOV.

We both can agree that vulture fund is a pejorative, which means sources that use the term as opinion fail WP:BLP. Assigning a pejorative to hedge funds, or any entity for that matter, does not improve or benefit Wikipedia.

As stated before, we are currently engaged in discussion. WP:BRD states that we must "leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made." That is indisputable and does not constitute edit warring. Best, Meatsgains (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Please, Meatsgains, I am beginning to think that you are being deliberately obtuse. There is absolutely nothing in the BLP policy that forbids the use of "pejorative", "derogatory" or "negative" terms. I have asked you about 5 times now to read WP:PUBLICFIGURE, which is the relevant section of BLP. Have you read it? Also, the article as it presently stands does not "state opinions as facts" -- it refers to the "so-called 'vulture fund'", which makes it abundantly clear that we are discussing an opinion. We could provide a list of reliable sources that use the term in the way of attribution, but it is so widely used now that it would dominate the section. The fact that some commentators regard the term as inappropriate, while others do not, simply means that both viewpoints should be covered in the article, as in fact they are. That's NPOV. You are arguing that the viewpoint you don't like ought to be exclude, which contravenes NPOV. Joe Bodacious (talk) 03:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

To be more precise, Meatsgains, if you think that "sources that use the term as opinion fail WP:BLP" then you should be able to point at the precise section of WP:BLP which they fail and quote the relevant words from policy. Your current argument is too nebulous. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 06:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

"Vulture fund" is part of a bigger problem, several articles about the Argentice economy pick carefully from sources to make the Argentine government look much better at economic management, and pretend that people who lent to the Argentine government and didn't get repaid are actually the bad guys. ''Sitta kah'' (talk) 11:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The point you make may or may not be valid, but it's off-topic either way. And for the record, the vulture funds never lent money to Argentina. They bought bonds, at a fraction of face value, from someone who did actually lend money. I don't think anyone is making the actual lenders out to be bad guys. Joe Bodacious (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Systemic distortion of content about the Argentine economy isn't a BLP issue per se, but it goes hand in hand with this thread. The bondholders certainly are creditors of the Argentine government, but articles are skewed in an attempt to demonise them, and shift responsibility for economic problems away from Argentina's government and towards "holdouts", ie. folk who just want a debt to be repaid. We now have articles which tell readers things like "Bondholders who participated in the restructuring have been paid punctually and have seen the value of their bonds rise", which seriously misleads readers when the reality is that bondholders lost money as the Argentine government tried to get out of its debts. Where this distortion affects specific living people, it's a BLP problem; but we need to be aware that there's a broader WP:NPOV problem. bobrayner (talk) 17:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

@Bobrayner: Yeah I agree with you, the articles are "skewed". We don't want to mislead readers and we can avoid this by getting rid of the term vulture fund on Singer's BLP. Meatsgains (talk) 13:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Alternatively we could follow the consensus at all the forums that have been tried so far, and leave things pretty much as they are. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe a consensus has been met. Meatsgains (talk) 06:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

SETH ROLLINS

Hi the page is messed up.

Looks like half the page is missing compares to the previous version

the ladder match earlier that night. Jacobs announced that the three had formed a stable called The Age of the Fall. The angle was so controversial that ROH decided to rem Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).

I dont want to edit it as it seems there have been problems there so better I let you know.

You didn't even have to tell us, a machine already dealt with it. Welcome to tomorrow, eh?

These things happen now and then. Maybe vandals, maybe just human error. If you see anything like it again, check the history and undo whichever crazy large red number you see. Should clear it up, if the robo-maid hasn't gotten to it first. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Adam Skorek

This article, Adam Skorek, needs attention. NPOV is not respected. Despite the number of sources, most of them are misused, not linking directly to appropriate content and some of them are questionnable (mostly primary sources), greatly reducing verifiability. It seems its french counterpart was deleted a few years ago for the same reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.19.77.2 (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I did a little copy editing, but needs much more help than I can provide. Maybe others can help. Thank you for the heads up. --Malerooster (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Charles Ryskamp - Notable people from XXX

Do we have guidance for determining who gets listed in the Notable People sections of articles about locations?

My question is motivated by a small dispute over Charles Ryskamp. Should he be listed in East Grand Rapids, Michigan, where he was born, or in List of people from Grand Rapids, Michigan where he may have lived much of his life, or both?

Does living in a town because you attended college there count? (E,g, Wayne Huizenga)

Do we have any guidance on how long someone has to live somewhere to count as having lived there?

The Grand Rapids list specifically cites "born or lived in Grand Rapids". If the criteria is silent, as it is in East Grand Rapids, Michigan, do we presume only born there, or can a person be included if they lived there?

In cases where the presumption is that one should be in a list if they are born there, how literally do we mean it? In my personal case, not that I have any chance of being notable, I was born in a different town and state than I grew up, simply because the town where I grew up was too small to have a hospital. I think it should be OK to use the parents hometown, even if the hospital is elsewhere, but even that might be an issue if, for example, someone were pregnant, unable to get home, and had a child far from "home". I'm sure this has come up before, do we have guidance?

(I am aware the subject of this article is dead, so technically, I'm in the wrong place, but I bet this is the group of people that know the answers.)--S Philbrick (Talk) 20:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm always in favour of using the birthplace, just because it's constant. A guy born in Kalamazoo can travel the world, laying his head on many pillows and influencing many people. When all these people start claiming he's from there, the mayor of Kalamazoo can say he merely went there from here. You can't say that about Kalamazoo, without knowing the mysteries of life before birth. And if you knew those, you wouldn't be wondering about this. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Alexander Borodai

a biographical voice without the date of birth of a living person shouldn't be deleted for evident reason of absence of good sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.52.75.133 (talk) 19:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no requirement that a Wikipedia biography include a date of birth. This person appears notable to me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Doing some searches, he appears to be notable, though I cannot find a good source for his birth-date. I did notice that BusinessWeek spells his last name "Boroday"[32] whereas we spell it "Borodai", however a quick glance suggests we may have gotten it right and BusinessWeek may be the one that made the error. CorporateM (Talk) 01:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Johnny Rabb

Found in browsing - what appears to be a BLP of a non-notable drummer with poor sourcing. Might someone who knows music better than I consider whether he is likely to be notable and, if so, whether the sourcing makes sense? Collect (talk) 20:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Those sources are ridiculous, including a Facebook page for the wrong guy with the same name. However, the guy may very well be notable if some appropriate sources can be found. Joe Bodacious (talk) 20:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Eric Bachour

Eric Bachour is not a significant person of importance. Their references are invalid and therefore cannot substantiate the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.146.146.39 (talk) 22:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree (sort of) and have sent it to AfD. CorporateM (Talk) 01:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Whitlow Wyatt

(Whitlow Wyatt) in your bio you state Whitlow Wyatt died in 1966. According to his tombstone he died in 1999 — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardLMcB (talk • contribs) 23:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe you misread the article. The article Whitlow Wyatt says he was "the first such coach for the Atlanta Braves in 1966" not that he died in 1966. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 00:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Ajay Singh Chautala

