This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

Stephen Leather (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It would be helpful if someone could take a look at the massive changes implemented by a new account (and an IP whom I suspect is the same person as the new account). The edits are messy and some are clearly contraindicated. However, some of it may be salvageable.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 16:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the right forum to mention this. I have recently opened a discussion regarding the deletion of P. Kalyanasundaram at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/P._Kalyanasundaram.

The reason for mentioning it are that it seems a bit of an unusual case of a biography of a living person where there are claims made in normally reliable sources which seem to be verifiably untrue and/or highly implausible. I think some guidance on the actual content of the article would be helpful, as I appreciate the sensitivies involved of writing about a living person in a way that may be quite negative and therefore I thought there might be some editors here who have a lot of experience in these sorts of issues. -- _nonsense ferret 17:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

If this is not a form of canvassing then I do not know what is. Go read that article and try to figure out how the claims made could possibly be construed as "negative" in any degree. The claims are that the subject is a recognised philanthropist - they may be wrong (although they are sourced) but the idea that being lauded as a philanthropist is somehow "negative" just beggars belief. - Sitush ( talk) 17:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Posting at BLPN about a living person is never canvassing, in my view. There is never a problem in having more eyes on a BLP article. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 17:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Generally, I would agree. However, what we have here is a situation where someone has nominated an article at AfD for one reason and then brought it to BLPN for another reason, but linking the two. If anyone honestly thinks that information sourced to The Hindu, including alleged interviews with the subject, is going to get Wikipedia into legal trouble before the AfD closes then I would be astonished, especially when it is most definitely not negative. Perhaps I am being cynical and for that reason I will apologise for publicly suggesting that this was canvassing; it will not change my own opinion, of course. Sorry. - Sitush ( talk) 17:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see your point Sitush? I'm pretty sure none of the very experienced editors at this noticeboard are likely to rush to vote at an AfD, but I was rather hoping they might offer some insight on what the long term future of this article could be. Due particularly I think to the social networking promotion of the subject the article has been recreated several times and deleted for various reasons. If it is to be kept it will require a very careful sifting out of fact from the myth that seems to be growing up around it - that is exactly the sort of thing that I don't feel I have the experience to know how to approach it.-- _nonsense ferret 17:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

You are getting hung up on the social networking stuff. Concentrate on the sources used, not the unused stuff. Effectively, you are trying to synthesise unreliable sources (Facebook etc) with usually reliable ones (The Hindu, Frontline and other "quality" Indian media). I still do not understand why you think the article is "negative". - Sitush ( talk) 18:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I see - happy to clarify that point, I don't think that the article is currently negative, but I think a properly researched neutral article which shows that there is a bit of dubiety about claims made could and probably should be quite negative. It seems reasonably clear that the award mentioned in the article and reported in the newspaper is one that is paid for from a vanity publisher and not anything to do with the UN - i'm not sure how to tackle that in the article without unfairly making someone look like a fraud. -- _nonsense ferret 18:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

That's easy: find some reliable sources that say so. "Reasonably clear" is your own deduction and definitely not acceptable in a BLP. - Sitush ( talk) 18:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

from your comments on the AfD - it appears to be a deduction that you have also made. That is precisely why this is such a difficult issue for a BLP I think. If a normally reliable source makes a claim that ordinary people can see, including as far as I can tell both you and me, really doesn't add up then that seems to me quite a problematic case. Can I prove that he didn't meet the president of the US, or head a UN organisation, or get a UN award? I'm not sure what would count as proof of that but it does seem to have been discussed in quite a lot detail on the talkpage last time around but as it was deleted it doesn't seem to have been that much of a problem. -- _nonsense ferret 18:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no intention of changing the article because I already know that there are no reliable sources out there that are available to me and which substantiate what you think is my opinion. What you do is, of course, up to you but hypothesising is not going to work in a Wikipedia BLP. I'm fairly open-minded about it: the AfD seems to be more about alleged failings of notability and concerns about alleged pressure from social media rather than whether he did what he did. Sometimes, ferreting for nonsense is pointless within the constraints of how Wikipedia works. I can't stop you from publishing your thoughts/deduction etc anywhere else, of course. ;)- Sitush ( talk) 18:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm glad that nonsenseferret brought this here as there are distinct problems both with the article and with the AfD itself. Just so it's clear, I'm not blaming Sitush, but nonsenseferret's claims seem borne out by the article's now-deleted history. I've commented at the AfD. My comments there and here are in my administrative capacity, not as a voting editor.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 19:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

In the article LewRockwell.com, per this diff, an editor wants to include criticism of a living person ( Gary North) from a self-published blog by Tom G. Palmer, using a WP:RS that criticizes that person to back up the negative criticisms on the self-published blog. Sounds like WP:Synthesis to me and against Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Avoid_self-published_sources which I've quoted there:

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. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Posts left by readers are never acceptable as sources.[5]

I don't have a problem with them using the WP:RS on the person's article. But I do have a problem with the attempts to use a rather inflammatory self-published blog, and fear it will be a bad precedent for more of the same in this article. (Plus arguing about it has stalled my ability to collect a number of WP:RS showing the notability of the website in general, leaving article extremely unbalanced.) Thanks for your help. CarolMooreDC🗽 22:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

This is a misrepresentation of the record. On his website, Tom Palmer explicitly cites and discusses the RS of Reason magazine in support of his criticism of north for wanting stone gays and heretics to death (a claim which, as can be seen from the Gary North Wikipedia page, has a copious number of RS). In other words, he's criticizing North for x, and explicitly basing his evidence for x on RS y; mentioning his criticism and his basis for that criticism (an RS which he discusses explicitly extensively in the piece) is not SYN. The full excerpt Carol is objecting to on the LewRockwell.com page is as follows: On his personal website in 2004, Tom G. Palmer criticized Lew Rockwell, as well as LewRockwell.com, for hosting as a columnist Gary North, whom Palmer noted (citing a 1998 piecehttp://reason.com/archives/1998/11/01/invitation-to-a-stoning in Reason) advocates "stoning heretics and homosexuals to death." (the source for the Palmer criticism is: http://tomgpalmer.com/2004/09/25/gary-north-lew-rockwell-and-the-politics-of-stoning-heretics-and-homosexuals-to-death/) Clearly, there is no "BLP" issue here. Steeletrap ( talk) 23:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I was previously unaware of this discussion, but I happened to notice the BLP violation and removed it from the article. [1] A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 23:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Having brushed up on WP:BLP, the criticisms of Sobran and Francis (which Quest for knowledge removed, and is ostensibly referring to) were apparently violations of WP rules (though Palmer's claims about them are easily verifiable, they were unsourced, and thus "came from him" and are in violation of WP rules.) But, to stay on point, this is not the case with the Gary North criticism which Carol raises above. Palmer's claim re: North is based on evidence from an RS (Reason) which he explicitly discusses and cites in the article. (he doesn't "allege" North wants to stone gays to death any more than I "allege" Obama was President of the Harvard Law Review; he (like me) is paraphrasing RS that credibly reported that.) The only thing original to him is his criticism of LRC for publishing him. Steeletrap ( talk) 00:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, looks like WP:Synthesis applied to WP:BLP. Put the Reason article on the Gary North web page where it belongs. CarolMooreDC🗽 00:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

This is a tricky situation. Reliable sources show that North said X, and that he was criticized for it, this is in North's article. Can we include in another article — where it is relevant — that fact? Does this violate WP:BLP or WP:Synthesis, or is it OK? FurrySings ( talk) 01:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, there is a solution to this. His LRC comments, and criticism, gets expounded upon in his BLP (to the extent that the page-watchers of his article allow), and a "See further" hatnote or "See also" link gets added to the LRC page. – S. Rich ( talk) 04:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC) [stricken] 20:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Palmer's blog as a WP:RS on WP:BLP is out and he's the only one mentioning both North and LRC/Lew Rockwell together. North is already listed as a columnist with a link. I did find another North article mentioned by a WP:RS and will put it in with a link to his article and people who care to can go over and read the Reason and other articles. Anything else is synth and verboten. CarolMooreDC🗽 19:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, Palmer's web site can only be used as a source about himself, not other people or third-parties, even in his own article. So, Palmer's website cannot be used a source about LewRockwell.com anywhere on Wikipedia. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 20:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: both Joseph Sobran and Samuel Francis both are dead and have been for more than two years. So, per WP:BLP there is no BLP issue, and any "BLP" discussion in regards to them (not North) is therefore baseless. Steeletrap ( talk) 23:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Remember that Palmer criticizing both Lew Rockwell and LewRockwell.com is the crux of the issue, or mentioning Sobran and Francis would not be relevant at all. Plus Palmer's comments are hardly dispassionate remarks by an expert on libertarianism, but highly personal rants meant to damage Lew Rockwell and LewRockwell.com and therefore their reliability is rather questionable. I don't think any real encyclopedia would use them. CarolMooreDC🗽 12:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Steeletrap still does not understand why s/he can't use the Palmer material or material mentioned by Palmer that is not about LewRockwell.com so that s/he can enter negative material about one (or possibly more) of the website's writers into the article with no secondary source linking them. Help explaining it to her/him sure would be appreciated! At Talk:LewRockwell.com#Palmer_criticisms. Thanks. CarolMooreDC🗽 02:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The reopening of this thread, which had gotten stale, is not needed. I made an inquiry on the article talk page, Steeletrap has responded, and we are now hashing out details on the talk page. – S. Rich ( talk) 03:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not stale if the person is still arguing to violate WP:BLP policy, despite clear comments and edits to the article by noninvolved editor(s) who reply at this noticeboard. It seems to me that WP:IDONTHEARTHAT is especially applicable to WP:BLP. How many editors have to make it clear to an individual that you can't use self-published blog articles like Palmer's whose whole intent (as made clear in title of one article and text of another) is to attack a living person. The purpose of noticeboards is to help settle issues, not for them just to be be moved back to and argued out ad nauseum on article talk pages, with editors having to quote Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Avoid_self-published_sources over and over and over again. CarolMooreDC🗽 13:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Please state your concerns in a civil tone and without assuming that ultimate consensus will support your view. If you are feeling nauseus, please consider a brief respite in fresher air off WP. SPECIFICO talk 13:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think my tone was unduly uncivil and expresses frustration more with the process than an individual. But searching through WP:BLP yet again, mea culpa. I find the relevant second paragraph of Wikipedia:BLP#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material which provides clear guidance on what to do in a number of WP:BLPs where I have seen similar problems. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 19:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The section Concerns on Results is heavily biased and scathing to the subject. Papers get challenged all the time. In this case the challenge has been inconsequential. This section only serves the purpose of defaming the subject. Please remove. Haydee Belinky — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.8.23.0 ( talk) 13:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Ariel Fernandez (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Most of the section was a direct quote from the source so I removed it as copyvio. I agree that it is far to trivial for entry. The article itself may end up in AfD for not being notable enough.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 14:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Someone just paraphrased it and added it back. I still believe it is too trivial to include. I couldn't be bothered to fight a battle over it though. Others may also wish to see if the article meets or notabilty standards and possibly put it in AfD for review.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 01:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Evidently, somebody is interested in discrediting Ariel Fernandez. This is a trivial matter that does not belong in Wikipedia. Please remove. Haydee Belinky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haydee Belinky ( talk • contribs) 06:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anybody is interested in discrediting Ariel Fernandez per se. I think that Ariel Fernandez is paranoid that people are out to discredit him (for whatever reason) and this comes across in his demeanour. But there are certainly some free speech activists out there, offended at shallow legal threats made by Ariel Fernandez towards a couple of blogs, who have expressed an interest in using Wikipedia to bait Ariel Fernandez into somehow making an ass of himself. Disruptive behaviour will not be tolerated here and the Ariel Fernandez page will strictly be held to BLP policy, but Ariel Fernandez (under whatever guise) should still exercise caution in his interactions here to ensure that they are not successful in their aims. Rubiscous ( talk) 17:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The section in question had nothing to do with legal threats. It simply stated the facts about an editorial expression of concern recently issued by a scientific journal. It was removed at the request of "Haydee Belinky" (probably Fernandez). I disagree with this because the expression of concern is an important part of the scientific record that people will want to know about. How about at least adding an external link to it? AlphaHelical ( talk) 14:12, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't removed at the request of "Haydee Belinky", it was removed following "Haydee Belinky"'s request because Canoe1967 considered it weakly sourced and trivial. As far as I can see, only one other scientific BLP on Wikipedia mentions the text "expression of concern", and that's within the context of widely discussed misconduct. Is this expression of concern about Ariel Fernandez's work really such a noteworthy event as to warrant the only other mention? Rubiscous ( talk) 03:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I take your point, but I hope you take mine: the request for removal, along with claims that the matter discussed is trivial, came from the subject of the article in an attempt to hide something significant. To answer your question, yes, it is quite noteworthy that one of his institutions investigated him and found that his reported results could not have been produced the way he claims they were. This means, at best, that he made a serious scientific error that he will not acknowledge, and at worst that he fabricated the results. AlphaHelical ( talk) 13:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Stephen Hawking (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Boycotts of Israel (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Academic boycotts of Israel (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Israeli Presidential Conference (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some extra eyes on the articles above may help for a few days. I've boldly removed some content per WP:NOTNEWS for now [2] [3] [4] since matters are not clear at this stage, it's a breaking story (e.g. the Reuters article " Confusion as Hawking pulls out of Israeli conference" was only published a couple of hours ago) and it involves WP:BLP. I've already been reverted once. Since this combines a living "celebrity" with the Arab-Israeli conflict there is much potential for...let's say volatility. I think it would be better to wait a week or so to see if things become clearer but patience isn't very popular. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your removal of this content given the contradictory reports. GabrielF ( talk) 16:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

