On Cartoon pornography an editor keeps reverting me restoring BLP material, ie the unsourced claim that various likely living people are involved as makers of cartoon pornography. I have tried my best to explain our BLP policies but the editor is getting more and more aggressive on the talk page and deliberately restores the BLP violating info, ie unsourced claims about living people. He has been directed to our policy page but seems to think "There is no need. (also: you know that you could find a reference within seconds, if you bothered to look for one" is an acceptable alternative to a ref♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is absolutely required is a secondary source that specifically mentions the person doing this type of work. Looking up an Amazon author credit is not enough, and in fact it's original research. WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:GRAPEVINE are perfectly clear on the sourcing required for this type of thing. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for any source, unless the statement is challenged or likely to be challenged (according to what it written in WP:BLP). The one and only reason that it was challenged by SqueakBox, was due to a pedantic enforcement of BLP, so it doesn't really count. He/she didn't challenge the truth of the statement, but merely insisted that such statements be sourced. That's not the kind of "challenge", that is being referred to, in the statement "challenged or likely to be challenged".

You mention WP:BLPSOURCES... The first thing mentioned there, is "Challenged or likely to be challenged". Thank you for supporting my argument. There is no need to clutter up articles with needless citations.

Furthermore, Amazon is a perfectly reliable source, to verify the mere existence of a work of cartoon pornography, and of the author of the work. Amazon isn't, generally, a reliable source, but basic information like that, it's perfectly fine. At least if WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is to be believed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_104#iTunes_and_Amazon_for_television_series_verification

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_7#Amazon.com_as_a_RS_for_merchandise.3F

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_21#Is_Amazon.com_a_reliable_source.3F

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_114#Amazon.com

Need I go on?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please dont dismiss my BLP challenge as not counting, or is there some policy which says MY challenges dont count? Or that "pedantic" challenges dont count? (with a clear idea of what pedantic means here). Challenging unsourced material is classic BLP enforcement, no? And where in BLP does it talk about needless citations for unsourced material about living people? ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 13:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is being associated with cartoon porn contentious? I'd sure say so. But upon further review of Kevin J. Taylor (the P we are discussing) his own website seems to confirm his involvement with erotic art, so I don't think the subject would consider this contentious. There are also sites like comicvine which mention his erotic work, so no, this is not a contentious statement with respect to Mr. Taylor. Whether Mr. Taylor needs a mention in this article, I don't have an opinion.Two kinds of pork (talk) 13:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was a dispute about Kevin J Taylor but that got resolved when Zarlan did finally source it after I pressured him or her to and I have accepted the inclusion of his name with the 2 current sources, I merely wasnt willing to here. This is the contentious edit, said Alazar is also likely a living person and the contention is that Zarlan cannot add info about Alazar or even their name without a reliable source. Zarlan clearly thinks a reliable source isnt necessary for Alazar and that my BLP challnege in favour of Alazar doesnt count but doesnt explain why except for using the word pedantic. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 13:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of content is most definitely a "challenge" and counts as something that absolutely requires a reliable source inline citation before restoration, AND particularly so when BLP the basis! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for any source, unless the statement is challenged or likely to be challenged. This clearly refers to challenges to the truth of the statement. SqueakBox never challenged the truth of the statement that any of those people are creators of cartoon pornography, but purely challenged their adherence to Wikipedia policy.

That is not the same thing.

Hence it doesn't count. It may count, if you look at purely at the letter of the policy, but doing so goes against the rules and principles of Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:The rules are principles, WP:COMMONSENSE, WP:Wikilawyering and WP:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_bureaucracy).--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 14:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have no grasp of our BLP policy, Zarlan,a nd that is worrying. Given I knew nothing about cartoon pornography your claim that I knew this to be true is not so but even if it were so that doesnt mean I cant challenge ANY unsourced material about living people, or is there some policy I havent seen that allows you to ignore BLP whenever you choose?♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 14:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"You appear to have no grasp of our BLP policy"

That statement is pointless and without meaning, unless you explain what aspect I am not grasping, and in what way. You're just claiming that I am ignorant of it. Anyone can do that. It doesn't prove anything. (note: Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement. You need to stay at the top three levels of it)

"Given I knew nothing about cartoon pornography your claim that I knew this to be true is not so"

What are you talking about? When/where have I ever made such a claim?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey ZarlanTheGreen when ANY other editor says "reliable source needed" for ANY reason regarding a contentious claim in a BLP, then that is by definition a legitimate challenge, and the onus is on YOU to provide the reliable source. Is that clear? So I am saying right now that I expect you to provide reliable sources 100% of the time for any claims that any living person is involved with cartoon pornography. There are no exceptions to this requirement, so please comply going forward, or refrain from introducing such content. Thank you for your adherence to BLP policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"when ANY other editor says "reliable source needed" for ANY reason regarding a contentious claim in a BLP, then that is by definition a legitimate challenge"

Why? Also: Is it really a contentious claim?

"Is that clear?"

Given that you have made claims, but not given any actual explanations: No. Not at all.

"So I am saying right now that I expect you to provide reliable sources 100% of the time for any claims that any living person is involved with cartoon pornography."

You expect that of me, do you?

Why should I care? If it is expected by Wikipedia policy, then I shall bow to those rules, but I fail to see why I should care what you, personally, expect.

"Thank you for your adherence to BLP policy."

Given that you are implying that I have not adhered to BLP, that sentence is nonsense.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to all that, it looks like at least two of the people being discussed lack articles on wikipedia. In the absence of such articles to demonstrate notability of these people, it would be even more important to include reliable secondary sources mentioning them since BLP issues aside, there's no reason to mention non notable people who's involvement in the field isn't mentioned in such sources as their involvement is of little significance to the reader. Nil Einne (talk) 13:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Notability (or, more accurately "due weight"). I'd say that the standards should be lower here, as it is more of a niche market, but some mention should probably be needed ...though that doesn't really address BLP issues, and is thus not really relevant to this noticeboard.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not directly relevant to this noticeboard, however if we have reasons to exclude the people which don't relate to BLP, then BLP issues become irrelevant. In other words, without reliable secondary sourcing or at least an article on the person, we can automatically presume the person does not belong in the list and removing them is fine. And there's no point arguing back and forth about whether the people should be excluded for BLP reasons when we have no reason to mention them in the first place.