Article Ajay Singh Chautala belongs to most famous leader of INLD in Haryana, India. The link - Recruitment Scam should be removed from from the article. They were taken into custody but later released on bail. It was a fake case framed by opposition UPA-II government on him and his father. They got bail from supreme court of india. Now the case is under consideration in High Court, Delhi. So the link " Recruitmrnt Scam " must be removed from Article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dschautala (talk • contribs) 11:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment - I'll grant you, the section is so poorly written that it's unclear whether he's been merely accused, or convicted. Bearian (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

He was convicted, ten years hard labor imprisonment - Story subject is on bail due to death of family member http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/om-prakash-chautala-granted-interim-bail-for-21-days-by-high-court/articleshow/36000569.cms there is an appeal, final outcome not yet reported http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-07-11/news/51354624_1_convicts-jail-term-interim-bail Mosfetfaser (talk) 19:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, so it's not a BLP violation? Bearian (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

No - it was poorly written and I wrote it better - the jury is out as I understand it on the appeal - the total takedown on the father's article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Om_Prakash_Chautala&action=history seems a bit extreme Mosfetfaser (talk) 19:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

comment Has anyone noticed that the OP Dschautala has the same surname as Ajay Singh Chautala, and indeed seems to represent himself as AJ's son and has created an article about himself Dushyant Chautala (he is genuinely notable). Perhaps he should be advised of COI or maybe wp:uaa. 94.195.46.205 (talk) 03:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Michael Tierra

Hello -

Not sure if this is the right place to submit a request for correction, but here goes...

On this page, Michael Tierra, the fifth reference link is broken. It should go to http://abc.herbalgram.org.

Please let me know if I can do anything to help or if this should be submitted elsewhere.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.77.79.30 (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem is not just one broken link, but poor overall sourcing of this BLP. Bearian (talk) 19:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I have taken this one to AfD. CorporateM (Talk) 08:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Tom Goss (musician)

Hi,

I am an editor for List of Billboard Hot 100 achievements and milestones. Here's some help as to how song and album titles are coded in Wikipedia. Please take a look at this page for some examples on how to do this.

The standard process of inserting songs in a page is this -- songs have quotation marks around the title, like "Hey Jude" or "Happy". Songs are not italicized (as you have them in the top paragraph), only album titles are. You followed this is some places, but not others.

Also, wasn't Goss involved with a movie project? "You don't know how hard it is to be this hot" was a single from this project, I believe. This is not currently listed on his page.dnsla23 19:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnsla (talk • contribs)

Joe G. N. Garcia

Last week a new editor added a section to this page called "Controversy," which is confusing, unbalanced, poorly sourced, and violates WP:NPOV and WP:VERIFY. The section was removed once by an anonymous user, and the original author put it back. Our chief concerns include:

Relevance: the basic, verified facts of this event (the non-renewal of a researcher's contract) do not rise to the level of inclusion on this page; It is being treated as coat rack (WP:COATRACK)
Violation of NPOV policy: This paragraph (as well as the name of the section) is not neutral. It is clearly intended to smear Dr. Garcia and includes unsubstantiated and unsourced claims such as: "Joe 'Skip' Garcia is being accused of doing the bidding…" The paragraph implies that the contract non-renewal is politically motivated by legislators who do not approve of marijuana research but makes no mention of the fact that the university intends to continue this line of research (see for example: http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/12/health/marijuana-researcher-arizona/).
Poor sourcing: Although the author has cited a single local news story, much of the material in the paragraph is not actually included in the article cited (e.g. the statement about the internal review board has no basis in the cited article). Additionally, the material that is drawn from the cited articles is not presented in a clear or neutral manner. It's unclear where quotations begin and end, and some are unattributed to a speaker or incorrectly/unclearly attributed. Unsubstantiated and unsourced phrases, such as "…it is believed that this precipitated scrutiny and ultimately her firing" are included, and quotations from individuals are being asserted as facts, rather than claims/accounts by an individual as reported in the news media.

We request that a neutral editor review and remove this section. I am a representative of the University of Arizona Health Sciences Center, which is why I am writing to request help rather than editing the page myself. Thanks for your assistance.

HealthSciChris (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I did some copy editing and removed the controversy section for the time being. I would like to see what other citations there are and how widely this "material" has been covered. Other thoughts?? --Malerooster (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Michael C Hall

The opening page for this actor has been tampered with. It now has him listed as Sukka Mattik & other childish rude comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.178.89 (talk) 08:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Pablo Hernández (Swansea Footballer)

Recent activity has him moving to a new club without any evidence or sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.188.127.80 (talk) 10:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The article - Pablo Hernández (footballer, born 1985) - has been reverted. Giant Snowman 11:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Ann Weaver Hart‎

This is also related to a report concerning Joe G. N. Garcia above. There is a "controversy" over the firing of a university prof and funding for medical marijuana and funding for a politician and veterans getting involved and whatelse?? This is WAY over my paygrade. A new editor disclosed his conflict of interest from the university and asked if I could get involved in these related bios. I removed the "material" from both bios for now and would ask others to get involved. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Michael Pitts (preacher)

A request came across the Dispute resolution noticeboard in regard to Michael Pitts (preacher). I closed that request as a DRN volunteer for lack of adequate discussion, but I'd like the BLPN community to take a look at that article. The subject is a big-fish-in-a-little-pond and virtually all the non-negative information about him is inadequately sourced to non-reliable sources. The negative information does appear to mostly be adequately sourced (though part of it may violate BLPCRIME), but if the non-negative, non-reliably-sourced information is removed then only the negative information will remain and I'm very suspicious that this might then violate NPF because the subject of the article is not enough of a public figure to justify an entirely-negative article. In any event this article looks like a battleground between the pro-subject promoters and his opponents and of little encyclopedic value. I started to send it to AFD for those reasons, but I'd like to get a second opinion (eh, @CorporateM?). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I've culled through it, removed the junk sources, read some of the good sources and deleted most of the article in the process. The press is very strange. A man driving while intoxicated is not a major news event just because he is a pastor and the accusations of public indecency seem to be pure speculation by "eye witnesses" that change their story, completely de-bunked in court by evidence that he was somewhere else at the time. I'm not that familiar with BLPCRIME and it's possible another sentence or two might be appropriate, but we shouldn't have such excessive coverage about what is essentially gossip and speculation, even if the media (in their wisdom) chose to do so. I do notice that later he used the events as an example of hard times that make you stronger in one of his books and the ordeal does seem to have been a significant event in his life. CorporateM (Talk) 16:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I've chopped out the remaining stuff about unsubstantiated allegations and DUI conviction.--ukexpat (talk) 17:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

While the accusations themselves were largely unsubstantiated or trivial, the gossip and speculation that surrounded them appear to have been an important period in his life. He later used this period of strife in his book to talk about overcoming challenges. I think our policies probably do support Ukexpat's complete removal, but I do feel his life story is not complete without covering this time period of his life where he dealt with this issue. And it is not unreasonable for us to state plainly and concisely that there were baseless speculations, that they were baseless, but nonetheless, that they occurred and caused him difficulty. CorporateM (Talk) 01:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Jake Rush

See the comments at Talk:Jake_Rush regarding sourcing, etc. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