It's probably worth adding, since many editors may not know, that this content is probably covered by WP:1RR under WP:ARBPIA because it is related to the Arab-Israeli conflict "broadly construed". Sean.hoyland - talk 16:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Different sources say different things. Complete opposite of one another. His official website says nothing. Recent sources say its for the boycott. Check the time zones, when was each report done? [5] Dream Focus 16:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I would say if we are relying on time zones to resolve the conflict, there is still a conflict. Just because one published after the other does not mean they have the most recent information. Gaijin42 ( talk) 16:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

This source attributes Hawking's nonattendance to "health, not boycott". Bus stop ( talk) 16:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Or not.( JTA Forward) This is what WP:NOTNEWS is for. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Is the Intel angle notable? http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2013/may/08/stephen-hawking-hypocrisy-israel-boycott Hcobb ( talk) 18:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Hawking will probably be subjected to many more attacks by Israel supporters. It's probably another reason to wait a while. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I I do believe enough time has passed and the matter has become sufficiently clear at this point. Before adding things though, Hcobb brings up a good point. What is relevant to mention in an Encyclopedia? I for one do not believe mentioning the intel thing is at all relevant. I think it should be stated as simply and concisely as possible, so as not to blow this out of proportion like the news did. Just say he joined the academic boycott of israel by boycotting this specific conference in Jerusalem hosted by th Israeli president. Thoughts? Also, Sean, why did you revert my content only on the boycott pages but not on Stephen Hawking's page? I am not attacking, I am just wondering how came to decide to do that. Daniel Stavons ( talk) 13:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

It's actually in the Hawking article already. This is not the first time Hawking has made controversial statements that created uproar (he called the Iraq War a "war crime", and supported Universal health care for example). All that is needed is to add this one briefly to this list, and this has already been done. Slp1 ( talk) 16:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I removed information from 3 articles then explained why here.

• 2013-05-08T15:52:50 Stephen Hawking [6]
• 2013-05-08T15:20:57 Boycotts of Israel [7]
• 2013-05-08T15:20:48 Academic boycotts of Israel [8]

I didn't check who originally added the content to those 3 articles because it wasn't relevant, so don't take it personally, I just removed it for the reasons explained above. I didn't make any edits related to this issue in any articles after posting here. I think enough time has probably passed and the matter has become sufficiently clear at this point too. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello Sean, I was wondering what to do about IranitGreenberg who recently tried to re-add the incorrect story about Hawking actually canceling for health reasons on the Boycott of Israel page. Right now, I just undid the revision and linked to this discussion board. Is that the appropriate response? Daniel Stavons ( talk) 15:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

If he's edit warring, with or without 1RR, put it on his Talk page so admins will know of all the various violations on various articles. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 16:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Narendra Modi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a controversial politician from India, the dispute is about the lead. It is mentioned in the lead that Modi is a controversial figure both within India and internationally. His administration has been criticised for its actions during to the 2002 Gujarat violence (emphasis mine). An editor feels that in addition to the sentence given it should be mentioned that there were allegations against him of complicity which were not substantiated in the court of law in the Lead, which I think would not be needed because 1)Reference to violence is already mentioned in the lead in the sentence His administration has been criticised for its actions during to the 2002 Gujarat violence, actions of an administration also includes the actions of the head of the administration that is Modi. 2)The fact that the allegations were not substantiated in a court of law gives a bigger reason not to mention it in the lead.Here is the revert which might help in understanding the dispute. - sarvajna ( talk) 15:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• The reason Modi is controversial is not primarily because of the acts of his administration but because of allegations that he has personally aided and abetted Hindu massacres against Muslims in the 2002 Gujarat Violence. He has been accused of this from various sides, including his own supporters on hidden camera recordings. It is correct that so far none of these allegations have been upheld in court (mostly because many of the testimonies have not been accepted as evidence), but this is the reason for his controversy and appears in a multitude of reliable sources and in the body of the article. Of course it has to appear in the lead as well, anything else would be disinformative. The lead has to be able to stand on its own as a comprehensive overview of the topic, and if it does not mention these accusations it fails on that account. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 20:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Like I said above acts of Modi's administration includes Modi's acts as well, he has been accused of something but most importantly nothing has been proven in the courts, the theories about why things were not proven in the court is not something that should matter to us, an investigation team setup by the country's highest court absolved him (I am sure they have enough expertise on handling testimonies). Highlighting those accusations would be unnecessary and would result in discrediting an innocent person -- sarvajna ( talk) 05:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Also we should not forget the fact that the people on hidden on cameras have lied, yes it is a fact covered by reliable sources.- sarvajna ( talk) 07:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• I am involved in editing the Modi article and there is no doubt that it has attracted a substantial amount of POV contributions in recent years. That is inevitable given the controversial nature of its subject. I am also the person who suggested that this dispute concerning weight in the lead should be raised here, and I can see both sides of the current dispute. It is not like me to sit on the fence when it comes to India-related topics but that is where I am. We really could do with some uninvolved opinion regarding application of WP:BLP and WP:DUE to lead sections. Please. - Sitush ( talk) 23:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
• It is both that charges haven't been proven and for new reports like the Modinama that suggest that Modi took all action possible and that he was CM only for a few months and that his handling of the situation was better than 1969 Gujarat, when 6000 died. I support Sarvajnya. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 18:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what weight can be given to the Manushi thing but comparing 2002 with 1969 appears to be a red herring. The issue seems to be not whether he did better than before but whether he did the right thing, period. - Sitush ( talk) 11:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

If you cared to read Manushi you would know what he did was a right thing, no one can be perfect in what they did hence the reference to 1969. - sarvajna ( talk) 07:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Tiffany Brooks (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A few contentious edits regarding alleged "pay to play" and other nonsense by IPs. A few more eyes would be appreciated. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 19:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I thought when you said "pay to play" it was a euphemism for something else, but it appears that the allegation was actually her paying to play. Barney the barney barney ( talk) 16:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Yah, and not even sourced. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 04:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The article on Max Jones (journalist) should either be removed or edited substantially. It is incredibly self-promotional and misleading. How can a child be an "expert" on Korea? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.225.198 ( talk) 21:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I have confirmed that the article is not currently protected in any way, so you are cleared to proceed with editing it substantially. If you prefer to nominate it for deletion, WP:AFD is the place to do so. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 21:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Puff all based on SPS and "feel good interviews with a kid." Documentary never released. AFAICT, non-notable in case anyone wished to AfD it. Collect ( talk) 16:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The content from Tea Party movement:

Ozark Tea Party steering committee board member Inge Marler opened a June 2012, Arkansas Tea Party rally of over 500 people by telling a racist joke about African-Americans on welfare.

Sources:

• Tea Party founder: Racially charged 'joke' in bad taste; The Baxter Bulletin; June 13, 2012
  • Audio file from Baxter Bulletin news article source:
• Inge Marler, Arkansas Tea Party Leader, Makes Racist Joke At Event; Huffington Post; June 16, 2012
• Arkansas racism, tea-party style; Washington Post; June 15, 2012
• Arkansas Tea Party Rally Kicked Off With Racist Icebreaker Joke; ColorLines; June 19, 2012
• Black dialect joke a hit with Ozark Tea Party; Arkansas Times; June 14, 2012

The concern: Insufficient sourcing for controversial material about a living person.

Longstanding content being removed from Wikipedia article, citing BLP concerns. The latest reasoning is that since the initial reporting paper only has a circulation of 10,000, in a county of 40,000, it's not major enough to be a reliable source. (?!) Initial reporting done by on-site reporters from the local newspaper (Baxter Bulletin) covering the Rally, with follow-up coverage by local and national agencies. I do not believe the BLP sourcing concern is warranted for the above sentence, but I thought I'd run it by this noticeboard for good measure. Xenophrenic ( talk) 11:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

First of all the name was dropped, and the tea party isn't a person. I don't know what U.S. law thinks about companies and organizations being persons, but this is definitely not a BLP concern. Secondly, both of these are not generally reliable sources. The Washington Post one is a blog and Huffington post is also lacking, but the event they write about DID happen and they contain the same lines and a link to the audio of it. Lastly, the article is fully protected right now and requires an admin to respond to an edit request filed on the talk page. I see no justification for it right now, but I would bring your concerns there. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 12:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The BLP concern is not about the Tea Party movement. The content is about Inge Marler, a living person. The concern raised was that the content was not sufficiently sourced to meet BLP requirements. Like you, I also see no justification -- but I wanted to run it through here for thoroughness. Xenophrenic ( talk) 17:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The proper venue per discussion about it being RS is, oddly enough, WP:RS/N. Where you can argue that a paper with a circ. of 8,800 and three "staff writers" has a "strong reputation for fact-checking." Collect ( talk) 16:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion isn't "about it being a RS". This discussion is about whether that single sentence about Inge Marler is sufficiently sourced (see above sources) to meet BLP requirements. Regarding specifically the Baxter Bulletin newspaper article, it is a very reliable news source. Looking through their news stories, they do implement corrections, retractions and editorial revisions as required to maintain accuracy -- a hallmark of a reliable source. Please review their policy and principles regarding their reliability as a news source.