I'm fine with lower standards, but niche market or not, we still need some evidence that these people are in some way significant to the field. (It's not like the market is so niche that there's only 4 people involved.) This evidence will need to come from reliable secondary sources or at least implied significance from primary sources (by which I mean an award or similar). If the market is so niche that we only have random editors opinions of significance, then we can assume that this info is not particularly useful to readers as no one else thought it was.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd agree with that.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What appears to be a BLP violation has been made three times, with the last one just moments ago here by Bdell555. I am not well-versed in this area, and am short on time, but this seems a non-neutral use of the source, as well as creating undue weight with placement in the first paragraph, wording, and with the wikilinked psychotic paranoia. Any help would be most appreciated. (It wouldn't seem Russ Tice has not been discredited... as the present version of the page would have us believe. At least, he made an appearance on PBS Newshour this summer to speak on the NSA leaks.) petrarchan47tc 04:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently ends by citing to the dailypaul and, immediately before that, a story in theblaze with the blaring headline "BUSH-ERA NSA WHISTLEBLOWER MAKES MOST EXPLOSIVE ALLEGATIONS YET ABOUT EXTENT OF GOV’T SURVEILLANCE — AND YOU WON’T BELIEVE WHO HE SAYS THEY SPIED ON". Now why wasn't his "bombshell" allegation that the NSA spied on no less than Barack Obama in 2004 been picked up by more serious media? If true this would be notable, would it not? And how many sources have carried Tice's allegations concerning "the wiretapping of Feinstein’s offices, homes, and family"? Spying on the Chairman of the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee and her home and family would be rather remarkable, would it not? My colleague here would like to remove the Slate story titled "The Professional Paranoid" even though the point of that piece is to argue that Tice should be considered reliable. That sympathetic Slate piece still concedes that the saga starts with his accusing "an Asian-American woman he was working with" of being a Chinese spy back in 2001. Note that the Slate piece acknowledges that "Tice's departure from the agency had nothing to do with the misgivings about domestic eavesdropping that he now professes." My colleague's preferred reading creates the impression that Tice's departure has EVERYTHING to do with his "whistleblowing" about domestic eavesdropping because it suggests that Tice was fired in retaliation for his "urging Congress to pass stronger protections for federal intelligence agency whistleblowers" just days earlier. This reading ignores the background completely and kicks off the history after Tice has already been dismissed (the article is currently chronologically ordered such that material pertaining to prior to 2005 should be given first). The bottom line is that the article is incomplete without adding the material I do. Does the article now say he's paranoid? No, it doesn't, it says someone working for the U.S. government thought so, and it includes Tice's statement that he believes this conclusion about his mental state to be unfair. Readers can draw their own conclusions about what to believe. Absent this material, readers are being railroaded into concluding this person has been unjustly persecuted by the U.S. government.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've since changed the end of the article to allow Mr Tice to raise what he apparently believes is a key question: has the intelligence community blackmailed U.S. officials to get what the intelligence community wants? "Is the intelligence community running this country"? Inquiring people want to know.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have not made an edit to this article prior to reverting Bdell555's work over the past few days. Due to time constraints, I have not have taken the time to read it thoroughly, but on first glance, the article has some problems: it doesn't talk about the person at all, but begins with Tice being fired and then lists important tidbits from his career. Usually an article will speak about the beginnings of a person's life, their family, etc. Now the most controversial aspect is covered in the very first paragraph, with this 'no big deal' accusation by a government official highlighted by a completely unnecessary wikilink. This same brand of enthusiasm from Bdell555 has been aimed at the Edward Snowden article, which a quick glance at the talk page will show. Accusations of edit warring at Snowden are found at his own talk page. You can get an idea of this enthusiasm here, in an(other) OR tangent.

The coverage of Russel Tice's firing and psych eval can be done in a much more respectful, neutral and accurate way. First, I found this CBS news article that basically makes fun of the evaluation as a transparent attempt to discredit Tice. Even the article Bdell555 added speaks to this same fact, though the statements from Sibel Edmonds weren't included in Bdell555's additions.

Bdell555 asks why Tice's claims weren't picked up by respectable media. Sibel Edmonds writes:

• MSNBC Censors NSA Whistleblower Russ Tice Minutes Before Interview

They have appeared in media, however:

• NSA Whistleblower: NSA Spying On – and Blackmailing – Top Government Officials and Military Officers
• ORIGINAL NSA WHISTLEBLOWER: I Saw The Order To Wiretap Barack Obama In 2004
• Russ Tice, Bush-Era Whistleblower, Claims NSA Ordered Wiretap Of Barack Obama In 2004 petrarchan47tc 23:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say "MSNBC Censors NSA Whistleblower Russ Tice Minutes Before Interview" proves my point. MSNBC didn't want to air Tice's allegations in full because MSNBC's suits didn't think they were credible. But Sibel Edmonds says that MSNBC didn't want to air them because there's a conspiracy to suppress them! Petrarchan47, yet again, finds the conspiracy theory the most appealing explanation. I suppose it all depends on perspective now, doesn't it? I remain of the view that the Tice article is far more accurate and neutral with my edits than without. As for "respect", NPOV is a "non-negotiable" "core" policy. Whitewashing a bio to delete anything that might question the accuracy of the subject's claims is not. By the way, how is that you don't have time to fix an article you say is flawed but you do have the time to revert everything I do? Looks more like a problem of priorities to me. re my so-called "enthusiasm," I could make an issue out of your well documented fawning "enthusiasm" for one Edward Snowden, but the issue is article, not the editor, is it not?--Brian Dell (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It takes seconds to revert, hours to deal with a noticeboard like this, and a day to do proper work on a novel article (at least, for me). I am involved in a project and do not have space to take on another article, which is why I'm asking someone here to look at this. You have now suddenly visited the project and weighed in against it. This could be called hounding. Look, drop the OR and the smear campaign against whistle-blowers, whom you call "conspiracy theorists".