An American politician that had the misfortune of having his offline activities covered by the press. Inevitably perhaps used against him. Kbabej insists this should be its own separate section, while I edited it to remove some irrelevant tabloid-ish content and blend it into the rest of the article (diff). I'm looking for some input as to whether this is really necessary from a WP:UNDUE perspective. I feel it makes the article seem like the role-playing stuff is 1/3 of the man's biography. I don't advocate outright removal of the material because of the level of coverage and sources (more in the article's talk page) but I do think we shouldn't make it into a circus either. Not sure if other editors agree. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this would be a WP:PUBLICFIGURE in the context of the allegations and the incident and what not. However, I do not think that it should warrant its own section. Reading the 'personal life' section as it sits, I think is a good compromise. It's not overshadowing it and blowing it out of proportion, but it's not too little mention either. Tutelary (talk) 02:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

This is tough. The key part of policy is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented. Is it all of those things? We are not a tabloid, but we also don't want to whitewash an article. I always feel that "material" has to have a very high level of noteworthiness(is that a word) and relevance to be included, especially for bios of politicians, since material can be added for partisan reasons. We all see things through differently tinted glasses as well it seems. Good luck. --Malerooster (talk) 03:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Walter Benn Michaels

This article appears written entirely by its subject. The claims made about? (by?) the subject are never supported by citation nor derived from facts observable. All items are uncited -- especially statements about the author's/ subject's fame and ingenuity: "The speed of Michaels's logic..." (sic). The career hagiographized does not warrant or merit any treatment -- certainly not such extensive self-puffery. There is no countervailing view/ data/ opinion. I recommend the article be deleted immediately, and an investigation made of the author's "identity" and expertise with a view to blocking publication].

Gnothon 16 vi 02014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnothon (talk • contribs) 03:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

If the article has problems, you're quite allowed to fix them. There's no need to delete the thing wholesale. Instead, just fix it up. If it needs references, find them and add them. If it needs the language improved, edit it and improve it. If there are key facets of the subject's life left out, research them and add them. We're not going to stop you. --Jayron32 03:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Marie Mason

This is something I don't know how to do. Apparently Marie Mason is now self-identifying as a man and is now known as Marius Jacob Mason. You can read about it at his prisoner support website: http://supportmariusmason.org/2014/07/07/free-marius-jacob-mason/ The title of the Wikipedia will need to be changed or have a redirect on it as other websites are now using his name, such as this one: 'Marius Mason was arrested in March 2008 after his former partner – Frank Ambrose – turned informant for the FBI. Facing a life sentence if he went to trial, Marius accepted a plea bargain in September 2008, admitting his involvement in the burning of an office connected to GMO research and the destruction of a piece of logging equipment. In February the following year, he received a sentence of almost 22 years. More information on Marius’ case can be found at www.supportmariemason.org.' http://neveraloneart.org/about-june-11/

The website 'supportmariemason' in the quote above now redirects to 'supportmariusmason' so I think WP should reflect this. I have put a couple of lines in the article but don't know how to change the article title.

Cheers, Tobermory ^conferre 07:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Johnny Winter

A bunch of IP addresses over the past day or two have been trying to change the article to reflect the death of Mr. Winter. However, I cannot find any reliable source to confirm that (a couple of nonsense blogs). I need to get sleep, and I don't actually get involved with these kind of articles, but I saw it pass my news feed on Twitter mentioning that "Wikipedia says that Johnny Winter is dead." So, hopefully someone can protect the article or something until there's some sort of reliable information about his life or death. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 08:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Confirming what SkepticalRaptor said above. I haven't applied protection, but the page merits watching. I've dug into the alleged references and there are two blog-type articles citing a Facebook update, which itself is uncommittal. Manning (talk) 09:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Update - I have now protected the page, as the updates were coming thick and fast. The rumour may well be true, in which case please update accordingly. Manning (talk) 10:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Death has been confirmed by AP, so I have removed the protection. Manning (talk) 11:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Adam Kwasman

Minor politician seriously gafted by thinking bus load of kids were illegal aliens, when in fact they were local kids headed to the Y. Talking heads pick up story and off we go.

I would leave out this "material" as gotta journalism for now. --Malerooster (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Igor Girkin

Please keep an eye on this BLP. He's the rebel military commander who claimed credit for shooting down a plane right when an airliner crashed in eastern Ukraine. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I wrote the story as reported by reuters - in this Internet link - http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/17/us-ukraine-crisis-airplane-idUSKBN0FM22N20140717 - hot topic at the moment - might need locking Mosfetfaser (talk) 19:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

People r messing up

people r messing up christina aguilera's wiki pg can u revert it back to its normal way here the link of the old version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christina_Aguilera&oldid=602901270 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xoxozamina (talk • contribs) 20:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I have restored content that was deleted for no apparent reason. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers

As I have pointed out here, the article 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers violates WP:BLPCRIME. Nevertheless my edits to correct this ([33], [34], [35], [36]) were reverted. I even got an insult on my talkpage. It should be noted that the alledged suspects seem to be guilty before proof, and this is not questioned in the sources. This should be considered in the article. --Wickey-nl (talk) 10:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

If the content is properly sourced, relevant and of appropriate weight, it's not precluded by WP:BLPCRIME. It's appropriate to have some content about the suspects if it is widely-reported. I see that at least some of your reverts were mandated by WP:BLP. There seem to be some new editors causing some problems so I requested page protection for the article.- Mr X 11:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Absent charges, it is best practice not to give any names of "suspects" vide the Richard Jewell case. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and we can afford to wait until strong sources appear for any charges. Collect (talk) 13:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

As to BLPCRIME, what MrX said. In the case of public figures, which these have become with all the public attention (same as with the accused Boston Marathon bombers), there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative. Epeefleche (talk) 16:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Given the high-profile nature of this crime, I don't think it's inappropriate to name the suspects. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Given what happened to the Palestinian teenager in Jerusalem, naming alleged suspects could be putting their life in danger. Chris Fynn (talk) 19:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Not sure where to post this

There's an interesting point being made at Talk:Cem Özdemir. There's a source that states the subject self-identifies as a "secular Muslim". The infobox indicated that this was the case. An editor claims that it ist WP:SYNTH to claim that since there is not a source that states "Ozdemir's religion is secular Islam". Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with Spiegel. Is it a reliable source? If it is that source seems to state the claim. It's not really clear however what Secular Islam is. I wonder if perhaps it means unaffiliated in this case?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Der Spiegel is one of the largest, and probably the most well-respected weekly publication in Germany. Spiegel Online, the web publication, has an Alexa rank (for most visited sites in the world) of 168 , which makes it No. 8 in Germany (http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/spiegel.de) . It's both popular and reliable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Well then you have a source for it. The thing though that keeps kicking me personally is the Secular Islam thing. He Self Identifies by it but what is the meaning? Honestly I stick the Secular Islam part in the article and keep the infobox simply to Islam. I wonder if the synth claim comes from that? Honestly I don't see real issue with the way y'all are doing it but I personally wouldn't do it that way.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Plenty of people identify themselves as a "Secular Jew", do you know what that means? ~ I guess this is similar. Chris Fynn (talk)

Narendra Modi (2002 Gujarat riots)

Wikipedia says on the 2002 Gujarat riots page:

The report also made mention of the BJP and Modi in "Promoting the attitudes of racial supremacy, racial hatred and the legacy of Nazism through his government's support of school textbooks in which Nazism is glorified".