Seeking and reporting the truth in a truthful way; We will dedicate ourselves to reporting the news accurately, thoroughly and in context. [...] To help protect these Principles, practices have been drafted to address such subjects as unnamed sources, correcting errors and other issues. These guidelines have been distributed within the newsroom and are available upon request. This newspaper and its news professionals are committed to observing the highest standards of journalism, as expressed by these Principles.

That applies to their reporters, staff writers as well as their several editors. Xenophrenic ( talk) 17:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Your source says "racially charged" and does not say "racist" - the terms are not synonyms, so what you are saying is that you would misuse a poor source to establish the point you wish to make about a living person. I fear that is not a hell of a lot better than simply using poor sources in the first place. Again WP:RS/N is thataway. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 18:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

No, that is not what I am saying. Xenophrenic ( talk) 19:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Baxter Bulletin appears to qualify as a reliable source for the purposes of a statement saying a 'racially charged' joke was told. I wouldnt use it to say anything other than that. That other sources are saying its racist - well thats a different argument. IMHO racially charged = racist, but since the US seems to want to split the two to make racism by public people acceptable that can be dealt with by saying exactly what the source says. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 07:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Would someone be able to check out recoveringgrace.org, and whether it can be linked to from the Bill Gothard article? I have reverted the addition of this material, but the IP editor in question is very insistent that the website is not WP:SPS. St Anselm ( talk) 22:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

It is not WP:RS for contentious claims about any living person. Collect ( talk) 22:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Whether the website is 'self-published' isn't actually what matters - what matters is whether it passes WP:RS standards as a reliable source. And given the WP:BLP requirement that "high-quality sources" be used for contentious material, I can't see any possibility of such a website being acceptable. If allegations of abuse are to be discussed in the article, they will need to be cited to uninvolved sources, rather than to an organisation set up for what it states are "survivors of abuse". AndyTheGrump ( talk) 22:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to see the community's view on the use of childrens' photographs in this article. It seems to me that photographs of named injured children are being used for obvious propagandistic purposes. No evidence is provided that these children and/or their families approve of this use, and even if they did I don't think it would be appropriate. In fact I find this to be a quite offensive cynical use of these children. Thanks for your input. Zero ^talk 23:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

File:PrivacyOrder81.pdf is the Israeli law that covers it. The English translation is in the other versions section.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 01:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Generally the English Wikipedia operates by US law. I'm not a legal expert, but it seems like parental consent is needed: Children's Online Privacy Protection Rule. Zero ^talk 03:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to trouble you kind people again - but could someone take a look at this edit that I made at Tullian Tchividjian. I removed a controversy section referenced almost entirely to blogs (even though if they are blog posts by renowned experts). But User:BaptistBolt is insistent that the material belongs. St Anselm ( talk) 03:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The 'Controversial Views' section doesn't belong in the article at all. Without an independent, credible source asserting that Tchividjian's views are controversial, there is nothing to justify a section. The blogs cannot be accepted as WP:RS as they are self-published: see WP:BLPREMOVE. In any case, even if they were admissible, all it could show would be that there was a debate - they wouldn't indicate who's views (if any) were the controversial ones. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 04:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Amiram Goldblum (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Three separate editors are now working on this article to include as many smears as possible. Goldblum is an Israeli leftist activist, and at least one of the editors currently active there is a devote of Steven Plaut -- so that we're getting a concerted attempt at POV editing to make Goldblum look bad via cherry-picking of his own comments and other people's views. For more background on the POV element of certain editors, this ANI discussion might help. But please do have a look at the article itself. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 12:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

This is just one more example of the abuse to which WP:BLPs on controversial people are subjected. I think we need a discussion somewhere on more enthusiastic admin sanctions against this kind of nonsense. I hope some admin takes some action at ANI. Left a note there:

Dear Administrators: Please note Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Administrator_instructions which helps you leave templates on users pages. If they ignore you evidently you can advance to tougher sanctions.

FYI. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 12:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd appreciate some input and advice regarding this edit. The reference - now removed - is here. Thanks. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 15:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Nope, per WP:BLPCRIME. If and when this becomes a huge thing (with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources) and there is an actual case, with actual criminal charges, then yes. Otherwise no. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 16:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

It's ok. It's referenced, and the entry states what the reference does, that he was accused, not convicted, nor guilty.

Further, this is a newsworthy event. I put it back in, Free Range Frog removed it. I won't reinstate.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  17:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that it's newsworthy. Wikipedia is not a news agency, and for BLPs when there is nothing more than an allegation or suggestion of a crime having been committed, we err on the side of caution. As I said, if this becomes an actual criminal case or receives substantially wide coverage then it can be added. Right now, no. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 18:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

We are having a election soon here in omaha. would it be possible to get a review of the Jim_Suttle page and then have it locked down? Its being messed with in all sorts of ways. -- 72.213.25.120 ( talk) 19:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the contribution you made here [10], I think the editor was correct to revert. The source does not indicate that he is "heavily anti-gun" or that he "wishs (sic) to ban [guns] from the omaha city limits", it says that he "support[s] a local ban on assault weapons and limits on high-capacity magazines". The phrase "heavily anti-gun" is an editorial judgment on your part, not a fact. I doubt that Suttle would agree. Wikipedia's policies are to present facts in accordance to how they appear in reliable secondary sources, not to print the opinions of individual editors. Please see WP:OR and WP:LABEL for more details. GabrielF ( talk) 20:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be an edit war in this and the Ohmaha article. I just reverted an IP an a new editor.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 14:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

An anon IP user and now a registered user are repeatedly inserting a ludicrous and extraordinarily-poorly-sourced conspiracy theory into this article, which flatly accuses the president of the United States of conspiring with the Taliban to shoot down a U.S. Army helicopter. Not only is this is a ludicrous conspiracy theory, it also represents a clear violation of the Biographies of Living Persons policy - it is an unsourced/poorly sourced accusation of treason. More eyes on this article would be appreciated. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 09:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Saket_Agarwal Not notable, barely any sources and reads as though it was created by the user himself (see the personal information and the edit history) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianjclifford ( talk • contribs)

Nominated for deletion. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 01:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

So, with regard to Ryder Skye's birth date, an IP kept getting reverted at the Ryder Skye article, including by me. [11] [12] [13] Then editor Tasseorace ( talk · contribs) showed up to revert me and maintain the IP's changes, and we further exchanged words via edit summaries: [14] [15] [16]. Tasseorace also showed up at my talk page to maintain that the birth date I reverted is correct. On my talk page, I told Tasseorace the following: "Wikipedia has policies and guidelines for its editors to follow. In this case, WP:Verfiability is what matters. We cannot take your word for it that Skye is the age you state she is, not without WP:Reliable sources. I understand that you have directed me to sources on this matter, but I don't know how reliable they are and still don't completely know what to make of this situation. You have made WP:BLP violation edits to this article, like this one from last year, apparently the actress has edited the article as Ryderskye, and you have reverted Ryderskye while editing as an IP. Like I stated in this edit summary, I am taking this matter to the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard; you can make your case there."

So, yes, some attention on this matter from this noticeboard is needed. Flyer22 ( talk) 16:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any RS for a birthdate. Her modelling agency and the adult movie database are both lame sources and could be intentionally incorrect. Unless you can find a reliable source then leave the birthdate out for now.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 17:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I certainly have no problem leaving the birth date out. But as you can see from that article's edit history, Tasseorace/the aforementioned IP has continually re-added the birth date that Tasseorace believes is correct. Hopefully, once Tasseorace reads my latest replies on this matter, and yours or anyone else who agrees with you about this, Tasseorace will agree to leave any mention of Skye's birth date out of this article. If not, then Tasseorace does face being blocked and the article will likely be semi-protected or full-protected. Flyer22 ( talk) 17:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

You could try removing the date with an edit summary referring to a talk page discussion and add Template:Uw-ew to their talk pages if they revert. If they violate 3RR or edit without consensus then you could escalate to admin. 1978 is probably correct but without RS then it shouldn't be included. See: Hoang v. Amazon.com for a similar case.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 17:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Tasseorace responded to the comment I previously left on my talk page about this, and it seems that he or she would be willing to leave any mention of Skye's birth date out of the article (though he or she clearly wants the 1978 date to remain). Flyer22 ( talk) 18:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I would rather have no date than an incorrect one. Any date other than 1978 is incorrect. To say that her own agency is a "lame" source is ridiculous. If you have any knowledge of how the adult industry works, Ryder would have to have and show valid ID in order to get legitimate work through her agency and that site would have the least "lame" information on this matter. I agree the Adult Film Database would probably fall under the "lame" category though. If there is no birthdate that suits me fine, like I said I just don't want an incorrect one. Tasseorace ( talk) 19:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. I meant lame in the way other editors accept them. These include sites by the subject like facebook and twitter etc. Any site that has input that can be controlled by the subject. -- Canoe1967 ( talk) 19:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The picture depicted as photo of Smt Supriya Devi on the right hand side of the Wikipedia article is perhaps picture of Smt Sabitri Chatterjee, another famous actress of Bengali cinema. Kindly check. Regards, Susanta Majumdar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.253.134.229 ( talk) 18:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Supriya Devi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) doesn't have an image. Which article?-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 18:21, 14 May 2013 (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.-- ukexpat ( talk) 15:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Kenneth Lewis (mix engineer) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

COI, possible autobiography, and a mess of peacock prose, unsourced content and career credits listing. I can't easily clean this from my phone, and when an IP starts slashing content some users mistake it for vandalism. Thanks. 71.241.206.249 ( talk) 00:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

And with good reason. All users editing from IP addresses should be drawn and quartered, particularly those whose addresses don't start with 99. :-) Oh, yeah, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Lewis (mix engineer). Best.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 01:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Drawing and quartering is so last year. Being investigated by the IRS is tres chic. 71.241.206.249 ( talk) 01:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm so glad I'm not chic, let alone tres chic, although I can be cheeky.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 01:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, if one has to attend a tea party to merit investigation, count me tres out. 71.241.206.249 ( talk) 01:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Daryl Katz (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). There was a trim and revert of this article. I thought I would bring it up here and avoid the talk page there. It may be undue and trivial to include maiden name of mother and children's names. The sources may be dubious and at least one link is dead now. WP:BLPNAME is the policy.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 03:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing of encyclopedic value in that information, and is a larger privacy issue at play, just like with any other bio. BLPNAME is perfectly clear on this. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 04:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion vs exclusion is heating up on the talk page now. Ad hominem and "other stuff exists" as opposed to helping the project.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 10:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

HI this is in reference to Tina Shafer. All that is cited on her Wikipage is true. We have included the links below which appear on the Wiki page. Thank you for your help and we hope this provides clarity for Tina's page.