The details about Tice's firing do not belong in the first sentence of his article no matter what sort of diatribe you have to offer in your defense. The story is simple, if you're willing to be at least as NPOV as ABC news: "The NSA revoked Tice's security clearance in May of [2005] based on what it called psychological concerns and later dismissed him. Tice calls that bunk and says that's the way the NSA deals with troublemakers and whistleblowers. Today the NSA said it had "no information to provide." petrarchan47tc 01:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Now Bdell555 has gone on to make substantial edits to the Snowden article in what looks like a flurry of revenge editing. I am sorry to the other editors here that I can't take care of this myself. If you could offer some advice, or help look into these edits that would be most appreciated. I am throwing up my hands out of necessity. petrarchan47tc 04:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"revenge editing"? Against you? Because you "own" that other article? You believe the documented diagnosis of paranoia in the subject of this BLP is bogus, with the U.S. government conspiring to falsely diagnosis this employee, but a diagnosis of a revenge complex in myself would be well founded, is that right? How about we just stick to the sources, which means ceasing to follow my editing around. I responded on this page because, as you'll see at the top of the page, "generally" this page is for "cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material". When you accuse another editor of defamation or libel that assertion may be contested. That's not "hounding." To get back to the substance, statements from Sibel Edmonds weren't included because Edmonds is not credible. According to Edmonds, "Both mainstream and quasi alternative media outlets refused to publish or air Mr. Tice’s revelations" because of "censorship". There is, in fact, absolutely no evidence of censorship as opposed to declining to broadcast Tice's allegations because they are not credible.--Brian Dell (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've left comments and more sourcing to prove Bdell555's assertions incorrect at the Tice talk page here. Until someone can get around to making the present coverage more neutral, I would suggest reverting to the pre-Bdell555 version of the article. A simple blurb like the one from ABC news above can be used in the meantime to quell Bdell555's worry that the story of how Tice lost his job isn't covered in the article. However, it should not be placed in the very first sentence and paragraph. petrarchan47tc 22:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Dell seems to be making the better argument on this page. Perhaps you could bring your arguments that "prove" your case from other pages to here. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[1] is the edit in question.

The source is [2] Feminist Media Studies which is not a biographical article about the subject of the BLP.

The edit which I find supportable by the actual article would be

Delingpole described himself "as a member of probably the most discriminated-against subsection in the whole of British society—the white, middle-aged, public-school-and-Oxbridge educated middle-class male" and followed with "The function of satire is not only to make us laugh, but also, with luck, to draw our attention to the things that are wrong with the world and help mock them into extinction

rather than the edit warred version of

Delingpole adheres to a version of identity politics that identifies the middle classes as experiencing injury and oppression, describing himself "as a member of probably the most discriminated-against subsection in the whole of British society—the white, middle-aged, public-school-and-Oxbridge educated middle-class male". In an article entitled "A conspiracy against chavs? Count me in", he describes chavs as "repellent" and follows with "The function of satire is not only to make us laugh, but also, with luck, to draw our attention to the things that are wrong with the world and help mock them into extinction which is called a "paraphrase" by the editor proposing it.

The actual article abstract is:

In the last three years a new vocabulary of social class has emerged in Britain. The word “chav,” alongside its various synonyms and regional variations, has become a ubiquitous term of abuse for the white poor. This article explores the emergence of the grotesque and comic figure of the chav within a range of contemporary British media focusing on the role played by disgust reactions in the generation and circulation of the chav figure through popular media. Concentrating on the figure of the female chav, and the vilification of young white working-class mothers, this article argues that the “chav mum” is produced through disgust reactions as an intensely affective figure that embodies historically familiar and contemporary anxieties about female sexuality, reproduction, fertility, and “racial mixing.”

The article is not biographical, stated to be biographical, intended to be biographical of any person, and is not a reliable source for SYNTH biographical claims. IMO. .

I fear the "insisted upon edit" is 1. not a "paraphrase" as it makes combinations of claims not in the source 2. makes claims in Wikipedia's voice about a living person which are not made by the source 3. Introduces "chavs" without explaining precisely what the usage of the term is, and the basis for the article in Feminist Media Studies which is not intended in any way as a biographical article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors are encouraged to have a look at the talk page, which gives the relevant quote from the source. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would note I already cited the entire source above. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You linked to the source/article, which many people would have to pay for to get access. On the talk page, I provide the relevant quote from that source. Again, I suggest other editors look at the talk page to evaluate things properly. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Normal procedure is to link to the full source, so that editors may verify for themselves what the full context of any source is. And I would note that looking at the talk page is certainly a good idea which most denizens here do automatically. Including a claim that "not really contestable" is given as a reason for SYNTH. BTW, the source is "free access" for this article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I support linking to the full source. I only wanted to link to the talk page discussion as well. I hope that's not a problem for you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the full original ref, I agree that it does not support the "adheres to" formulation in this BLP. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Jordan Belfort (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

When I used to patrol this board more frequently, I often fought against inclusion of religious and sexual orientation labels per BLPCAT. Judaism was particularly problematic because of the cultural/religious dichotomy. Ironically, I find myself in a dispute on this article where I am the one arguing that the Jewish label should remain in the infobox. My interpretation is it's well-sourced that Belfort has identified as a Jew here as there's an amusing quote from him in the magazine article. One editor is so riled up he's reverting me while questioning whether my account has been "hacked" (see [3]), not a constructive question, particularly for an administrator. I assume the question stems from the editor's belief that the only way I could maintain this label is if I'm not really myself. Hyperbole is always fun.