The "Modi" in question is Narendra Modi, the-then Chief Minister of Gujarat, and the present Prime Minister of India. So, Wikipedia is making a rather serious allegation against an important Living person. The "report" is supposedly some unnamed report of the National Human Rights Commission of India. Well, all the reports issued by the Commission regarding Gujarat can be found here,

http://nhrc.nic.in/gujratorders.htm

but the quoted words are nowhere to be found.

The problem is that the material has been passed through various sources. First, there is the National Human Rights Commission, whose words were reported by the US International Religious Freedom reports in a certain way, and these words were interpreted and added to by a certain Bill presented tothe US Congress (which was never debated or passed in the House), and words from that Bill were quoted in a book by Martha Nussbaum, and the words further reinterpreted by Wikipedia editors who wrote the article. A certain amount of distortion has crept into each level of reporting, when finally what is found on Wikipedia is completely unrecognizable to the original.

I am able to correct the inaccuracies. However, the senior editors with revert rights, who watch over the Wikepedia article, are insensitive to these issues, and revert all my changes instantly. After a lengthy debateon the talk page, the User:Vanamonde93 concluded with "I have little patience left for this particular argument." I believe this is a rather callous attitude to BLP issues.

What do you suggest that I do? --- Uday Reddy (talk) 00:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

If the quotes text is not reference you can most definitely unquote it and reword it (of course you will need consensus to reword). --AmritasyaPutra✍ 17:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

What is in the reference (Martha Nussbaum's book) is as follows:

On March 15 Congressman John Conyers (Democrat from Michigan) submitted a House Resolution cosponsored by Congressman Joe Pitts (Republican from Pennsylvania) condemning the conduct of Modi in inciting religious persecution in Gujarat. The resolution referred to the condemnation in the U.S. State Department’s Religious Freedom Report, to the admonition of Modi by the Indian Supreme Court for “complacency and actions in connection with the attacks on non-Hindu groups,” and to the finding by India’s National Human Rights Commission that there was “evidence of premeditation in the killings of non-Hindu groups, complicity by Gujarat State government officials, and police inaction in the midst of attacks on Muslims and Christians.” Significantly, it also referred more generally to the role of Modi and his government in “promoting the attitudes of racial supremacy, racial hatred, and the legacy of Nazism through his government’s support of school textbooks in which Nazism is glorified” and to the finding (by the U.S. State Department) that Modi revised high school textbooks to describe Hitler’s “‘charismatic personality’ and the ‘achievements’ of Nazism.”47

To me it seems fairly clear that the author is quoting the two congressmen (who in turn supposedly quoted the Supreme Court, the National Human Rights Commission and the US State Department). However, our Wikipedia editors want to cut the congressmen out of the picture and want to directly attribute the words to the National Human Rights Commission and the US State Department. (I suppose it gives greater weight to the claims that way.) However, those agencies did not exactly say what the Congressmen claimed. In particular, the bits about "racial hatred" are not in any of the original sources. They were inventions of the Congressmen. So, the quoted words are there in the reference. But they are not attributed to who the Wikipedia article claims. So, this is a bit of a subtle problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reddyuday (talk • contribs) 19:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

S. P. Udayakumar

Article is poorly sourced — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.5.132.50 (talk) 06:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Poorly sourced how? I can't see anything obvious that should cause concern. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The sources are reliable and definitely adequate, especially for how short the article is. I see no issue. Meatsgains (talk) 15:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Mark Mathews big wave surfer - only has one T is his last name!

Can whoever created the 'Mark Matthews' wiki page or for those who have access to this, please change the title to 'Mark Mathews'. He only has one 'T' in his last name. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Matthews_%28surfer%29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starlet2014 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Apparently the sources differ about this. The Australian even has both versions of Matthews and Mathews in in one and the same article. De728631 (talk) 01:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone know of a way of reaching the article-subject and just asking them? CorporateM (Talk) 04:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Moved page to Mathews. Personal web page, facebook, twitter, linkedin, multiple news articles from surf magazine all use Mathews. Double t was used in a photo caption in that one The Australian news story and not in the article itself; clearly a typo after looking at other sources. __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Google bomb#Personal reputation

I just added an entry under Google_bomb#Personal_reputation about a person apparently so non-notable to not have an article for himself. I added this because it was reported as a notable hack of Google listings and the person in question has continued to put himself in the public eye as a source for reports.

For example: http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140719/DEFREG01/307190016

Did I do the right thing in this case? Hcobb (talk) 15:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The link above is to an unrelated story. And if the source you cited in the Google bomb article is the only one concerning the individual concerned, it looks undue to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The same news story has gotten play in other places.

etc. Hcobb (talk) 15:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Those do not appear to be RS... Giant Snowman 15:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Why do you feel that Advance Publications and Business Insider aren't RS? Hcobb (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Looking into this further, I don't think that even if the claims could be properly sourced, they'd fit the definition of 'Google bombing' that our article gives: "causing a web page to rank highly in search engine results for unrelated or off-topic search terms by linking heavily". Instead, it looks like simple 'reputation management'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Samita Bajracharya

This article is about a minor who is the Lalitpur Kumari (or "living goddess") As she has to retire from that position as soon as she attains puberty, I think there should only be an article about the position, not the person. Chris Fynn (talk) 19:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The article was also created by a blocked user and so someone has now deleted it. Chris Fynn (talk) 19:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Mohammed Deif

I removed some claims from Mohammed Deif per WP:BLPSPS (diff). They've been added back (diff) with the explanation that "WP:BLPSPS is BY DEFINITION not applicable since the referene is a secondary souce, and the policy is for primary sources." This is a novel reading of the policy to me. I'm not even sure why the IDF blog would not be a primary source, since this organization is certainly giving an "insider's view". --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 02:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see your point, frankly. Or perhaps I do, and just don't agree? Seriously ... you think what the IDF reports is a "self-published" "personal or group blog"? Epeefleche (talk) 02:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I won't say it is a "personal or group blog". It is a self-published source. The policy reads "Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject." --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 02:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Your first post asserts that you deleted the material "per WP:BLPSPS". WP:BLPSPS says "Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs." We use what the IDF reports and what the Gaza Health Ministry (for example) reports and what the US State Department reports all the time -- which is fine. Where appropriate, clarity can be added by attribution. Epeefleche (talk) 03:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, because it is a self-published source. The IDF published it, the IDF wrote it. Therefore, it is self-published. Did someone else write it? Or did someone else publish it?

Sure we use such all the time. But by policy, it either has to be from a non-self-published source, or not for a BLP. Lots of non-self-published sources give IDF reports. Lots of articles are not BLPs. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 03:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Our blps are replete with .gov refs. "Self-published" has a completely different connotation here. Attribution for clarification is fine, however. Epeefleche (talk) 04:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Richard Wallace (scientist)

Each and every statement in his biography is either unsourced or based on his own autobiography. -109.65.48.161 (talk) 15:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I read the article, and did a bit of research and it seems that this person may not be notable enough to warrant an article in Wikipedia. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

W.I.Z.