• http://www.Songwriters-circle.com
• http://www.tinashafer.net
• http://www.cleveland.com/popmusic/index.ssf/2013/03/tina_shafer_chagrin_falls_nati.html
• http://www.Relix.com/features/2009/12/06/tina-shafer-and-the-new-york-songwriter-s-circle
• http://www.Billboard.com/#/search/tinashafer
• http://Blogs.Myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=296450480&blogId=526107566
• http://www.AmericanSongwriter.com/2009/09/tina-shafer-director-of-new-york-songwriters-circle/
• http://www.BMI.com/affiliate/C866

[edit]External links

• http://www.songwriters-circle.com
• http://www.facebook.com/NewYorkSongwritersCircle?fref=ts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.141.130 ( talk) 15:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Annie E. Clark (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annie E. Clark ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This living person's biography strikes me as problematic because most of the sources are primary, some of which are categorically unreliable for BLP content (student groups associated with the subject, blog posts by the subject, posts in blogs associated with the subject). It's very hard to tell what's actually significant when nobody but associated persons reports on it. The few apparently reliable third party sources used in the article appear to cover what is actually a WP:BLP1E. Apparent citations to interviews seem to be unverifiable. A similar BLP was penned by the same principle editor. I don't have enough time on my hands to sift through the huge passages supported by primary sources this time. Any hands and eyes would be appreciated. Suggestions anyone? JFHJr ( ㊟) 18:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Instead of sifting, I opted just to remove swaths of text supported only by reporting by associated groups. Despite the removals, the bulk of the article is supported by associated groups, including HuffPo, and passing mentions in mainstream press. I've also nominated for deletion. JFHJr ( ㊟) 18:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Anastasia International (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please add the BLP editnotice to this article. See the talk page, history, material I removed, etc. Basically, I had to take out a couple of paragraphs of 'defamatory claims' made by the article subject about someone else in court filings, and they themselves are the subject of (sourced) 'defamatory statements' due to the nature of their business. I assigned it to WP Biography as 'living=yes', but it needs the article notice too IMO. Thanks.

FYI, the chapter title I alluded to the the edit history is "So they know my anal preferences?", if that gives you a better idea. (ick.) Revent ( talk) 20:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Edward Forchion (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sparsely sourced autobiography. A mess. 71.241.206.249 ( talk) 01:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The FBI maintains a Most Wanted Terrorists List, with 40 people reportedly living and dead, and our article on the subject refers to them all as "Wanted Terrorist Fugitives" who have engaged in "Terrorist Activity." Some, like Bin Laden, declared their allegiances on video; two were tried in courts of law. Most however have never received a trial. I changed the article to read "alleged terrorist fugitives" and "alleged terrorist activity," but a number of IPs have been reverting, without responding on the talk page. I think this is a major BLP problem: someone is indicted or killed, and wikipedia posts their name and photograph calling them terrorist fugitives, without trial? Please help if possible. Thanks. - Darouet ( talk) 18:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

You are correct. Unless and until someone confesses to being a terrorist or is convicted by a court of terrorist offences, they are an "alleged terrorist".-- ukexpat ( talk) 18:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

A good example of the problems, even for someone convicted, is that of Shakur: she was not convicted of "terrorism," but of murder and assault. An interesting NPR piece can be found here [17]. - Darouet ( talk) 18:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Clear-cut. If the list only included Osama bin Laden or other admitted/conceded terrorists, the word "alleged" might be unnecessary. However, because many of the entries are much less well-proven and much more debatable, we must use the word "alleged." NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 18:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Lewis Howes (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've rarely read a longer more self-promotional and self-congratulatory piece of smug marketing.

I thought there were rules on Wikipedia about self-promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronsard ( talk • contribs) 23:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry to disappoint you. Wikipedia does not have rules. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 23:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

What do you think about putting the names of living, low profile, rape victims in the article title? The names have been widely publicized and there is no argument about stating them in the article text. Does BLP have anything to say about elevating their names to greater prominence in the article title? WP:AVOIDVICTIM seems, to me, to suggest showing restraint about this, but BLP does not seem to offer any direct guidance as to titles. If you're wondering, the subject is an infamous case you have heard about. Thank you. Fletcher ( talk) 04:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, that article does not contain the victims names in the title, as of now. Do you have any other examples? -- Jayron 32 04:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Very sorry, I should have specified that there is a discussion on the talk page as to how to rename the article (the current name being pretty clunky). And it's proposed to rename it by the victims' names. Fletcher ( talk) 04:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah. In that case, no, clunkiness should not override common decency. Whatever we do name it, it shouldn't be after the victims. Redirects may be unavoidable here, but we shouldn't name it after the victims. -- Jayron 32 05:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet (Internet) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This looks to me like a BLP mess. A number of living people are claimed to be sockpuppets. I checked sources in one case and found that none of sources calls this person "sockpuppet" or even a fake identity case. My very best wishes ( talk) 01:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

This article is a cesspool of thinly-sourced or anonymous allegations masquerading as verifiable truth.

The title of the article and the section assert that it is undisputed truth that anyone listed is a "notable public example" of sockpuppetry. More eyes and cleanup are definitely needed. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 05:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Problem is that using a single username other than your "real name" is not the same as "sockpuppetry" and many of the "examples" would be applicable to 99% of Wikipedia editors if we used the statndard of "editing other than under your real name." In short - a "pseudonym" != "sockpuppet" unless deceit is intended per normal online usage going back 30 years. The use should be restricted to people who use multiple personas to deceive. Collect ( talk) 21:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• 24.106.230.219 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bikram Choudhury ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This guy is getting sued anonymously in LA District court for rape. It's a civil suit filed by two Jane Does. The IP editor keeps putting the information back in. I'm taking it out on the grounds that anyone can file a civil suit against anyone for anything and thus it's meaningless until its been adjudicated to some extent. If it were criminal charges I wouldn't have a problem since there would have been an indictment or some judicial process. The part of BLP I'm thinking of is "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". Now the IP is accusing me of being the guy himself so I am bringing it here. — alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 08:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree it should stay out, per WP:BLPCRIME. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 08:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if this article is 100% in scope for this noticeboard, but it's an interesting and sad case, and one to keep an eye on. Some sources have said that the cyclist has died, but others state he has suffered brain death, but is still alive, albeit in a coma. Does anyone have any other sources? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The odd "definition" for Savage's neologism has now been repeatedly added to the Rick Santorum article after, IIRC, it was decided here that the definition only belonged in the article on that neologism and its campaign. [18] is the diff ... with the edit summary Well sourced and not at all contentious. No problem with BLP here

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive110#Rick_Santorum seems to be salient and resulted in Campaign for "santorum" neologism to separate the BLP from the "definition" but that seems now to be under attack. BTW, I consider attributing "fecal matter" definition to a biography of a living person to, indeed, fall under WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 21:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Obviously a WP:BLP violation. (BTW, the diff above is to the wrong article.) AndyTheGrump ( talk) 22:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Can we have an admin add a hidden note that adding it back without consensus is an instant 24hr block that can escalate?-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 22:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree! mea culpa - I pasted the right diff now. Collect ( talk) 22:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Zdawg1029 insists to add this information: [19], to Michael Jackson and Joe Jackson (manager) (incredibly s/he never included it to other Jackson's pages). According to him/her, Joe had an affair with a woman in the past and due to that Joh'Vonnie Jackson did born. Zdawg alleges this with poorly sources, like gossip cites Mirror and Hellobeautiful, or Fox News, which always uses "alleged", and s/he cites Katherine Jackson book My Family where she notes this (basically all references are basing their information after this book, but there is no real confirmation made by Joe himself). This information was removed before, but Zdawg persists to include it as people who removes it is "putting "their" own personal opinion into Wikipedia." I have explained him/her the information doesn't belong to Michael's biography and that it still being a BLP violation to Joh'Vonnie and Joe lifes, but s/he insists that I am wrong and the information is " PAINFULLY OBVIOUS"--when the only painfully is that Michael once said " Just because you read it in a magazine or see it on the TV screen don't make it factual". Can somebody inform me if I am wrong with this? Tbhotch. ^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I found this in The Telegraph regarding Joe's alleged child. I agree the three other previously posted sources were questionable at best but I think the Telegraph is considered a reliable source. I posted this on the article talk page as well. What do other editors think? (Khan, Urmee (September 14, 2009). "Michael Jackson's secret sister JohVonnie Jackson says she was 'rejected'". The Telegraph. Retrieved 12 May 2013.) Coaster92 ( talk) 05:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

the telegraph is merely reporting what the mirror printed, and the mirror is merely an interview where Joh'Vonnie is asserting paternity. That is not sufficient sourcing for this type of claim.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 08:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not even asking it be included on Michael's page, but it absolutely 100% should be included on Joe's page. Denying that Joh'Vonnie is Joe's daughter is being completely and utterly blind to the truth. There are even pictures of Joe and Joh'Vonnie together. Anyone can look at her picture and come to the obvious conclusion that this is Joe's daughter. This has been stated by family members on numerous occasions. You saying that this is my opinion or that this might not be true is ludicrous. I am not sure how FOX News, a company used numerous times as a source on other pages and is one of the 4 major news networks in the US, but I'm not sure how that is a poor source. It is one thing to say it is poorly sourced, but you are trying to say that it just flat out isn't true, which is laughable. It seems every other person in this world has come to the obvious conclusion this is true. Maybe if one tabloid page said it then fine, but multiple magazines, and legitimate sources have spoken about this. Just google Joh'Vonnie Jackson, any reasonable person would see this is Joe's daughter. And to say the only way to prove this to be able to put it on Wikipedia is to have a DNA test is outrageous. I highly doubt every child listed on Wikipedia has been confirmed by DNA test. And why would Joe openly confess to the world that he was an adulterous man who produced a love-child with his mistress? Would you put that on your webpage if you were him? The truth isn't always pretty, I am sure if it was up to MJ, he wouldn't have any of the stuff about the allegations against him on his page, but it is what happened, just like it happened that Joe had this daughter, deal with it. Zdawg1029 ( talk) 02:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLP and WP:RS and be aware that the fact you can look at a photo and be sure two people are related is not usable in any Wikipedia article at all. Heck - even if she were his clone, it still requires a third party source making a strong claim for us to remotely consider using it. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 07:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

We currently have several BLPs listed in subcategories of Category:Prostitutes. Most of these are people who once worked as prostitutes to make ends meet rather than people who identify as prostitutes or pursued prostitution as a long-term career (for example, Jade-Blue Eclipse or Patrícia Araújo). This seems like both a violation of the WP:BLP policy and a significant departure from how we normally categorize people. In my opinion, if the person does not identify as a prostitute, they should not be categorized as such. If a person worked for a year as a dishwasher when they were 18, we don't put them in the Dishwasher category. Kaldari ( talk) 07:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree - unless the category has some rational importance to the BLP, it should be removed. All too often BLPs get categories as a form of "pointed edit exercise" by those who wish to disparage the living person, and it is well past time this stopped. Collect ( talk) 08:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

A "former prostitutes" category might be the best way to deal with this. -- The Anome ( talk) 12:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• I agree. Not a reasonable category without selfidentification. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 12:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, I note that a quick random sampling of these articles shows that at least some of these are not sourced: regardless of any other controversy about this, the category should be removed unless its explicitly mentioned, with a source, in the article.-- The Anome ( talk) 12:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