I'll leave to others to sort this out, although regardless of whether the issue is resolved, I predict there will be more battles to come (although not by me).--Bbb23 (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The quote says he was praying to Jesus, so it's not a very clear instance of Jewish self-identification, at least in the religious sense (the infobox entry was for "religion" rather than ethnicity).Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I am the "riled up editor" who had the audacity to question an administrator. First of all your strawman argument about my "belief" is the funniest thing I've read here today, so thanks for that. As for the underlying issue, this is my position: Not sure where in the linked article it states that Belfort "identified as a Jew." I hope its not where in the long article there is a half of sentence that says that he had a "Jewish mother on steroids" (whatever that means). I could be missing something though I think I covered the whole article. I would like the administrator proponent to show specifically on what grounds he is introducing the fact that Belfort's religion is Judaism and on what grounds he is introducing the fact that Belfort "remains Jewish" (again, what the heck does that even mean?) --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments here are also unconstructive, so I probably won't be responding again. I have no problem with your questioning my edits. As I clearly stated, it's the "hacked" business that is inappropriate. The "remains Jewish" is awkwardly worded. I wanted to get across that he was raised in a Jewish household and, as an adult, still considers himself Jewish. I have no objection to that being reworded. As I also stated, the religion/cultural issue has always been an issue. I don't know how to sort that out because using the ethnicity parameter in the infobox instead of the religion parameter has its own set of problems. It implies that he doesn't identify with being Jewish but comes from a Jewish background, which, in this case, is not accurate.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why not use the "religion parameter" and fill it with "nonobservant Jew"? Bus stop (talk) 22:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting idea, but we don't know, at least from that source, whether he be identifies as religiously Jewish. We know only that he identifies as Jewish. Perhaps it would be better to leave it out of the infobox because of the limitations of the parameters and use cats instead, which don't get into those nuances.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Non-observant Jew" isn't a religion. I think Bbb23 is right to say we should leave it out of the infobox and keep the cats. I can't find any sources that talk about his religion. He himself, and I noted this on the article's talk page, says he is a Jew, though. In the absence of specific information to the contrary we should assume this means ethnicity. It's obviously relevant, though, because numerous sources discuss it and he talks about it all the time in his autobiography.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is Belfort's full quote from the magazine article: "I’m lying on my back and see the ceiling has cracks in it. I’m like, Why are the Wasps not paying for their ceiling? What a troubling thought that they don’t fix the ceiling in this Wasp heaven — maybe they’re running out of money. I try to stand. I can’t stand! I curl myself into a little barrel and fucking roll myself down the steps. I do the prayer to Jesus. Even an old Jew. Jesus, please God, just get me home one last time."--Bbb23 (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If he refers to himself as a Jew, then it doesn't matter if he prays to Jesus and all the saints -- per BLPCAT we can (and in my view should) indicate in the infobox that he's a Jew. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As his "religion"?Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anythingyouwant—you say "As his 'religion'?"[4] For sure—as his religion. At the web site "Judaism 101" I find: " A Jew is any person whose mother was a Jew or any person who has gone through the formal process of conversion to Judaism. It is important to note that being a Jew has nothing to do with what you believe or what you do. A person born to non-Jewish parents who has not undergone the formal process of conversion but who believes everything that Orthodox Jews believe and observes every law and custom of Judaism is still a non-Jew, even in the eyes of the most liberal movements of Judaism, and a person born to a Jewish mother who is an atheist and never practices the Jewish religion is still a Jew, even in the eyes of the ultra-Orthodox. In this sense, Judaism is more like a nationality than like other religions, and being Jewish is like a citizenship."[5] Bus stop (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bus Stop, as you are very well aware (having had it pointed out previously when you tried to cite it), the "Judaism 101" website isn't even remotely a reliable source for anything but the opinions of the creator - a person who states that "I do not claim to be a rabbi or an expert on Judaism" [6],and that it "is written predominantly from the Orthodox viewpoint". [7]. And there is no way whatsoever that Wikipedia is ever going to define anyones religion on the basis that their mother was Jewish. That is not only contrary to policy, it is just plain stupid. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGrump—you say "And there is no way whatsoever that Wikipedia is ever going to define anyones 'religion' on the basis that their mother was Jewish. That is not only contrary to policy, it is just plain stupid."[8] And there is no reason that Wikipedia would ever have to "define anyones 'religion' on the basis that their mother was Jewish." Please consider another source: "According to Reform Judaism, a person is a Jew if they were born to either a Jewish mother or a Jewish father."[9] Bus stop (talk) 18:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the slightest bit interested in getting involved in another of your facile and tendentious 'debates'. A person's religion is defined by what they themselves believe, not by what other people believe about them, and no source that suggests otherwise is of the slightest relevance to this discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGrump—let us consider what The Economist, a secular publication, has to say: "Gentiles might be surprised that for Jews by birth this traditional test makes no reference to faith or behaviour. Jews may be atheist (many are: apostasy is a venerable Jewish tradition) and still Jews."[10] Bus stop (talk) 02:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So not content with citing a ridiculously-unreliable source, you are now cherry-picking another one. One which makes entirely clear that there is no general agreement amongst competing groups within Judaism as to any definition of who is Jewish. Not that it is relevant anyway, since Wikipedia (like any sane encyclopaedia not pushing a particular ethnoreligious POV) defines religion as a belief system - self ascribed - and not something that can be ascribed by others. It simply doesn't matter what other people think someone's religion is, if they themselves don't subscribe to it. That isn't what 'religion' means - as the Economist article you cite makes clear when it says that "22% of American Jews described themselves as having no religion". AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGrump—you are seizing upon, from The Economist article, what I think is an inapplicable point, namely that "22% of American Jews described themselves as having no religion". Does Jordan Belfort describe himself that way? A wider quote from The Economist article would read "The responses confirm that Jewishness is not thought to consist mostly in belief: 22% of American Jews described themselves as having no religion (swap 'Christians' for 'Jews' and the statistic becomes nonsensical)."[11] The Economist, in that quote, is I think suggesting that the parameters applicable to Judaism are different from the parameters applicable to Christianity. "A Jewish person is still Jewish whether or not he believes or practices Judaism."[12]. You are not bringing any sources. If a person is Jewish as a result of birth or as a result of a valid conversion, that person does not become "not Jewish" as a consequence of not practicing the religion or as a consequence of not believing something considered essential to the religion. I think you are displaying a misunderstanding of Judaism. You are trusting your own opinions too strongly. And you are not bringing sources of your own. Bus stop (talk) 11:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If someone doesn't practice a religion, we cannot describe it as their religion because it isn't their religion, and only a complete imbecile or a clueless Jew-tagging troll with OCD would argue otherwise. Now toddle off to ANI because I've called you a clueless Jew-tagging troll - but expect to explain why you are yet again promoting your ridiculous agenda yet again, after being told multiple times that Wikipedia isn't a platform for Jew-tagging trolls to go around falsely tagging people as Jewish by religion when they aren't Jewish by religion. If you do raise this at ANI shall of course be calling for you to be topic banned on the basis that your Jew-tagging agenda is contrary to the objectives of Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGrump—is CNN incorrect in supplying for Henry Kissinger the information "Religion: Jewish"? I couldn't find a similar word formation for Jordan Belfort but I think they are both nonobservant Jews. Bus stop (talk) 11:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGrump—this thread wasn't initiated by me. It was initiated by Bbb23. Though that editor has reversed their position, they said in their first post "Ironically, I find myself in a dispute on this article where I am the one arguing that the Jewish label should remain in the infobox. My interpretation is it's well-sourced that Belfort has identified as a Jew here as there's an amusing quote from him in the magazine article". Also Nomoskedasticity says in this thread "If he refers to himself as a Jew, then it doesn't matter if he prays to Jesus and all the saints -- per BLPCAT we can (and in my view should) indicate in the infobox that he's a Jew." And finally Alf.laylah.wa.laylah says in this thread "See the article from the Jewish Journal of LA discussed on the talk page of the actual article. It is a subject of interest because Belfort talks about the fact that he's Jewish extensively in his book and elsewhere and yet his character in the movie is not Jewish. This fact has been discussed fairly widely in the press, so it seems plausible that a reader might wonder whether or not he is Jewish. He is. He says it himself all the time." Bus stop (talk) 11:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGrump—I'm not easily offended but calling someone a "Jew-tagging troll" is simply unacceptable. Bus stop (talk) 05:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only just noticed? Anyway, if you don't like it, stop advocating that contributors violate multiple Wikipedia policies by misrepresenting people as Jewish by faith when they aren't. We aren't going to lie to our readers just to satisfy your bizarre agenda. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGrump—your language ("I've had enough of this Jew-tagging troll")is not conducive to a collaborative editing environment in which a premium is placed on collegiality. Bus stop (talk) 06:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in 'collaborating' with someone who wishes for Wikipedia to publish lies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGrump—this is a collaborative project whether you disagree or not with another editor or whether you feel another editor promotes "lies". You are nevertheless expected to conduct yourself in the manner expected at this project. We have policies that tell us that "Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear." This matters. You can't skirt these policies. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia." Bus stop (talk) 06:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in 'collaborating' with someone who engages in an ideological battle with the objective of persuading Wikipedia to publish lies. If you don't like my comments, toddle off to ANI, where I can call for you to be topic banned as promoting your own objectives relating to Judaism and Jewish ethnicity which are totally incompatible with the stated objectives of Wikipedia. Namely, that we should publish lies about the religion of living persons, contrary to WP:BLP policy, and to everything else that Wikipedia stands for. So put up, or shut up - this thread has served its purpose, and it has been made clear that we aren't going to describe Jordan Belfort as a follower of the Jewish faith, because he doesn't state that he is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"put up, or shut up"? We don't speak this way at Wikipedia. Bus stop (talk) 06:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do. I just did. And I'll do so again. Put up, or shut up... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bus stop: Please use some other page to record your dissatisfaction with Andy's remarks. This page should focus on the issue. If the above comment that "A Jew is any person whose mother was a Jew or..." is really used as a guide for article tagging, I can see why some intemperate language was used. Above all, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia where the primary concern is the development of good articles, and it would be absurd to suggest that some formula should mindlessly be applied to sprinkle articles with "X is a Jew". Johnuniq (talk) 09:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Johnuniq—I've responded to you on your Talk page. Bus stop (talk) 15:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC) Bus stop (talk) 11:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the comments above, I would propose that we leave Jewish out of the infobox altogether (the status quo) and add the material and source back to the body that says he still considers himself Jewish, but perhaps better worded than my awkward phrase. The article already has one Jewish cat, so that part is fine.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps use his own autobiography as a source, as it's less ambiguous? I put a cite template for it on the talk page.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed - no reason why we shouldn't cite both. I'd put the autobiography first.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The revert of your edit removed the infobox, left the cat, and included the fact that he was "raised in a Jewish home." What exactly is the wording that you are proposing to add? Thanks. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's time to move this conversation back to the article talk page so we're not having it in two places. There seem to be a lot of eyes on the article by now.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This has shades of Ed Miliband. I don't know what eventually happened there and it sounds like in this case we at least don't have any sources we he says he's not religious but still, I don't see any reason to label his religion as Jewish from the sources presented so far. The opinions of third parties, even RS, on what a term means are of course largely irrelevant, what matters is how this LP defines himself. Nil Einne (talk) 15:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone give a good reason why Belfort's ethnicity and/or religious beliefs (if any) are of any relevance to to the article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGrump—there isn't necessarily a concern here with a person's "ethnicity and/or religious beliefs"[13]. Furthermore a biography "entails more than basic facts like education, work, relationships, and death"[14]. Bus stop (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. See the article from the Jewish Journal of LA discussed on the talk page of the actual article. It is a subject of interest because Belfort talks about the fact that he's Jewish extensively in his book and elsewhere and yet his character in the movie is not Jewish. This fact has been discussed fairly widely in the press, so it seems plausible that a reader might wonder whether or not he is Jewish. He is. He says it himself all the time. I really wonder why this discussion is still going on at this noticeboard given that, contrary to all reasonable expectations, the issue has already been resolved on the article's talk page and the questioned sentence is now stable.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know and to be honest don't really care that much about any sentence. I'm more concerned about the infobox which from my experience akin to Bbb23's, is along with categories, usually the biggest problem (since we have room to expand on what people actually say in the article but in categories and infoboxes are very simplified so run a strong risk of convey something not supported by what the person said above). The suggestions made in this discussion about the infobox by Bus stop are IMO rather flawed so I felt it necessary to reenforce AndyTheGrump, Bbb23 and your view that the information presented here does not support listing the religion as Jewish, non observant Jew or anything of that sort in the infobox. I also thought it helpful to mention the Ed Miliband case, as a somewhat related case where this was discussed extensively (and in which I believe Bus stop was involved). The infobox and categories were also what brought this issue to the noticeboard, not the article text. And this discussion was started less than 24 hours ago when I replied, Bus stop's responses were about 15 hours old. So I don't see how or why I can or should have assumed it's settled. The fact that Bus stop has continued to reply here after I responded (albeit not to me) supports my view that it's not clear the infobox issue was settled, however settled the article text is. While I appeciate that split discussions can be confusing, I find very little discussion about religion in the infobox in the article talk page, and a lot here, most of it not coming from me (and as I've said, some of it coming after me). Nil Einne (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add my voice here, too, and say we should include his religion in the infobox. It's so common-sense and we wouldn't be having this problem if it were not for some editors fearing the association. Without going into discussions of who is a Jew, Belfort is definitely Jewish.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 19:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we had a source for Belfort's religion (self-ascribed, per WP:BLPCAT), it might be 'common sense' to include it. We don't. That Belfont self-identifies as Jewish is indisputable, but as anyone remotely familiar with the subject should be aware, 'Being Jewish' can mean all sorts of things - including being Jewish by descent and culture, but being atheist or Christian or a multitude of other things by faith. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