Hi,

My name is Ken Eakins, I have worked with WIZ recently on Dark Horses' 'Live on Hunger' video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cF4nKT75zk You can see my name in the credits.

For some reason, WIZ's name has been entered as 'W.I.Z.' not 'WIZ'. I asked him, and he has no idea who initially entered the page, or why his name was spelt this way. It's actually causing me problems as well, as the direct link cannot be linked back on my site for references (I assume because of the three egregious '.' in his title.

I have edited all of the offending '.' out of the article, but I don't seem to be able to change the actual main name on the page. Can this be done for me?

Some proofs that he doesn't go by 'W.I.Z.' can be found at the following links - Promo news article http://www.promonews.tv/videos/2012/12/06/strait-street-featuring-dark-horses-wiz A video by WIZ which shows the correct spelling of his name - http://www.nowness.com/day/2012/11/25/2613/wiz--strait-street Article about his Oasis video - http://www.promonews.tv/videos/2009/02/11/oasis’s-falling-down-wiz

I just set up a Vimeo page with him as well, which is kind of definitive I guess - https://vimeo.com/user3517081

Anyway, thanks in advance (I'm guessing the 'W.I.Z.' was an old affection that he used to go by?— Preceding unsigned comment added by SittingNow (talk • contribs) 19:23, July 19, 2014‎ (UTC)

Hi Ken, and welcome to the wonderful world that is Wikipedia. That article currently have a great problem (and could possibly be deleted), it´s not cited to any reliable sources (WP:RS) whatsoever, and the only external link working is the IMDB one. Lots of articles don´t get a lot of attention, so this not uncommon, though it can be more serious when it´s about a living person (WP:BLP). I quickly found this [37] source though, so I´m fairly certain there are good sources out there. That source call him W.I.Z., imdb says Wiz (if I´m looking at the right one), and Wikipedia generally want the article to be called what he usually is called in mainstream media (what he himself prefers is not necessarily the deciding issue). I´m not sure which name is "best" right now, but maybe there are other editors around who can say. Finally, please be aware of WP:COI. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The article is now suggested for deletion, which can be discussed here: [38]. If the article is to remain, it needs to be shown there that WIZ fulfills the General notability guideline, see WP:GNG. You are most welcome to help with that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Kevin Hearne

I just saw that there is no Kevin Hearne page, the log says it was repeatedly deleted basically because this author isn't significant. I don't understand how having 7 novels published by a major publisher, and writing several short stories and novellas, does not make someone significant. There are several articles about his books on this Wikipedia, for example The Iron Druid Chronicles for the whole series or Hounded for one book. Yet, the author's bio was deleted (even in 2014 when he had 6 novels published), and is now protected… we can't edit it.

Could someone unprotected the Kevin Hearne article, and maybe ask the people deleting and locking it to cool it off a little?

--Jérémie Bouillon (talk) 09:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

If you want to create an article for a subject that has been repeatedly deleted, I suggest going through the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process. That way, an article can be reviewed and problems ironed out before it gets posted in article space. That doesn't guarantee that it won't get deleted, but it should clear the most likely problems. Having said that, you're going to need more to establish his notability than that he has published novels; that is what a novelist does, and being a novelist doesn't make one inherently notable in Wikipedia's eyes. See WP:AUTHOR for our basic standards for notability for writers. Really, if you can find a couple of independent, third-party articles about him and his work in significant places, or some good awards or even nominations, you should have it well in-hand.

The folks that have been deleting the article have been doing what they're supposed to do, it looks like, so no need to ask them to cool off. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Well beside the WP:AUTHOR rules being stupid (which is somewhat ok, IAR is there for these kinds of things), maybe a vague passing notion of book publishing would allow anyone to guess that if Del Rey has published 7 of someone novels, there's 2 reviews about some of these books out there. I mean, can someone point to any author published 5 or 6 times by such a publisher that does not have at least 2 independent book review? Ever?

Not 2 seconds of Google gives one and two. There, requirements met. Add another second on Google and get three, four, five, six, seven, eight and so on.

I would suggest you go through the Wikipedia:Articles for creation to discover that it doesn't work for locked article.

So, now that I spent way too much time dealing with rule lawyers who don't read their own rules, maybe those incredibly smart deletionist could write said article for me? Well for everyone else really, I don't care that much more, I personally don't need it. Nice, thanks. --Jérémie Bouillon (talk) 23:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

You can introduce it via the AFC process by creating it as a draft in your userspace (say, User:Jérémie Bouillon/Kevin Hearne. Then, as the AFC article notes "To nominate an existing draft or user sandbox for review at Articles for Creation, add the code {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft or sandbox page." It would probably be best to note on the article's talk page that this is an attempt to get a properly sourced and supported article into place for one that was deleted in the past, so it isn't assumed that you're just trying to resubmit the same content which had been previously deleted (as people sometimes do at AFD). --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what the article looked like, but it seems that it probably shouldn't have been deleted under Wikipedia:CSD#A7, which only applies to people with no credible claim given for importance of any kind at all, whether sourced or unsourced. Was the article less than a stub? If it had other issues it should have gone to discussion before deleting. At this point, this is a NYT bestselling author, which I would think would warrant a stub at least.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the deletion log, it was nominated for A7 speedy deletion because of "concerns over notability" and "lack of independent sources". This is not what A7 speedy deletion covers, and those are bad reasons for an A7. It looks like it must have failed a PROD in February 2014, which means it should have gone to a broader discussion, not a speedy deletion with less discussion. I think User:JzG took the wrong step here. I have no idea what the original article looked like or what kind of deficiencies it (or fellow contributors) had, so I'm assuming good faith all round, but I don't think it should have been speedily deleted. If the original article can't be looked at, it should be revived as a stub now.__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't recall the specifics but it was IIRC related to spam / COI edits and no claim of notability other than "he wrote some books". I could easily have been wrong, feel free to do whatever seems good. I don't have bandwidth right now, just spotted an email, so let any othe radmin know I am completely cool with undoing any admin action I took. Guy (Help!) 23:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much for responding, Guy. I understand COI problems, and if that was the only people working on the article then it would be unhelpfully spammy. But this author was on a national bestseller list this week, so maybe people might be looking on Wikipedia for him at some point, regardless of whatever happened in the past. The page is still administrator-only protected, so if someone could unsalt it, I can commit to making a stub article.__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

All good, and a better article too. Guy (Help!) 18:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

David Tillinghast Multiple Inaccuracies

The following article contains major inaccuracies:

David Tillinghast

It appears that someone has combined multiple biographies and artwork from the web into a single article. This has recently caused embarrassment when this wiki article was used by conference organizers to present a biography and artwork to introduce me as a keynote speaker at a national conference.

Below is a comprehensive biography of mine for comparison:

“David Tillinghast graduated from Art Center College of Design in 1985 with a BFA in Illustration, Awarded With Distinction.