---> WP:CFD.-- ukexpat ( talk) 15:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Black Mamba (comics) is a fictional former prostitute that is in a category for fictional. Klute is a movie article and the the title character is a prostitute. Klute isn't in the fictional category. Should we reverse their inclusion?-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 07:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Without expressing a view one way or the other, I'll note that this is not exactly a BLP question... Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 09:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Caprice Bourret (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Another edit war. Seems to be a source that one editor claims is a misprint.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 12:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

1,500+ bytes being edit warred over. Only one source for the bytes. One editor claims the source is wrong. The other keeps adding back as 'sourced material'. Much of the material is either contentious or trivial. Can we just trim it down until we have a 2nd source to help verify? It is a matter of truth vs sources possibly.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 01:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

This kind of edit warring has been ongoing on a medium-slow burn for a long time. I recall editing out a fair bit of "puffery" and the like maybe a year ago on a few occasions. Users editing the article with usernames like User:Carolinebycaprice, User:Tarasmithers, User:Janesands, User:Polly4522 etc, seeming SPAs with few edits targetted at this article pop up on an irregular basis to edit the article seemingly to the subject's benefit. Seems like a good candidate for a PC protection to me, BLP with low level disruption over a long period. Just my 2 cents. Begoon  ^talk 11:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Robert Clark Young (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No doubt most of you are aware of the Qworty/Fillapchi dustup. Regardless the talk page of this BLP has an editor expressing some animosity towards the subject so I'd be much obliged if you added this to your watchlists.   little green rosetta (talk)
central scrutinizer  07:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Good call. Also, there's an editor there who doesn't seem to be concerned about Robert Clark Young's years-long vandalism of BLP - and is in fact doing everything she can to cover for him. She should probably be watched as well. NaymanNoland ( talk) 10:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Added to my watchlist.→ Stani Stani  20:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Suburban Express (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article has been hijacked by a small number of vocal haters, and the owner's name has been added to the article in two places. I propose that neither the article nor the mention of the owner's name in the article are consistent with Wiki standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.147.29.153 ( talk) 17:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing in Wikipedia policy that prevents an article about a company giving the name of the owner/founder, and I can see nothing in the article as it stands that has any bearing on this noticeboard. Any general concerns regarding the article should be addressed elsewhere. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 17:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Anthony Torrone (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am curious why this article is featured in the recorded savant figures list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.75.169 ( talk) 19:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you be a little clearer what you mean? Both of the sources provided in the article describe him as a "savant". -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 19:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Lucas Silveira (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

His current biography contains a line that reads "Silveira was born Lilia Silveira[1] in Canada to a musical Portuguese-Canadian family." Most trans people will tell you that mentioning his birth name is highly insulting, in addition to not being relevant to the article. I thus edited it to read "Silveira was born in Canada to a musical Portuguese-Canadian family", however, it my edit seems to have been reverted to the original. Punkyboy ( talk) 00:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

IMO it's relevant and appropriate to include his birth name, especially because the article discusses his transition from a man to a woman. Coaster92 ( talk) 01:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Can I get some eyes on the Eddie Jordan (basketball) article? A user with a dynamic IP is consistently adding a sentence to the lead about how he doesn't have a college degree. See here for a sample diff. While it is true that Jordan does not have a degree, I don't feel this is significant enough to be in the lead of the article. He does not need a degree for his current coaching position at Rutgers, and he never specifically said he had a degree in the first place. (See [20], [21])

The fact that Jordan came short of a degree is mentioned within the body of the article. However, it's hardly a defining aspect of his career; he's not going to lose his job over this. Zagalejo ^^^ 00:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

IMO the way the lead is now written, mentioning that he does not have a college degree gives undue weight to the point. However, were the lead expanded to discuss how he got started, ie at Rutgers, including the point could be appropriate. From what I see in this article, the lead could use more info. Coaster92 ( talk) 01:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The lead could certainly be expanded, but even then, I'm not sure we need to mention that specific detail. It's not uncommon for pro athletes to leave college without finishing their degrees. (Many don't even come close.) They're not notable because of their schoolwork, but because of their sports accomplishments. If Rutgers ends up firing him, and/or we find clear evidence that he misrepresented himself, then things will take up more significance. But right now, his lack of a degree doesn't seem to be making any real difference. Zagalejo ^^^ 17:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

True, it does not make a difference. But in the context of a summary of the article, ie, the lead and his getting started at Rutgers being in the lead, his years there could be mentioned and mentioning that he left before graduation would not be undue in that case imo. I agree that right now, that point is not appropriate in the lead. Coaster92 ( talk) 22:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Gavin_McInnes&diff=555747970&oldid=550835179 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.239.132 ( talk) 15:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I've reverted the changes to the last reliable revision. De728631 ( talk) 15:07, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Ray William Johnson (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There's a WP:SPA who keeps puffing up this article with a mixture of unsourced and undue material. Some more input to the article would be helpful.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 18:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Anyone is still welcome to improve the article, but the SPA has been CU-blocked.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 22:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Dan Donnelly (singer-songwriter) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some minor vandalism reported by subject via OTRS; a few more eyes would be helpful. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 20:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

This entry needs disambiguation. There are two American poets named Robert L. Jones. 216.80.135.19 ( talk) 20:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Robert L. Jones (1) may not be a Living Person; I am Robert L. Jones (2).

RLJ (1) is the author of Wild Onions and Dust and is the recipient of the cited Award. He also published in Ploughshares (which has a dead link).

RLJ (2) is the author of Blue.

The biographical info applies to RLJ (2).

Trevor Graham (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

According to the biographies of living persons policy, the information presented on the page (Trevor Graham) includes false information and is harmful to the living person. The Information on the page invades the living persons privacy and disregards the privacy of names rule included in the policy mentioned above. The page also ignores several consideration rules such as, persons accused of crime, subjects notable only for one event, public figures, privacy of personal information, and using/misuse of primary resources. The page Trevor Graham is an attack page that is used to victimize the victim with the information presented. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grichard101 ( talk • contribs) 00:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The article seems to be sourced fairly well, and unfortunately the negative aspects are what the subject has become known for, but it's not a case of WP:BLP1E at all. The negative information in question comes from secondary sources, so removing it will not make it go away. WP:AFD is your best bet now, but given the notability I doubt anyone would agree that it should be deleted. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 23:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Gulshan Grover (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi there, I am writing from the office of Mr. Gulshan Grover. And we find that we are unable to edit or update the image that he has on his Wikipedia page. I have uploaded an image from his google plus page ... Which gets knocked down and links back to a group image of Mr. Grover. I wish to resolve this issue ... And need some help on how best to go ant it. gulshan grover Thanks and regards

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulshan_Grover — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prakash888 ( talk • contribs) 01:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Your first step is to upload the new image to the Wikipedia image depository - here. Do not use the same name as the existing image. Also, please make sure that you follow the licensing requirements - you must agree that image is either public domain or is licensed under a Creative Commons license. After you have done the upload successfully, you can then edit the article so that the image link is to the new image file, rather than to the old image file. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

There are controversial contents under "Debates, disputes, and controversies "

1. Views on RSS

2. Stand on Anna Hazare and Arvind Kejriwal

3. Stand on Narendra Modi

4. Thackeray family controversy

Views expressed by person are his political opinion and defamatory to the targeted person/ organization. the contents and references mentioned in the section are just political allegation, not based on facts and meant to tarnish others image. this falls under WP:SELFPUB, WP:CONTROVERSY and WP:DISPUTED. on other hand this does not put the person in right light and put a tagging as disputed personality.

I'm not editing the content to stay away from allegation implied by some of the editors, involved in "edit warring". even after several warnings they are involved in counter attack.

Udbhav2504 ( talk) 08:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The above has also been posted at the talk page for the article, and discussion is underway there. WP:CONTROVERSY is an essay, basically saying "be careful what is put into a Wikipedia article". WP:DISPUTED is a step-by-step process to deal with disputed content. WP:SELFPUB says that certain sources are of very limited (or no) use as references/citations because they are self-published (best to not use at all). None of these require WP:BLP intervention, in my opinion.

I also note that the article seems very properly sourced (with the exception of posting excerpts from the article subject's blog, then citing the blog as a source; since the editor is selecting what he/she thinks is important and what is not, this seems "original research" to me). I also note that WP:SELFPUB absolutely does not apply to statements made by the subject to, and reported by, a newspaper or other news source, provided that it's clear in the Wikipedia article that the statements are not of fact but of opinion. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Is the New York Daily News a reliable source for this article? I am torn as I see it is a tabloid, but I am not very familiar with it and wonder if it is as worthless as a BLP source as the Daily Mail or The Sun which I earlier removed from the article. Thanks in advance for your help. -- John ( talk) 10:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not considered a straight tabloid, no. Not in the same sense as The Sun. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 01:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Is it a strong enough source to base contentious material on a BLP on? -- John ( talk) 05:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

What's the material in question? A link to the article would help as well. thanks. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 05:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Odds and ends. I've linked from the title above. My instinct is to take it out as it's such a high-profile article but I don't know the US market so well. -- John ( talk) 16:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

New York Daily News is not a tabloid, but it is also not in the same league as the New York Times in that there is a more pronounced slant toward sensationalism and editorial bias and a lower overall standard of quality. With regard to BLPs, when in doubt, omit. If there is only one semi-reliable source, omit. Jaytwist ( talk) 20:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Alan Paul (author) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Folks, concern has been expressed at OTRS that this article is not quite as encyclopedic as it should be. If anyone has time, would they please take a look at see if it needs toning down etc? Thanks.-- ukexpat ( talk) 19:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Depuffed a tad -- amazing what folks think should be in a Wikipedia article. Collect ( talk) 21:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pitching in everyone, it looks a lot better now.-- ukexpat ( talk) 17:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Barely-notable individual from a minor viral video, now accused of a crime, and random alleged details have been added that are alleged to have been seen on his Facebook page. I believe that this is a textbook application of WP:BLPCRIME and that we should avoid the urge to breathlessly report speculative information about an unknown person. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 03:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• The issue with removing this information is that this isn't just sourced by Facebook. This is a piece of information that most of the news stations covering McGillvary has posted screenshots of and have commented upon. Of the articles on the article that comment about the murder allegations, most mention the facebook post. ( [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]) These are just the ones on the article that were not removed by NorthBySouthBaranof. Here is the section that was removed :

On May 14 a person alleging to be McGillvary posted a message onto Facebook stating that he had been raped and asking his Facebook followers what they would do. One follower, Terry Ratliff, mentioned that he would "beat the man with a hatchet", to which the person alleging to be McGillvary responded that he liked the idea.[20] Ratliff later stated that he believed that McGillvary's response had related to plans to remix one of McGillvary's songs and did not refer to Ratliff's earlier statement in the Facebook post. It was not specifically stated whether Galfy had been the individual that McGillvary had been assaulted by or when the attack occurred.