People generally don't talk that way. They say "I'm a Christian" or "I'm a Muslim" or "I'm Jewish". To expect someone to say "My religion is Judaism" is to impose an expectation regarding Jews that you wouldn't impose regarding members of other religions. (Or, if you did impose it, requiring people to say "My religion is Islam", you'd be ridiculous.) As is common in this situation, the problem is simply that many people have a poor understanding of what it means to be Jewish even in a religious sense. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At this web site, which I think may be associated with Harvard University, we see eleven Jewish political representatives with biographical information presented in what seems to me to be "Infobox-style". Notice that they all say "Religion: Jewish". Or this table. In my opinion, common terminology, whether observant or nonobservant or in-between (semi-observant), is Religion: Jewish. I would like to see someone opposing such terminology to bring sources supporting a different position on this question. Bus stop (talk) 20:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGrump's demand does seem a bit unreasonable. The point that someone can be Jewish without actually being religiously Jewish is well-taken (and I should know), but the fact remains that we have no reason whatsoever to question Belfort's self-declared religion. To do so would require a bit OR and SYN on our part. I say we take what he says at face value and have it in the infobox and move on.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 23:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My 'demand' is that this article comply with WP:BLPCAT. No more and no less. And Belfort hasn't declared that he is Jewish by religion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's SYN on your part. But here is a compromise, I guess to prevent confusion, we should also state that his parents are Jewish as well in the article? Something maybe along the lines of "Belfort was born to Jewish parents and self-identifies as Jewish." In his book, we're even told that his mother at one point read Jewish prayers. This way we leave it to the reader to draw their own conclusions.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 14:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesis? Complete and utter nonsense. How can a statement that we don't have a source for something (which we don't) possibly be synthesis? As for the rest, can you explain why you think that adding statements about Belfort's mother's prayers is "leav[ing] it to the reader to draw their own conclusions", rather than leading readers to draw a specific conclusion that you evidently think they should reach - a conclusion we don't have evidence for? The article already states that "Belfort is Jewish", which is quite sufficient to establish the fact that he self-identifies as Jewish (and for that matter, that nobody disputes this), and that is all the article needs to state. Attempts to imply that Belfort holds beliefs for which we have no evidence are not only contrary to Wikipedia policy, but contrary to basic standards of human dignity. He should be allowed to express his own ideas on the subject - or not to, should he prefer. It isn't up to us to do it for him. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy -- how to "comply with BLPCAT" is a matter of discussion. You are applying a double standard when it comes to Jews. You might note the escalation in my phrasing of the point, which of course you didn't respond to the first time around. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomoskedasticity, I find your assertion that I am "applying a double standard when it comes to Jews" grossly offensive - and it is an outright lie. I am applying exactly the same standard here as in any other case - that per WP:BLPCAT any statements about the beliefs of living individuals require self-identification with those beliefs. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be convincing in this respect, perhaps you could point to diffs where you insisted that "I'm a Christian" didn't satisfy you in connection with BLPCAT and instead you insisted that someone must say "My religion is Christianity". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is a ridiculous argument. There is little room for ambiguity in the statement "I am Christian" - It is a statement about personal faith. As you are quite obviously aware, the statement "I am Jewish" is capable of several interpretations - it is entirely possible to consider oneself Jewish by descent and culture, without being a follower of the Judaic faith. And Wikipedia policy is clear in this regard - statements about personal faith need to be sourced to personal statements about faith. If you wish to argue that policy needs a 'Jewish exception', you are of course free to do so, in the appropriate place. Which isn't here. We go by existing policy, unless and until it changes - and assertions about an individual's personal beliefs are self-evidently covered by existing WP:BLP policy. Which requires that such statements be properly sourced. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah -- so you are applying a double standard -- it's just that you think you have good reasons to do so. Got it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thats right - applying the same policy everywhere is a 'double standard', cats lay eggs in trees, and the capital of Azerbaijan is Dusseldorf. Obviously... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGrump—policy is not necessarily problematic. It is your application of policy that is faulty. Judaism is not a religion that is heavily based on "beliefs". You don't seem inclined to accept this. Despite sources telling you this. Nor have you brought any sources of your own. Have you tried to find a source supportive of the notion that "beliefs" are heavily of importance to Judaism? Please present them if you find any. But it is unlikely that you will find any. Judaism is not a religion in which "belief" plays a large role. We can see this in for instance CNN's listing of Henry Kissinger as "Religion: Jewish". This is not a statement of religious "beliefs". CNN is fully aware of the relatively insignificant role of "belief" in Judaism. You are pounding away at a minor point as if it were a major point. Bus stop (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Judaism is not a religion that is heavily based on "beliefs"'? Do you realise just how absurd that statement is? As for Henry Kissinger, and what CNN has to say about him, it isn't under discussion here, though I'd point out that Wikipedia policy on several subjects undoubtedly differs from CNN's, and I've not seen anyone advocating that we revise it to follow theirs. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGrump—you say "Attempts to imply that Belfort holds beliefs for which we have no evidence are not only contrary to Wikipedia policy, but contrary to basic standards of human dignity."[15] What "beliefs" are you referring to? You are failing to understand Judaism. We don't define one religion in terms of another religion. The Economist writes "Gentiles might be surprised that for Jews by birth this traditional test makes no reference to faith or behaviour."[16] Judaism does not require "belief". I have shown you several sources articulating that "belief" is not essential to Judaism. Even if you find fault with one or two of those sources, they are corroborating one another. And you have yet to bring any sources of your own whatsoever. You are misrepresenting Judaism and you are providing no sources in support of that misrepresentation of Judaism. I am not accusing you of doing this deliberately. I have no idea why you are pounding away at a point in the absence of any sources to support that point. You say "And Belfort hasn't declared that he is Jewish by religion."[17] Can you give me an example of someone who has "declared that he is Jewish by religion"? We have examples such as CNN listing Henry Kissinger as being of the Jewish religion. CNN is not implying anything about his level of religiosity. Bus stop (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bus Stop, please stop spamming this noticeboard with irrelevances. Wikipedia policy is absolutely clear - we don't lie to our readers about an individual's personal beliefs (or lack of them) to suit the agenda of adherents of a particular faith. Any faith. Sources stating that other people consider someone Jewish by faith (which your sources appear not to do anyway) are of no relevance whatsoever to anything we say about an individuals own beliefs. Because they aren't sources about the person's beliefs - they are statements about other people's beliefs. Just how difficult is this elementary concept for you to grasp? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) AndyTheGrump—you say "Wikipedia policy is absolutely clear - we don't lie to our readers about an individual's personal beliefs (or lack of them) to suit the agenda of adherents of a particular faith."[18] I don't know which "adherents of a particular faith" you are referring to. Is CNN lying to its readers about Henry Kissinger's "personal beliefs" when it says "Religion: Jewish". Henry Kissinger is not known as holding religious beliefs. Or is he? Bus stop (talk) 19:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No diffs for me, to put "double standards" to rest? Ah -- well, perhaps you're still working on it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not need to produce diffs for arguments I have never made. And applying policy consistently is not a 'double standard'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requiring "My religion is Judaism" for Jews and "I'm a Christian" for Christians (not "My religion is Christianity") is hardly consistent. In fact it's inconsistent. Or, to put it differently, a double standard. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 'requiring' anything beyond proper sourcing. In any article. And repeating the same nonsense won't change the fact that it is nonsense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Come on Andy. Surely it's trivial for you to dig up a diff that demonstrates one of the many occasions you have treated Christians as an ethnoreligious group where the ambiguity of the statement "I'm a Christian" by a living person confused you to the extent that you were unsure which aspect of their identity they were referring to, their ethnicity or their religious beliefs, but because you know what it means to be Christian, even in a ethnic sense, you went ahead with Ethnicity=Christian in the infobox anyway. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Christian' is not an ethnicity. And the infobox field under discussion is 'religion'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, you haven't made any policy violating edits based on a conflation of ethnicity and religious beliefs or a misuse of reliably sourced information about one aspect of a person's identity, ethnicity, to draw policy violating conclusions about another aspect of their identity, religion. Thought not. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to accuse me of violating policy, at least have the common decency to provide evidence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How long are we going to be held hostage to one editor who, to this point, failed to produce anything to support their argument?