He has been a regular contributor to many of the major newspapers and magazines around the United States, and his work has appeared within the marketing materials for corporations such as Visa, Freddie Mac, and Harvard University. In a highly prolific twenty-nine year career, he has worked extensively in most major markets within the Illustration industry, including Advertising, Editorial, Book Publishing, Design Collateral, and Corporate Illustration.

His work has been selected for inclusion in industry publications including Communication Arts Illustration, Graphis Design, Graphis Logo, HOW Self-Promotion, Print's Best Booklets and Brochures, Print's Best Illustration and Photography, Print Regional Design Annual, Society of Illustrators Los Angeles, Society of Illustrators New York, and Step-By-Step Graphics. He has also appeared in galleries around Los Angeles. He is currently an Associate Professor and lead advisor for the Art Center College of Design’s Illustration department.

His association with Designmatters, Art Center’s social impact department, has taken him to the United Nations as a delegate for a project supporting the Millennium Development Goals, and their most recent collaboration, Uncool: The Anti-Gun Violence project, produced a series of children’s books that were adopted into local Public Libraries.

He is the recipient of numerous awards, most recently for Art Direction from the AIGA for Mark and the Jellybean Monster by Ariel Lee, which was selected as one of the fifty best books of 2012.

Partial List of Clients: Time, Inc., Business Week, Fortune Magazine, Texas Monthly, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, New York Times, Bantam Publishing, Viking/Penguin, Harper/Collins, McGraw-Hill Inc, 3COM, IBM, Freddie Mac, Hewlett-Packard, Visa, Motorola, Lucent Technologies, Nortel, Solectron, Xerox Corporation, Harvard Business School, Vanderbilt University.” Just a further head’s up: I grew up in the Pacific Northwest, and lived in New Zealand for a time as a child. I have been a resident of the greater Los Angeles area since 1982. I have no children. I was married for nearly twenty years, but my late wife passed away in 2011 from breast cancer. My mother is one of the last surviving Air Force Service Pilots, whom received the Congressional Gold Medal in 2010.

Can someone correct this article?

David Tillinghast Los Angeles, Ca

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at Dtillinghast, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you.

At wikipedia we try to ensure that article content is supported by reliably published sources and so I have believe I have removed many of the items that you claimed were inaccurate because they lacked such sourcing. However in doing so, it appears that David Tillinghast may not meet the basic requirements for having a stand alone article - namely that third parties have discussed the subject in a significant manner. Perhaps you can you point the way to any professional reviews of the work? or any major awards that can be verified by sources that are not affiliated with Tillinghast ? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Requesting a second opinion on Hema Malini

Editor raised questions on Hema Malini about the person's religion. Not clear cut and I have concerns about the sources and wanted a second opinion from someone more familiar with BLP policies. Please see Talk:Hema_Malini#Religion.3F. If this is the wrong place for this request, please let me know. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Scott Hirsch

Article was brought to my attention as a "why does he get an article and my client doesn't?" It's actually a legitimate question. Most of the references are just random pages, primary sources or broken links to articles that do not mention the article-subject. A few quick searches bring up no sources of significance, except for a paragraph in TIME about being a spammer. Article appears to be primarily edited by SPAs.

I am not sure if there may be some remote conceivable COI in this case, so rather than AfD, I thought I would post it here. CorporateM (Talk) 03:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

True, the current links in the article aren't very good, so I looked around before nominating it for deletion. Turns out there are a few reasonable articles about Scott Hirsch out there. For example: Sun-Sentinel InformationWeek Sun-Sentinel again. All together I think he does have sufficient coverage; also, I admit I am intrigued by someone who can promote boxing on the one hand, and software on the other, it's not a common combination. --GRuban (talk) 19:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

There's some kind of wishy-washy thing going on there, one of the citations flat out calls him a spammer, yet it's used in a different context. And as far as I can see the significant coverage refers to that apps thing rather than everything else. I'd say we should have an article about the company/product and not the CEO. Smells like a curated vanity bio. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Joseph Beninati

IP user 63.92.230.217 is repeatedly adding information copied verbatim from what appears to be a slam blog. I have reverted and asked them to stop several times.HtownCat (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I've given a final warning to the IP. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

ThanksHtownCat (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Nivedita Bhattacharya

Requesting some eyes at Nivedita Bhattacharya where a COI editor has basically overturned the article into essentially a puff piece, written like an advertisement.. Connormah (talk) 16:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I did a little copy editing, but needs better help. --Malerooster (talk) 17:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Adam Marshall

This article could do with some eyes. There's an editor trying to include some serious negative claims in a BLP article without any citation at all and I'm getting fed up with reiterating the same ground. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

"Religion:none" and "Religion:atheism"

Forgive me if this issue has been discussed before (I suspect it has but can't track down specifics), but I am having a problem with new User:SocialistDemocrat100, who is insisting on changing wording in BLP infoboxes from 'Religion: none (atheist)' - or similar - to 'Religion: Atheism'. This has arisen at Heinz Fischer, Demetris Christofias, and elsewhere. My strong view is that atheism, agnosticism, etc., are not religions, and that 'Religion: none' is the appropriate wording in such cases. "The off switch on the TV is not a different channel." If I'm right, I need help in convincing the new editor, who has not responded on his talk page and keeps making the same edits (with irritatingly inaccurate edit summaries). If I'm wrong, let me know. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you, but I think we should leave that parameter blank rather than "none" - "none" isn't a religion either.--ukexpat (talk) 16:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

How some articles do it is that they put 'None (atheist) in that regard. Tutelary (talk) 16:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I would be delighted if the parameter were left blank. The point at issue is that the other editor is repeatedly changing 'Religion: None (atheist)' - which is OK with me - to 'Religion: Atheism' - which, to me, is patently wrong. If the consensus is that the other editor is in the wrong, I'd better take it to WP:AN/I. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Atheism is defined as denying the existence of deities, higher beings and whatnot, so you could argue that this is a religious belief of its own. "Religion: none" implies, however, that the person does not care about any sort of religion at all. So we'd better keep these two entries separated. If in doubt, leave it blank. De728631 (talk) 16:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

De728631 wrote "Atheism is defined as denying the existence of deities, higher beings and whatnot, so you could argue that this is a religious belief of its own." This could not be more mistaken. Atheism is not "defined as denying" anything. It is the absence or lack of belief. Every child is born an atheist since it is born lacking a belief in "deities, higher beings and whatnot"; it is not an atheist because it "denies" them. To deny something is an act of volition. No such act is necessary to lack a belief in Yahweh, Vishnu, Thor or any other claimed god. The actual definition of atheism is easily deduced from the word "theism" -- the belief in a god or gods -- and the prefix "a", which simply means "without" in ancient Greek, from whence the word comes. Occam's Shaver (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Any text in that field needs a solid source. The question is thus reduced to what does the source say? Unless there is a source, leave it empty. If the source says something that we don't think is a religion, the source wins. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. We don't get to opine that people are atheists in the absence of positive information to that effect. Mangoe (talk) 13:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Even if a person is an atheist, that parameter should be empty (and possibly removed per Two kinds of pork below).--ukexpat (talk) 13:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Like any religion - Wikipedia is best served by using self-identification in any such cases. If no such self identification is made, we well ought to use the "blank" as the default. Collect (talk) 13:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd go one step more and remove the field when the value is blank.Two kinds of pork (talk) 13:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

"Religion: Atheist" implies the person congregates with other atheists for the purpose of discussing atheism, which has a slightly different context than "Religion: none (atheist)" Kind of like in politics when someone says they're independent vs. in the American Independent Party. -AngusWOOF (talk) 14:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Given that there's no such thing as a reliable source for what goes on in X's head, the only meaning that can be reasonably ascribed is that of congregation or outwardly stated beliefs. To my thinking only direct statements of the "I think Z" type should suffice, but I doubt that will find consensus. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

We must do what sources tell us, but it is very unlikely that a source will tell us somebody's religion is atheism.