I did change it to say "allegedly", but by all accounts this is known to be his facebook account. Multiple newspapers have taken screenshots of the facebook post and of the comment by Ratliff. Here are the sources I used for the section: ( [31], [32], [33]) It's not like it's something that nobody is mentioning. It's one of the most commented upon aspects of the allegations so far. Adding something that multiple, multiple newspapers are commenting upon is not really speculation. It's adding important information to the article. If I were to plain out say that the attack did happen, that it was Galfy, or to say that it was anything other than an alleged attack by an unnamed person at an unspecified time, then that would be speculation. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Except that there is a clear and present implication in all of the coverage - that the Facebook page is tantamount to an admission of guilt. At this point, that implication is entirely speculative and per WP:BLPCRIME, we are to avoid even the implication that the article subject is guilty of any crime. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 06:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that this is a huge leap but maybe we should wait for the court case to come out. We don't have a deadline so this can be added later as time goes on. I think this is a compromise because we are basing this on solid sources but we also give a courtesy before reporting it. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 06:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• I never implied that the facebook post was an admission of guilt, just that he had posted it the day after Galfy was supposed to have been killed. It's something that happened within the timeline of the death of Galfy and McGillvary's capture. That he posted something mentioning that he had been raped (supposedly) by an unknown person is somethign that is one of the biggest things mentioned in the news stories and in some, just as much if not more so than the murder itself. I think that by not including something that is one of the biggest pieces of information that news sources are commenting on, we're doing a fairly big disservice to the article. We don't have to post everything he did, but it should be added that the day after the autopsy supposedly said that he died, McGillvary posted that he'd been raped. I just don't see where mentioning this is only speculation and not a reporting of the timeline on the article. Just because some of the papers are jumping the gun doesn't mean that it should be omitted entirely. We're not responsible for fixing what other papers have done, but we shouldn't ignore elements that have been highly reported just because someone might misconstrue it somewhere. In other words, we shouldn't remove it just because we think it might hurt someone if we neutrally commented upon it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
• I put this on the other page, but I have to say it: I'm slightly concerned about NorthBySouthBaranof making so many edits to the page when he was campaigning so hard to get the page deleted and to downplay the media coverage of him that's going currently. I'll ask some others to weigh in on this, but every time I add something NBSB is quick to say that it's all "titillating details" when it's something that is being mentioned in over 90% of the news reports out there in some context in relation to the murder allegations. I don't think he's deliberately sabotaging the article, but I am slightly worried that he might be seeing things through a veil of "I don't think he's notable so nothing about him is notable or should be added regardless of how often it's mentioned". I think it might be better for someone who wasn't campaigning so hard to delete and eradicate the article to help with the major editing rather than having NBSB be the sole dictator of what belongs and what doesn't. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The article on Jaz Banga reads like a PR piece, and the citations referenced are general and don't actually mention him by name in most if not all cases JZimmerman (WMF) ( talk) 06:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

bit more info, looks like the user who did most of the writing as well as created the page is in fact the PR person employed by Jaz Banga's company <removed>

The two primary editors are also likely sockpuppets http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Contributions/TrinaMark&dir=prev&target=TrinaMark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/KatMark

JZimmerman (WMF) ( talk) 07:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Probably a silly question, but where is the BLP issue? Its quite puffy - I hate using 'SOFIXIT' (its not the most helpful reply) but the note at the top does say the BLP noticeboard is not really for issues that can be fixed by regular editing. And while it is heavily frowned upon for subjects of biographies (or their representatives) to edit their own page, its not (by policy) forbidden. The sourcing is, well weak - lots of trade and industry jounals. But that is about what I would expect given his career. His company is probably more notable than him personally.

As for the sockpuppet accusation - where is the abusive sockpuppetry? Merely having multiple accounts is also not prohibited by policy. Although its also heavily frowned upon to use multiple accounts to edit the same page, its still not strictly forbidden. See Sock puppetry. Sockpuppet accusations need to go to SPI however you will need some actual evidence of 'improper' use of multiple accounts. Or you could ask the editors. Its entirely possible they dont know about the sockpuppetry policy or that multiple user accounts should be linked on the user page. It would be quite silly to edit the same page with nefarious intent with two usernames with such similarities. What I *do* see is the article creator requesting feedback.

Lastly - commenting/posting/linking to an editors real identity is not allowed per WP:Outing. Some discussion is allowed at Conflict of Interest Noticeboard but most info will end up redacted. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 08:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Right - as it says above, this noticeboard is generally for "cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period". Puffery is unfortunate, but it's not a priority for removal the way WP:BLP violations are. (The article gets all of a half-dozen pageviews per day, another reason to argue that fixing it isn't a priority.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Was tagged as a negatively sourced BLP, but did not seem to fit the usual hallmarks of an attack page. Tagged for PRODBLP. Would appreciate an experienced BLP editor to give it the once over, and retag for speedy if necessary. Stephen! ^Coming... 12:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I've nominated the page for speedy deletion under the G10 criterion (attack page). While it is not a typical attack page, I feel that it definitely is "an article about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced, where there is no neutral version in the history to revert to", as specified in the {{ Db-g10}} template, and consequently that it meets the speedy deletion criterion. GregorB ( talk) 15:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I've removed two of the most problematic unsourced statements from the article. What remains is the article's somewhat non-NPOV general tone, but that is OK in the sense that I don't feel there is a BLP problem now. GregorB ( talk) 13:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, doesn't see to be a BLP issue now, though unfortunately the article is stubby. (Also, no longer proposed for any type of deletion, with which I also agree.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Ted Nugent (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Someone keeps adding contentious material from scopes. Scopes does claim sources but I don't know if we can find those anywhere. I have given up edit warring over it so someone else may wish to. I may email Mr. Nugent and if he doesn't care about it then neither will I.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 22:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

A good page to have semi-protected at least (and I see it has been for increasing periods), so at least that is done so everyone's edits can be attributed to established accounts and discussed. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Now semi-protected until May 2014. Regarding Snopes.com (and the underlying issue - Nugent's military deferments during the Vietnam War), I've provided an alternative source (and wording in the article based on that source), as well as posting a note about my article update on the relevant talk page. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Complete write up is very subjective - like a political campaign : Orji Uzor Kalu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angrybirdnut ( talk • contribs) 23:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Update: An experienced editor (not me) has trimmed out about 3/4 of the article. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

This is not about a violation; I just wanted to correct a mistake and could not find where to do so. Curtis Axel's article has him born in 1975 and "died on May 30, 2013". This is incorrect on a couple of levels. First, he is not dead; he is very much alive as I am typing this while watching him on WWE's Monday Night Raw, on which he performed on Monday, May 20, 2013. Second, since the date of this typing is Monday, May 20, 2013, of course, May 30, 2013 has not occured yet.

For what it's worth, the article where I saw this mistake is in reference to a man who is known as Curtis Axel in the ring, as his real name is Joseph Curtis Hennig, son of the late "Mr. Perfect" Curt Hennig and grandson of Larry "The Axe" Hennig.

I just thought I would bring this information to your attention. Take care and God bless.

Sincerely, Keith A. Long — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.129.189 ( talk) 06:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• As of 'right now' the incorrect information has been removed...it didn't last long. :) Revent ( talk) 06:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I dont have time, can someone take a look at the mass additions of Category:Indian fraudsters by User:Murrallli. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Fan POV - This is no mass addition, think before you write, I have added only one category (think before u abuse fellow editors, I will take this to admin attention, stop vandalising the page) and you are disrespecting the three revert rule, may be u have a personal problem, is he your relative??? Murrallli ( talk) 13:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I am assuming that the article in question is A. Raja. If so, I would like to make it clear that adding the category 'Indian fraudsters' to a biography of a person who has not been convicted for such an offence is as gross violation of WP:BLP policy, and if it happens again I will have no hesitation in reporting the matter. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 14:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

We have a category "Indian fraudsters"? That sounds like a great idea. That's never going to get abused, is it? I hope we're not moving the women into "Female Indian fraudsters" - they might get upset. Begoon  ^talk 14:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

It appears that TheRedPenOfDoom may be right, and Murrallli has been inappropriately adding this category to other articles - see [34]. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 14:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the category needs renaming - Category:Indian people convicted of fraud or similar? That would give no excuse for future BLP confusion. Giant Snowman 14:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

It appears the editor confuses "allegations" (which, IMHO, may be removable from some of these) and "convictions" which means those without a conviction were improperly added to the category under WP:BLP. Collect ( talk) 14:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Given that Murrallli has posted what might be seen as a (somewhat farcical) legal threat on my talk page, I have raised the matter at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Murrallli and WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 14:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I removed one articles from the category, as a BLP violation. The remaining five articles involve (at least per the text of the articles) individuals who were either convicted of or admitted to fraud. (I'm not defending the existence of the category, simply noting what seems to fit it.) See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of politicians in India charged with corruption; this list article was deleted on August 31, 2012. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

A bad faith nomination for AfD was created on extremely notable and talented mayor who is actively being courted for Congress and higher office. He has spoken around the nation and is touted as a model of mayors around the world. The AfD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Gerard. This is being used by opponents of the mayor, many of whom either have unfounded legal disputes or are actively being investigated by the city for criminal conduct. Request level headed editors to weigh in on AfD so it can be closed with the clear consensus of keep. The mayor has done tons of good for the community and just like the haters attacked the prophets for doing good, these modern day Pharisees are using Wikipedia for a high-tech crucifixion of the mayor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.251.0.245 ( talk) 15:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:CANVASS. And FWIW the "delete" and "keep" !votes appear to be even at the moment.-- ukexpat ( talk) 17:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Definitely not a WP:BLP issue. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Josh Urbiztondo (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Poorly sourced puff piece that has long been owned by COI accounts, presumably the subject's father. More eyes welcome. 99.149.85.229 ( talk) 19:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The article has been sharply reduced in size (by another editor), and I've added a bit of information to it (properly sourced). The COI editor (yes, appears to be the subject's father) has been blocked temporarily (again, by another editor), and I've put a note on his (I assume) user talk page regarding the rules that only acceptable sources can be the basis for text in the article. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Nicely done. I'd asked for the assistance of the admin who'd issued a COI warning to the father's account a few years ago. It looks like he's also editing as an IP [35], though my take is that it's not intentional socking. Nonetheless, given the article's edit history it's probably best that a few editors keep an eye on it. Thanks again, 99.149.85.229 ( talk) 00:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Dominique Venner (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A French far-right historian who killed himself in the Notre-Dame cathedral earlier today: [36]. The article will be attracting a lot of edits, and needs eyes on it to preserve NPOV etc. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 21:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Noted - also being careful to "observe the niceties" of allegations about the recently dead. Collect ( talk) 22:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Victor C. Strasburger (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article has been edited several times by its subject, including to remove critical material that is not obviously defamatory. I do not know what the appropriate action to take is.

The subject hasn't edited the article in a long time, and the content removal, which didn't appear controversial, was discussed at the article's talk page. I have tagged the article for lack of sources--a list of the subject's publications isn't sufficient. 99.149.85.229 ( talk) 00:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I've added a note, at the talk page of the editor believed to be the subject of the article, pointing to WP:COI and WP:AUTO restrictions. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Article Shin Amano (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Someone who doesn't have a Wiki acct is repeatedly inserting a nonsensical, obviously unsourced personal opinion in the paragraph entitled "Shortage of brain rotation." I've tried to remove it, but the person keeps reverting the changes. Obviously, this violates the policy that "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced should removed immediately." Thank you. --JeanneBrice

Since the above was posted on 11 May, two experienced editors have cleaned up the situation and there has been no further edits by the unregistered editor. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Mick Cutajar (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I think that the current Wikipedia profile on Mick Cutajar is fine. Someone put in a noticed for "proposed deleation". The bio has already been re-written a number of times. There are many sources of material on Mick Cutajar, from news articles in papers, official website for Mick Cutajar, media agent website, IJF website. If you do a Google search on "Mick Cutajar" dozens of various sources will appear. Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtingle1 ( talk • contribs) 02:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

It's the responsibility of the article creator (that's you) to provide acceptable sources to support the contents of the article. And it's your responsibility to show notability - Wikipedia policy is that only a limited number of people qualify for biographies here.