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 19:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPCAT (and WP:BLP policy in general, and Wikipedia policy in general...) is all that is needed to support an argument that we shouldn't ascribe religious beliefs to an individual when we have no evidence that they hold such beliefs. Find the necessary source... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, Aua, it's not just one editor. You've already brought this up and encountered dissent on the article talk page (where this discussion ought to be taking place). There are at least two editors there exclusive of AndyTheGrump who disagree with your position.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGrump—you say "And Belfort hasn't declared that he is Jewish by religion."[19] Can you give me an example of someone who has "declared that he is Jewish by religion"? I asked this before. I don't think you responded to it. Bus stop (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Leopold Jessner - Jeanette R. Malkin; Freddie Rokem (15 April 2010). Jews and the Making of Modern German Theatre. University of Iowa Press. pp. 239–. ISBN 978-1-58729-934-6.
• Dennis Prager - Mark F. Carr (2010). Physician-assisted Suicide: Religious Perspectives on Death with Dignity. Wheatmark, Inc. pp. 15–. ISBN 978-1-60494-182-1.
• Yossi Klein Halevi - Yossi K. Halevi (18 June 2002). At the Entrance to the Garden of Eden: A Jew's Search for Hope with Christians and Muslims in the Holy Land. HarperCollins. pp. 1–. ISBN 978-0-06-050582-0.