There may be a field in the infobox, but we don't always have to fill every field. Shabratha (talk) 13:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll take the words out at Heinz Fischer and elsewhere, see what happens, and report back.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

There is the slight issue that "religion: none" by itself could include non-religious theism or deism. With just "religion: none," Ben Franklin and Richard Dawkins would be classified as the same irreligion despite having completely opposite views towards religion and theism. Theism =/= religion, as evidenced by Buddhism, Jainism, and Raëlism. Atheism =/= irreligion.

Religion fields should not be incorporated unless there are good sources documenting a particular label. "I have no religion" would be "religion: none," while "I am an atheist" would indeed be "religion: atheism." "Beliefs about religion" would be a more accurate title for the field, but it's also too long for such a field. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Atheism is not a religion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

But irreligion is not inherently atheism, and atheism is not always irreligious. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Regardless, atheism is not a religion, making your earlier suggestion that "I am an atheist" would justify "religion: atheism" in the infobox incorrect. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Fine, how about "Religion: none (atheist)"...? Or do you have an actual solution? Ian.thomson (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

"Religion: none" is more than sufficient. Giant Snowman 19:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

This line of arguing suggests that we should change "Religion" in the infobox to "Belief system:" or something that "atheism" would fit into, and where "none" (in which the people has specifically stated they do not hold any beliefs) would fit as well. --MASEM (t) 20:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

We go with that the RS say, as always. Giant Snowman 19:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, per WP:CAT/R, we go by self-identification alone. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

As sort of indicated above, some religions can be described as atheistic, which can complicate things here. New Atheism, Strong agnosticism; and Weak agnosticism complicates things even further. Personally, in these cases, I think it makes sense to leave it blank or "none declared" without an unambiguous declaration from the subject. John Carter (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The other, seemingly undiscussed issue is whether a subject's religion, or lack thereof, is relevant to why that person has an article. In the vast majority of cases, it's no more relevant than the colour of their eyes, and should be omitted. HiLo48 (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Its undiscussed because because that is idiotic. I am a deletionist, minimalist, but any well written bio would include mention of how a person was "raised" and religious affliations, ect. We are not saying that their religion is why they are notable unless that is the case. --Malerooster (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, for better or worse, up until the last 150 years or so, it was in many or most areas a topic related to sometimes extreme divisionsin society. And didn't end there. In Nazi Germany, Cristero War Mexico, the Soviet Union, and elsewhere, one's religius beliefs and affiliations had major impact, although, admittedly not so much in the West since WW II. John Carter (talk) 22:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

That's true Johne. Maybe my "vast majority" descriptor was a bit off beam. Unfortunately however, our recentism problem means that we have a huge number of articles on recent sports stars and filme and media personalities. Religion is irrelevant for most of them. In my country, Australia, religion is irrelevant for most people. And Malerooster, while religion may be part of a bio for a lot of (but certainly not all) people, where it's not a major factor in why we have an article on them, it shouldn't be in the Infobox. That's for important stuff. HiLo48 (talk) 23:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48, I would say that in 99%+ of bios, religion in NOT the reason for having an article or the reason for the subject's notability. That said, we still include it in most well written bios because it does have biographical relevance unlike eye color as the example you used, especially for, say, US Presidents. Should famous tennis players or actors have it included? I would defer to editors or writers of biograpghys. A certain editor, not to be named, has "jammed" the factoid that subjects are Jewish, into every bio of Jewish athletes. Its done in a really, awkward, no context fasion, and is quite annoying, but it continues. In those cases, I agree that it shouldn't be include, since it seems gratuitous(sp). Cheers, --Malerooster (talk) 23:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm from Australia. Religion here is now a pretty low key thing for most people, even for most of the claimed 7% who attend church regularly. I understand about US Presidents. The claims of Obama being an evil Muslim even reach here. And that our present PM once trained for the Catholic priesthood does get brought up. But most Australians wouldn't be able to tell you the religions of our past several PMs. Yes, religion goes in a good biography if it was a big part of a person growing up, but rarely in the Infobox. HiLo48 (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, specifically for some living people who aren't covered in "Who's Who"-type sources which almost always include a "religion" line I would agree with you. Unfortunately, if those generally short biographies include a 1- or 2-word religious description, it can be hard to argue we should omit something those shorter articles include. John Carter (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

P.S. In all honesty these infoboxes would be significantly more useful in many or most if the religion and ethnicity parameters did not link to the main article but to a "foo by country" article. If I were to ask the tasteless quasi-joke "Can you find a living atheist in Iran or Afghanistan" (tasteless answer - not for long) it might be much more informative to link to Atheism in Iran than the main atheism article. Such regional subarticles can also include some information on many of the characteristics included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Encyclopedic articles#Worldmark Encyclopedia of Religious Practices where such information is available. John Carter (talk) 18:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Clearly the solution is to remove all infoboxs from BLP's.... Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

It Probably is better to go with Religion: none (atheist) or Religion: Atheism. You could have no religion but Believe in a God. Religion: none does not indicate atheism well.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

There are also religions that explicity deny the existence of deities yet are still religions (even being officially recognized as such by governments), such as Scientology and Creativity. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 05:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

berlusconi

Title is false and smearing the guy..Court overturned the case. He is not guilty.Stephanie Bowman (talk) 12:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

No opinion on guilt or not needed here - but the case is in limbo, so word changed to "trial" as being quite neutral. It may not be a perfect solution, but it seems to work IMHO. Collect (talk) 13:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Oops -- already renamed "sex scandal" by another editor although I think that may also have problems as a title. Collect (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

OP says he was found innocent, but the current page says guilty. In either case "trial" rather than "scandal" would be more neutral. CorporateM (Talk) 00:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that all sources point to a scandal, regardless of the outcome of the court case. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

in the header - and on July 18, 2014, an appeals court overturned Berlusconi's conviction, thus making him once again eligible to hold elected office. - imh-opinion trial would be better, he has been proven innocent of the allegations, so there is defacto no scandal to speak of. Silvio Berlusconi proven innocent of prostitute sex allegations would be a more blp following story title - it is clear to me to follow blp is important and as he is now innocent I have moved the story to Silvio Berlusconi prostitute trial Mosfetfaser (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Although this conviction has been overturned, Berlusconi is still carrying out free work at a hospice following his conviction in an unrelated fraud case, and is therefore not eligible to hold elected office. RolandR (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

You may well be correct. I translated the web page used to write this story - thus making him once again eligible to hold elected office - and it was not verified so I took it down Mosfetfaser (talk) 17:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Does overturning his conviction=proven innocent? Or does it mean he wasn't proven guilty? Just asking. --Malerooster (talk) 01:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

A person who has been acquitted of a crime - I do get the point though, lol - Mosfetfaser (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Climate scientists generally and Michael Mann Specifically

I've tried to remove some harmful material, believing it to be case of what I call "stealth libel". My deletion was reverted and I'm going to leave the material in the article while soliciting input, starting here at BLPN.