Please note that the official website for Mick Cutajar and the media agent website are not acceptable sources (they are "self-published"), and the IJF website is of very limited usefulness. If in fact there are news articles, then please add them to the Wikipedia article. Ideally you will do this as in-line citations (see WP:FOOT, and take a look at how this is done in other Wikipedia articles), but the format matters less than that you add them. (The news articles do not have to be available online, though presumably most are.) If you do not add such news articles, there is no guarantee that this biography will remain on Wikipedia. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I have pruned the link farm and pasted the links to the article's talk page in case they can be used as references.-- ukexpat ( talk) 15:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Update: four newspaper articles were added; I think that does establish some notability. The "prod" template is gone. The article still needs a lot of work: the articles (now listed on the talk page, per the decision of another editor) should be made into in-line citations, for example. In short, at the moment this is just another relatively poor Wikipedia article, but its not a WP:BLP issue. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I am concerned that ALL significant content for this subject was written by the subject. Medicineball is a thinly veiled alias for Daniel Barwick. Shouldn't at least most of an article be written by a secondary source? Also Barwick heads an academic institution, I find it problematic that he edits his institutions Wikipedia page also. Thank you.-- 97.96.107.252 ( talk) 04:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the report. I'm moving this comment to the conflict of interest noticeboard since that seems more appropriate. Hot Stop 04:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:OUTING Applies if they haven't self Identified. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 06:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

May 7th, Wade Robson came out and stated that Michael Jackson had molested him, reversing what he said in court as a defense witness, and is now suing his estate for damages. As you can imagine, the article has attracted a lot of angry drive-by vandals. I was surprised and sad to see that although people were willing to remove the bad edits, no one reported the article for page protection during all this time. I finally found the RFPP page and reported it. Now I see the link on the talk page for this board. Is this the best we have for fast alerts? I was hoping for a big red emergency button to push for instant notification and instant results. Ultra Venia ( talk) 22:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Jeff Green (politician) is the new leader of a party in the UK. Someone may wish to create an article before any fans do. Christian Party (UK) Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL -- Canoe1967 ( talk) 23:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there any indication that Green would meet our notability guidelines? The party may be (just about) notable, but I don't see any particular reason why the person leading it would merit an independent biography. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 23:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be plenty of sourcing, so I don't see why he wouldn't.   little green rosetta (talk)
central scrutinizer  00:07, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

'Plenty of sourcing'? Would you care to link some sources here which could contribute to producing a biography? I can't see anything in the 21 results that Google provides that would be much use. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 00:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Well the BBC has been covering him (and the Christian Party) since 2007 ( 2007 and 2010). Granted I had to search 'jeff green christian party' to find that. It can be argued that as his notability is solely for his involvement in the Christian Party its not inherited, but if it came to an AFD I suspect it would end up 'Keep'. Dont feel there is a 'need' for an article on him though. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 08:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Does not pass notability yet. Bare coverage and insufficient preponderance of reliable sources or material. Jaytwist ( talk) 18:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

It was just created and deleted within minutes. We may wish to ask the deleting admin if a re-direct is in order.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 21:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

2013 Woolwich beheading (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Needs eyes on it, will probably be sent to AfD soon, but could survive. Martin451 ( talk) 19:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

It will definitely survive, this is like the 7/7 attacks all over again. Giant Snowman 20:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't see the relevance of this article on the Biography of Living Persons noticeboard. Am I missing something? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Initial reporting of the suspects on wikipedia violated BLP. Martin451 ( talk) 21:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Yup. And see also WP:BDP. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 21:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Andy, I was not aware of WP:BDP. Good to know :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Charlie Crist (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) once again has the allegations that he is gay being added -- this time with a claim that BLP/N consensus supports the inclusion of the material [37], [38] making claims as to "consensus" here supporting such allegations in articles. I demur that BLP/N has a consensus or has ever had a consensus that allegations of sexuality belong in BLPs (the last blowup was at Shepard Smith on this noticeboard). Voices welcome. Collect ( talk) 01:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Watched. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 03:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

IMO multiple reliable sources are needed before the mention/allegation could be included. And they are not provided here. Here's what I found at WP:BLP:

WP:WELLKNOWN: In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.

•Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is this important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out, or stick to the facts: "John Doe and Jane Doe were divorced."

•Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that he actually did.

Coaster92 ( talk) 06:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Please also post on the article talk page -- one editor said I have "delusions of grandeur" for supposing that the BLP/N discussions have any effect on an article. Which runs contrary to years of experience here - this is the first time I had a person say that three editors on the BLP are more a consensus than the dozens who have opined here over the years <g>. Collect ( talk) 11:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussions at BLPN are not binding, but they do provide valuable input from uninvolved (and usually quite experienced) editors and their views should be given due consideration by editors working on the article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussions here should form part of the consensus, so if the "combined" consensus here and at the tp is that something does not belong in a BLP, then it shouldn't be there.-- ukexpat ( talk) 14:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, Collect, I posted the policy I found on the talk page as you requested. Coaster92 ( talk) 06:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Pursuant to the discussion above, I've posted a preliminary proposal for amending WP:BLP so that it explicitly covers "See also" sections. I'd appreciate it if anyone wants to chime in with their thoughts. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 00:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Michael Arrington (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am concerned that the section about the recent controversy does not follow Wikipedia policies in several important regards. Per WP:BLP "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism." Additionally, our article doesn't cover what is arguably the most important fact about this situation so far (the only court proceeding of any kind), which is his libel suit against his accuser, as reported in the New York Times. I would argue that the section should be titled according to the story as presented in non-tabloid press, i.e. instead of "Allegations of domestic violence and rape" it should be entitled "Libel suit against X" or similar.

I have also posted at the talk page of the article.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 18:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Allegations make for poor BLPs. Where a crime is asserted, then WP:BLP weighs in heavily. Collect ( talk) 21:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The coverage by the NYT might give some weight to the argument that this merits inclusion in the bio - if that's the case we'll have to find a way to word it as neutrally as possible, and as Jimbo says, giving priority to the non-tabloid(ish) sources. Past that, there will need to be ample coverage of a criminal (not civil) case before any more can be added. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 21:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Pending-change protected — Tom Morris ( talk) 16:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Sana Khan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can we get some eyes on Sana Khan? I put it under PC protection a while back but there's lots of allegations (prostitution, kidnapping etc.) - it'd be great if someone could check through the recent edits. — Tom Morris ( talk) 16:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Watching. I did note that the kidnapping thing is apparently legit, but she has not been charged (as I understand it), she's wanted for questioning. I improved the reference and modified the wording. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 17:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

There was nothing 'apparently legit' in any part of the 'controversies' section, as far as I can see - I've deleted the lot as violating WP:BLP policy (I spotted a copyvio too). Sadly typical for biographies for people from the Indian subcontinent, where apparently vague accusations in tabloid sources are seen as sufficiently reliable to justify any old trash. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 17:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, the Hindustan Times is not a tabloid, but nuking all of that works for me just fine too. Frankly I'm baffled sometimes at the whole Bollywood thing. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 17:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

According to SisterDeb ( talk · contribs), who identifies as Sylvia's sister [39], Sylvia died on February 4, in New York. According to BLP "People are presumed to be living unless there is reason to believe otherwise.", but there are not online references about this, I've searched and I found nothing. Does this qualify as a BLP violation? and in case Deb is her sister and this is factually correct (and as there aren't online references) is it possible this can be verified through OTRS? Tbhotch. ^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't care if it's the Lord Himself come down from above to edit an article, if there is no source to verify that the subject passed away then we must continue to assume she is alive. I certainly did not find a source for it. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 00:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

In the absence of a source, could I suggest an unconventional compromise? Change "is" to "was" in the lede. This makes the wording ambiguous (does it mean she's no longer alive, or just that she no longer performs?) but it's compatible with both positions, which would otherwise be very difficult to reconcile. If there's anywhere that we need a hard line on WP:V, it's this noticeboard, but we need a pragmatic and compassionate side too. bobrayner ( talk) 00:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

No, 'was' or 'is' in a lede is implicitly tied to whether or not the person is living, not to their status in their field or careers. I categorized it under Category:Possibly living people as a compromise, but I still have been unable to find a news story or obituary about this which is weird to say the least. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 16:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• I ran into the same problem with a subject over a year ago. Someone emailed me that he had died. I phoned his local paper to confirm and they hadn't heard the news. It was over a month before I found a source from the same paper. We aren't in a hurry so sources should show up. It was a shame that the Edmonton Journal did a huge piece on his life weeks(?) after he died which really helped to expand the article. It would be nice to provide decent sized articles while they are still alive so that when they die then readers can see them. I think this happens with many that are notable but not 'mainstream' notable.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 07:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Unless there's a source, we have to be obsolete. I have no idea why, but falsely reporting the death of various people is a popular and often widely publicized prank that has been pulled on Wikipedia many times before, so we can't just trust a new account to tell us the truth. I am terribly sorry, and my condolences, but if her sister is out there, all we need is some site, maybe even something fairly bloggy like [40], to make a mention of your loss. Wnt ( talk) 17:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Trial of Conrad Murray (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Froid added a couple of articles to the See also section of this article. I reverted because I felt they were inappropriate. Froid and I have been having a very pleasant discussion about the issue on my talk page. Froid has done some work, which in their view, addresses the concerns I had, or at least makes the two articles includable. I still don't like them. The BLP tie-in is, of course, Murray, not his trial per se. I think the two other subjects are way too different from Murray to be included and it strikes me as a bit WP:COATRACKy, or at least non-neutral, to include them. Essentially, although the article is about the trial, it implies that those two doctors are similar to Murray. Certainly, they are not trial articles. In any event, I realize that what to include in a See also section is hardly a compelling issue, but I told Froid I would open up a topic here to obtain other opinions on the issue if anyone is inclined to look at the problem.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 22:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree that this is coatrack-y at best, because there is an implied association of wrongdoing with the article's subject and the other examples. If the links were to a general article about controlled substance prescription to celebrities (maybe?) then fine, but that's not the case. The editor is basically saying "look, here are people who are as bad as this guy", which is a POV judgement call. There is no guidance in the Layout MOS or from a BLP perspective about these sections, but from a BLP standpoint, the inclusion of links there may be as contentious as a category, which is covered by WP:BLPCAT. I'd say those have to go, possibly replaced with links that are more general: Medical malpractice, substance abuse, etc. Not with the names of specific people who have been accused or convicted of similar crimes. The bold disclaimer added by Froid is a clear indication of why those links shouldn't be there - if you have to justify their inclusion then they probably don't belong. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 23:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Response May 24, 2013

Gee willickers! Coatracking is not my intention, by any means. And I'd like to do whatever's necessary to correct any appearance or actual coatracking I might inadvertently be perpetrating. Nor do I mean to come across as biased; I don't have a personal axe to grind about Dr. Murray, Dr. Jacobson, or Dr. Freymann.