and so on and on and on... — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I would be interested in seeing the sources supportive of the notion that these three people are "Jewish by religion". Can you please provide the source (including a brief excerpt from the source) that you feel is supportive of the person being "Jewish by religion"? Bus stop (talk) 20:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I have to assume that I actually didn't understand what you were talking about and I will withdraw from the conversation.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alf.laylah.wa.laylah—it is said by AndyTheGrump that "Belfort hasn't declared that he is Jewish by religion."[20] I agree that Belfort has not declared that he is Jewish by religion. I am asking the following question: Can you give me an example of someone who has declared that they are Jewish by religion? If you are going to give an example, please substantiate in some way that the individual has declared that he or she is Jewish by religion. Substantiation should take the form of a source. Please extract some wording from a source that you think would support the notion of that person being Jewish by religion. To keep it simple, why not just start with one example instead of three? Bus stop (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have been watching this discussion with growing disbelief. To me it seems self-evident that Andy is right, and Bus Stop is wrong. Unless we have a source that states that a person's religion is Jewish, we cannot enter Jewish under the religion category in an infobox. No amount of special pleading can alter this.

I am Jewish. I have no religion. If anyone argued and edit-warred to include Jewish as my religion in an infobox, I would hit the roof. It is no one else's role to determine this for me, and the fact that their definition would include me is of no more relevance than is the fact that Mormons, I understand, retroactively convert the ancestors of converts to their religion. Would any editor insist that, because the Mormon church considered the deceased parent of a convert to be a Mormao, then this category should be included, as their religion, in an infobox?

In addition, it seems to me that Bus Stop is going beyond the common-sense understanding of the term "religion" in his application of the term. Indeed, going by his argument it would appear that Judaism is not a religion in the commonly accepted sens of the term; it is not a belief system or code of practice, merely an accident of birth. But, as has been repeatedly stressed above, what is at issue here is not a matter of "ethnicity"; it is a statement of religious affiliation. And the more this drags on, the more it seems to me that the category in the infobox serves no useful purpose, and should be removed altogether. Unless it can be shown that most people subscribe to some code of religious beliefs, then including this category is indeed asking for trouble. And it is quite frankly to insist that people be defined as practicing Jewish religion, regardless of their actual beliefs, practices or wishes. I fully support Andy's position in this discussion. RolandR (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, the overwhelming consensus here is that the BLP should not say his religion is Jewish without some evidence that it is, especially without self-identification with the Jewish religion. However the article can mention that his ethnicity is Jewish and he self-identifies as Jewish. That's the overwhelming consensus, so maybe this thread can end now?????Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - and it evidently needs to be pointed out that WP:BLPCAT (part of the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy) makes it entirely clear that 'religion' refers to an individual's personal beliefs - as if it needed saying - and that such categorisation should not be applied at all except where it is specifically justified through sources: "Categories regarding religious beliefs... should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief... in question, and the subject's beliefs... are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources". Given the complete lack of any source for what if any religious beliefs Belfort holds, it is entirely untenable to suggest that they are 'relevant' to anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGrump—Infobox fields should not be completed by merely a consensus of editors, though wp:consensus obviously plays an important part in the decision-making process. If you can't show me examples of individuals who have declared that they are Jewish by religion then how can you differentiate such individuals from those who have not declared that they are Jewish by religion? You have said "Belfort hasn't declared that he is Jewish by religion."[21] Bus stop (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia BLP policy is clear and unequivocal. It would violate policy to state that Belfort was Jewish by religion unless we had a source for him stating that he was so. Nothing more needs to be said. I suggest you find a website better suited to your obsessions elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGrump—all of the people here have an Infobox-style field for "Religion" which is followed by the term "Jewish". Is "harvard.edu" unaware that some of them might not be Jewish by religion? Wikipedia is virtually coining the condition that you are calling Jewish by religion. Support for the condition of being Jewish by religion and not Jewish by religion does not exist outside of Wikipedia. Bus stop (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia BLP policy is clear and unequivocal. It would violate policy to state that Belfort was Jewish by religion unless we had a source for him stating that he was so. Nothing more needs to be said. 00:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