Article Name: Public opinion on global warming

Figure and Text I attempted to remove read:

Based on Rasmussen polling of 1,000 adults in the USA conducted 29–30 July 2011^[1]

A July 2011 Rasmussen Reports poll found that 69% of adults in the USA believe it is at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified global warming research.^[2]

This poll, of course, is directly measuring the impact of media coverage of Climategate.
In the long-running froo fa fa, various people said things about Dr. Michael Mann that prompted Mann to file defamation lawsuits.

In US Fed District Court for DC, there is this one which reached a procedural matter which defendants lost. They appealed, and that appeal is now pending. If affirmed, the case will be sent back to the trial court for the discovery phase.
In British Columbia, there is also a suit against Timothy Ball, which last I heard is in the discovery phase.

Although the poll wording at issue here is vague with respect to specific individual name, the 2011 poll came after two years of fairly intensive media coverage of the controversy . In my view, the sly wording of the poll is being exploited to do by the backdoor what can not be done directly - mount a BLP / defamation-esque / libel-esque attack on climate scientists generally, and Michael Mann specifically.

The example I used at the article talk page is this

Said X to media- Mr. Y raped my daughter.

Media newscast- X says Y raped X's daughter

Poll- Do you think anyone raped X's daughter?

Defamation lawsuit filed

Statute of limitations would have expired if suit had not been filed

With investigations finding no evidence of any rape at all, and with the defamation lawsuit pending, it's not appropriate for wikipedia to facilitate the spread of gossip by reporting "The poll reported 80% of the townsfolk think the girl was raped" ("by whom" being slyly implied with plausible deniability).

What say ya'll? Was my revert justified? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

No, your revert was not justified at all. Where in the text are any names even mentioned? This is not even a BLP issue. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPGROUP "The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis." In addition, anyone with the even a modest familiarity with the issue immediately knows this is about the Climategate emails including specifically the plaintiff in these lawsuits, Dr Michael Mann. Does sly omission of a name that is obviously implied allow backdoor BLP ? That's not the way my Momma raise me, anyway. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The content does not mention any groups either, you are just making shit up to remove something you do not like. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Research climate scientists are a group; nothing in the BLP policy says such a group must have a formal name. Plus, as I said, an honest person with a bare familiarity with the 2009 Climategate and the two years of media hype knows the 2011 Rasmussen report was asking about the scientists involved in that flap, at which Mann was a central member. In my view, you're defending assassination by innuendoNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The removal is completely justified. The intend of the poll (and its addition to the article) is clearly the defamation of those involved in the so-called "Climategate", since proven to be complete bollocks. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 21:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

And were exactly in the content is climategate mentioned? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

It is obviously insinuated. This "some scientists have falsified global warming research" leaves little room to pretend it might be referring to anything else. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 21:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

It is not insinuated at all, it does not mention names, nor groups. There are no BLP issues with the content. It is a poll reporting on what people think. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is. "it does not mention names, nor groups", that's why it's called an innuendo. "There are no BLP issues with the content", debatable. I disagree with you. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 22:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

If you follow the link to the report provided below it clearly indicates that the poll was prompted by a NASA study that the deniers used to their advantage. It has nothing to do with the East Anglia emails that I can find. Can you point to something specific that does mention them? --184.69.53.98 (talk) 22:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't say it was "prompted", it comments on a NASA report being purposely misinterpreted by a group of deniers (which happens quite often). The title of the poll (69% Say It’s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research) leaves little room for interpreting it as not being related to the so-called "climategate" fiasco. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 22:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying that Rasmussen is biased for the deniers because they asked people what they thought about the possibility of scientists fabricating climate research, or are you saying that Rasmussen is biased against the deniers by pointing out how the deniers purposely misrepresented the NASA report? The poll clearly mentions the NASA report when explaining the background for the poll. I don't see East Anglia emails mentioned at all. So again do you have anything of substance to link them or is the link pure conjecture on your part? --184.69.53.98 (talk) 23:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how this is a violation of BLP or "stealth libel". This is an article about the Public opinion on global warming. It would seem extremely strange that we cannot cover the topic of the public opinion on global warming in an article about the public opinion on global warming? I don't even understand how this is a BLP issue. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

(A) Suppose the article was Public opinion on NewsAndEventsGuy's pedophile status and the poll said "In order to support his own plausible deniability, how likely do you think it is NAEG only looked at child porn on his computer without ~~downloading~~saving it?"

(B) The actual ultra-leading question was "In order to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming how likely is it that some scientists have falsified research data?"

(C) If you haven't read Climategate you may not get the context, and may not know about the subsequent 2-3 years of frequent media hype that led up to this poll.

(D) The ultra-leading poll question is obviously tied to the climategate hype, which has spun off data-falsification claims that are now being litigated as defamation. The Fed Dist Court (DC) ruled on a procedural matter in Mann v National Review saying

Accusing a scientist of conducting his research fraudulently, manipulating his data to achieve a predetermined or political outcome, or purposefully distorting the scientific truth are factual allegations. They go to the heart of scientific integrity. They can be proven true or false. If false, they are defamatory. If made with actual malice, they are actionable.
— Ruling by the court

(E) Your point is very well taken that results from a non-leading poll question on this subject, produced by an organization with a much better rep for neutrality than c, would be a great.... no, make that awesome... addition to the article. But the ultra-leading Rasmussen poll question generated the results they sought and really looks like stealth assassination of the group being asked about (climate research scientists). We should not aide and abet the BLP attack on this group. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I know who Michael Mann is and I'm aware of the context. Even side-stepping the issue of whether there's an identifiable person here (I don't think that there is), there is a world of difference between saying "it is at least somewhat likely scientists have falsified global warming research" and saying that "69% of adults in the USA believe it is at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified global warming research." If you have a reliable source saying that the poll question is misleading, then that certainly can be included in the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

This is not really too complicated: the poll is unscientific and demonstrates the success of the fossil fuel lobby in sowing, in the public, a doubt which does not exist in the relevant scientific community. It's a useful illustration of how political interests have influenced public opinion and created an illusion of doubt. It stands alongside the work of the tobacco industry as an example of the way that vested interests can put off decisive action which is desperately necessary but not in their financial interest, and it can e presented in that context because there are many sources that support this. Guy (Help!) 18:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, see Push poll; this particular poll had just 6 questions. I only just learned that term or would have linked to that article in my initial edit summary at the articleNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Push poll indeed, with confirmation bias to boot. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Someone remind me why we bother citing Rasmussen Reports at all, for anything? Aren't they fresh off predicting a Romney landslide in 2012? MastCell ^Talk 23:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

References

[1] Rasmussen Reports 29–30 July 2011

[2] Rasmussen Reports July 29–30, 2011

[1]

[2]