Please note:

• I'm operating in good faith and both appreciate and believe in the review process we're currently engaged in.
• I genuinely don't see how it's biased to link articles about physicians who have been shown to have administered addictive, controlled substances to celebrity clients in a manner that medical regulators disapprove of, who have lost their licenses as a result, and who have received substantial media coverage accusing (and linking) them for their so-called "Dr. Feelgood" practices.
• Examples of media coverage that makes such links include:
  • Lauren Marmaduke (October 21, 2011). "Music's Top 5 Dubious "Dr. Feelgoods"". Houston Press. - EXCERPT:

Sadly, Conrad Murray and the outlandish quantity of drugs he dispensed are nothing new, prominent musicians having a long, sordid partnership with “Dr. Feel goods” — personal physicians and other drug-pushers (both licensed and not) more interested in money and personal gain than in the health of their clients. And if the jury finds Murray guilty in the coming weeks, he will no doubt take a place among the five shadiest professional pushers listed below.

• • Nancy Dillong (WEDNESDAY, MAY 8, 2013, 12:13 AM). "Michael Jackson wrongful death trial: Conrad Murray was not qualified to treat the pop star's substance abuse, sleep disorder". New York Daily News. {{ cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= ( help) - EXCERPT:

The Dr. Feelgood convicted of Michael Jackson’s involuntary manslaughter was an obvious “mismatch” for the pop icon and created a conflict of interest with his tour contract, an expert witness testified Tuesday.

• • Martin Kasindorf, Special for USA TODAY (Updated 11/30/2011 12:50 PM). "Conrad Murray sentenced to four years in Jackson death". {{ cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= ( help) - EXCERPT:

Steve Cooley said the case provided a lesson for the public that "the number one cause of unnatural death in the United States this year was prescription drug overdoses, surpassing traffic accidents." A key factor, he said, is "people like Conrad Murray, the so-called Dr. Feelgood doctors who, because of their greed and selfishness, abandon ethics and put people in harm's way."

• To directly respond to some concerns expressed by FreeRangeFrog [cute monicker, Ribbit! :) ]:
  • RE: "implied association of wrongdoing": doesn't the loss of their licenses provide clear evidence of wrongdoing on these doctors' parts? And are not the causes of Mark_Shaw_(photographer)#Death and the Death of Michael Jackson due to drugs administered by Dr. Jacobson and Dr. Murray, respectively, similar enough to link those articles?
  • RE: "POV judgement call" - As stated above, the mass media has branded Murray, Jacobson, Freymann, and others "Dr. Feelgoods", and in some articles, specifically addressed the similarities and links amongst these cases. Consequently, I think it's unfair to label my documenting these links in Wikipedia a POV judgment call.
  • RE: " The bold disclaimer added by Froid is a clear indication of why those links shouldn't be there - if you have to justify their inclusion then they probably don't belong" - I've seen other Wikipedia articles that use bold subtitles to distinguish among link groupings in such sections as "See also" (e.g., see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#See also), "External links" (e.g., see the bold subcategory grouping "Video of trial proceedings" under Trial of Conrad Murray#External links), "Bibliography" (e.g., see RMS Titanic#Bibliography), and "Notes and references" (e.g., see Anne Frank#Notes and references); I've also seen short explanations being offered along with each "See also" link, similar to those provided on disambiguation pages. I borrowed from the former precedent as a means to address Bbb23's concerns.
• I realize the scope of Freymann and Jacobson's activities in this vein, on one hand, and Murray's, on the other, differs.
• Moreover, as Lauren Marmaduke's Houston Press article (cited above) indicates, Murray, Jacobson, and Freymann are but three of multiple "Dr. Feelgoods"

Bottom line: Multiple sources appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia have publicly branded Conrad Murray a "Dr. Feelgood" and explicitly tarred him with the same brush as Robert Freymann, Max Jacobson, and others notorious for administering addictive, controlled substances to celebrity patients and for losing their licenses as as result.

Therefore, I don't think dropping the matter is the optimal solution here. On the other hand, I concede - in part because Dr. Murray's activities didn't match the scope of such others as Jacobson and Freymann, and in part because those three are merely a subsample of documented "Dr. Feelgoods" - the appropriate resolution might be that suggested by FreeRangeFrog: to provide a "See also" wikilink to an article that addresses the broader topic of "Dr. Feelgood" behavior. I've looked but haven't found the best place to place that link. My take: it might be appropriate to either create an article titled something like "Doctor Feelgood (drugs)", or if more appropriate, to create a paragraph addressing that topic in an existing, related article (not sure yet which one, and I'd appreciate advice about that).

I'm sincerely interested in hearing your thoughts. - Best wishes, Froid ( talk) 09:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

May 25, 2013

Controversial links

In the "See also" section, I've replaced the above-discussed controversial links to specific doctors and its introductory descriptor with the following entry:

• People referred to as "Doctor Feelgood" - Froid ( talk) 10:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Further evidence this has not been original research

The names listed in that category are documented in Wikipedia articles, with credible sources, to have been called "Doctor Feelgood".

Here are several articles to add to the May 24 post, whose very titles reference the term "Feel Good Doctor" and whose contents link Murray to others. I share these to demonstrate my inclusion of Murray in that category is not original research, but a well-documented categorization:

• David Batty (Saturday 27 June 2009). "In the public eye - feelgood physicians". The Guardian. {{ cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= ( help)
• Steven Mikulan (November 16, 2009 @ 6:39 pm). "Dr. Feelgoods and Their Celeb Patients: Who Needs Who? (PART 2: Hollywood's history of addicted stars and the doctors who supply them". The Wrap. {{ cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= ( help)
• By Steven Mikulan. "Jailing Dr. Feelgood: Prescriptions-on-Demand Gets Riskier (First of 2 Parts:Prosecutors are targeting celeb-friendly docs, but making charges stick is tough". The Wrap.

I think that's a lot more neutral and doesn't single out just one person but rather many different cases. We'll wait for Bbb23 to chime in, but I can certainly live with that. Excellent job. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 19:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Andrew Wakefield (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The tone of the entire article is disparaging and defamatory towards Andrew Wakefield, not neutral. Dr. Wakefield is in the middle of a defamation and slander lawsuit against The British Medical Journal, Brian Deer, a journalist, and Fiona Godlee, editor of the BMJ, that was heard yesterday in the Third court of appeal in Texas on jurisdictional issues. The lawsuit concerns articles published in the British Medical Journal on January 6, 2011 characterizing Dr. Wakefield's work as "fraudulent," etc.

A few days ago, I made some changes to the Wikipedia article on Andrew Wakefield, but they were deleted and changed back within a day or so back to the way they were.

The term "discredited" is used by Dr. Wakefield's enemies to refer to him, but discrediting a person can be done based on misinformation; when this is intentionally done to destroy a man's reputation, that is called defamation and is actionable at law. It is not fair that a Wikipedia article about Dr. Wakefield should in any way perpetuate defamation against him while his case alleging defamation and slander is pending in a court of law.

As Dr. Wakefield says in his book, "Callous Disregard, Autism and Vaccines - The Truth Behind a Tragedy (Skyhorse Publishing: NY 2010): "In the hands of someone determined to discredit the work, however, discrepancies between the routine clinical report (which may have come, for example, from a pathologist with an interest in brain disease or gynecological pathology) and the standardized expert analysis were falsely reported in the national media as "fixing" of the data. I was specifically accused of this, although I had no part in scoring the reviews. It is notable that despite 5 years of investigation by the GMC, no charge of scientific fraud was made by the same freelance journalist who had actually also initiated the GMC inquiry, continuing his litany of false allegations. There is no evidence at all that the data had been "fixed" as was alleged, and the newspaper in question has failed to produce any, despite a request to do so from the Press Complaints Commission. Paradoxically, the price paid for diligent science has been a headline proclaiming fraud. In my opinion, the intended goal - to reinforce the false belief that the work is discredited - has been achieved."

There has been a carelessness in the media about perpetuating the myth that Dr. Wakefield is "a fraud" or a bad man or that his work is somehow no good. A recent article has just gone out May 20, 2013, all over the AP online and newspaper networks about measles outbreaks flourishing in the UK by that refers to Dr. Wakefield and/or his work as "discredited" or "flawed" or "fraudulent." Yes the journalists should be more careful, but Wikipedia also should be careful. I think that Wikipedia would not wish to be used as an instrument of defamation regarding Andrew Wakefield's biography. The current article is so biased against him, it should be thrown out. Perhaps there should be no article up until the defamation and slander action is fully ended. It will take up to six months for a decision on jurisdiction to be rendered by the Court of Appeals, to know whether or not it will allow the action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwaldman ( talk • contribs) 03:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Please be more accurate in your claims here. Our article does not say that Wakefield has been discredited, only that his claim about the link between the MMR and autism has been discredited. As for defamation: do you intend to take legal action against Wikipedia on Wakefield's behalf? Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 04:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The article is very clear when it uses the word 'fraud' and 'fraudulent' when it comes to Mr Wakefield's work. And it uses the strongest of sources to do so. The BMJ, Time magazine, the BBC etc. Most of your paragraphs above are, well, rubbish in light of the GMC's findings. The BMJ said "Deer unearthed clear evidence of falsification. He found that not one of the 12 cases reported in the 1998 Lancet paper was free of misrepresentation or undisclosed alteration, and that in no single case could the medical records be fully reconciled with the descriptions, diagnoses, or histories published in the journal." This is almost universal in the depictions of Mr Wakefield.

NPOV does *not* mean the article has to be 'neutral' good/bad. It means the article has to be presented neutrally. When the very essence of a BLP's notability is the massive and systematic fraud they engineered, almost all sources are going to be negatively slanted. This does not make them 'not neutral' as long as they are presented factually and without bias. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 19:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Wakefield is a crack who was struck off for his fraudulent and dangerous paper. That's a matter of fact. And why the hell is Wakefield suing in Texas? All the participants are British, and British libel law is still more friendly for rich litigants (to the point where a suggestive tweet is libellious). Also note that Wakefield has lost one lawsuit to Deer, and this case was thrown out at lower court due to jurisdictional issues. Sceptre ^{( talk)} 03:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe that Texas has some liberal libel laws which allow you to sue even if it didn't happen within the boundary of the state. In other words, Wakefield went "shopping" for a location that allowed him to do this. His acolytes celebrate every lawsuit, even when they are dismissed even under the most liberal interpretations of libel law in Texas (and I can't believe I used liberal and Texas in the same sentence). SkepticalRaptor ( talk) 20:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

And when you consider Britain's famous reputation for libel interpretation, it shows something when a British person goes abroad to libel shop. Sceptre ^{( talk)} 21:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Cwaldman, there is nothing but solid evidence that Wakefield engaged in a fraud to publish the subsequently retracted Lancet article. Brian Deer's articles far surpass the minimal standard for a reliable source in a BLP. You have nothing here but what could generously be called a rant about a person, about whom much negative information has been written in reliable sources in the United States, UK and Australia. And we're not even including recent articles (not sure why) written in several UK newspapers that place the current measles epidemic in Wales squarely on his shoulders. In other words, there are those of us, myself included, who thinks that Wakefield is getting the sweetheart treatment with this Wikipedia article. SkepticalRaptor ( talk) 20:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)