You are engaging in original research. You could be arguing that some Jews are observant and others are not observant. But instead you are concocting and foisting on us gibberish about people being "Jewish by religion" and "not Jewish by religion". You are transgressing basic Wikipedia policy such as our prohibition on WP:OR. Do you find the phase "Jewish by religion" or anything like it outside of Wikipedia? Please show me a source for that phrase. I think it is pure invention. You should be using standard terminology on a Talk page such as this, in dialogue with your fellow editors. We are all fully cognizant that some Jews are more religious and other Jews are less religious. But I doubt if any of us have ever heard the phrase "Jewish by religion". Please use standard language found outside of Wikipedia. Bus stop (talk) 00:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you really think I'm engaging in WP:OR, raise it at WP:NORN, and see how well your tendentious Wikilawyering bollocks goes down there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. "Jewish by religion" as used by www.timesofisrael.com. [22] An interesting article. I suggest you read it. You might learn something. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGrump—you say "And Belfort hasn't declared that he is Jewish by religion."[23] Can you give me an example of someone who has "declared that he is Jewish by religion"? Bus stop (talk) 01:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPCAT is policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGrump—there is nothing wrong with WP:BLPCAT policy. The problem is that you have concocted inapplicable and unworkable criteria ("Jewish by religion") that you are unwilling to discuss. Bus stop (talk) 02:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. The problem is that you are a tendentious Wikilawyering POV-pusher who refuses to accept that per policy, Wikipedia doesn't lie about people's religious beliefs. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGrump—"Comment on content, not on the contributor." Bus stop (talk) 04:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is a pressing BLP issue, please continue this discussion on the article's talk page.Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no pressing issue: policy is absolutely clear and unequivocal - and if it is violated in the Jordan Belfort article by any of the participants of this discussion, I will revert the edit - and very likely raise the violation of policy at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could some kind soul please take pity on the article on Paul Hartal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), it is an absolute mess. We have an email ticket from him. I don't mind passing on your email address if you want to mail me. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 21:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have trimmed out most of the obvious cruft to expose the bones of the article. What remains isn't great, and parts are very poorly sourced, but beyond that I'm not sure exactly what the problem is? I see there were huge arguments on the talk page years ago, but that seems to have passed. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cruft and badly sourced, was precisely the problem. Thank you, that now looks much better. Guy (Help!) 23:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Born in 1907, it seems quite unlikely that this man is still living. However, as I understand it, WP:BLP requires that anyone under 115 years of age be presumed living until confirmed deceased. This case seems to be something of an anomaly, as the page, when created in 2008, began: "George Washington was...", seemingly indicating that he was already deceased. Internet searches have yielded me next to nothing. I did find one article stating that he was alive, aged 106, but it seemed to be based on our own article. Any extra eyes would be appreciated. Meanwhile, should I observe the letter of WP:BLP, and change the lede to indicate that he is living? Joefromrandb (talk) 00:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which is the source that says he was born in 1907? The Allmusic source gives 1910. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But note the picture of "him" at Allmusic, which hardly inspires confidence in their reliability :-) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Allmusic bios are generally considered RSes, which makes Washington's "picture" all the more baffling. But anyway, what's the source saying he was born in 1907? I haven't found one. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 04:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found a group photo on a website that may or may not be reliable, but it states that the photo was taken in 1920, and he looks older than 13. I guess the bottom line is that we don't know for sure when he was born and whether he has died, but if he's alive, he's awfully old. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The portrait on Allmusic must be the bassist who played with John Lee Hooker. Bassists and trombonists often look indistinguishable without their instruments. But if they wanted to indicate he was old, that's the portrait to do it. But more seriously, I don't think it's settled that the George Washington playing trombone with Buddie Petit in Lousiana in the group shot should necessarily be considered the same George Washington that played trombone from Jacksonville. (Although I wouldn't say he couldn't be thirteen in that picture, being the smallest man in it, and considering he started playing at ten, and being that thirteen isn't a "look".) The George Washington in this photo is taken in the city he was supposed to be in at the time, at least. __ E L A Q U E A T E 14:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I clicked on the allmusic page for the first time and now everyone at work is looking at me funny for laughing so much. Gamaliel (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are a bunch of George Washingtons in Findagrave.com born in 1907 and in 1910, but without having a solid source for the birthdate, it's not much to go on. I'm also unable to locate a New York Times obituary. Gamaliel (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yevadu#Brahmin_protests

I am having second (and third) thoughts about whether including this is appropriate. I am not seeing in any of the major news papers coverage of this angle and in fact The Times is running a story about the large box office take and no mention of impact of the purported protests. [24].

Given the seriousness of the accusations, the gossip entertainment nature of the sources covering it, and the apparent lack of impact, I don't think it reaches the level needed to be included - yes? no?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is pure speculation, and may be harmful in a BLP. Collect (talk) 04:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An OTRS ticket claims that James Morgan (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is fake. All edits seem to be by single-purpose accounts, but there is an IMDB page (which of course is also potentially user-generated). Can someone please check this out? Guy (Help!) 09:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be multiple independent sources that support the subject's existence, at least. Not sure about actual notability though. What's the ticket number? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) There seems to be lost of funny business going on there for a relatively low profile actor [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] including some deleted. However there are 3 working sources used in the article [30] [31] [32], the first one which looks to be a RS (and possibly the second) and the third a decent primary source so it sounds a lot like the actor exists and a some of the info is correct. The history suggests to me for some odd reason the subject is a target for trolling and the OTRS is unfortunately probably more of the same. It's also possible the person saw one of the vandalised versions, there were two recently although they were reverted within 60 mins. Nil Einne (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, because of the continual vandalism/trolling, I requested page protection and it was granted. Nil Einne (talk) 13:08, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Styles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The first sentence of the article linked above describes Harry Styles as the lead vocalist of the group One Direction, this information is false and easily disproved. I demand that this statement be removed from the article as it not only de-emphasizes the contribution of the other members of the group but it will also improve the validity of the article.

Regards TanaSpyce (talk) 13:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done GiantSnowman 13:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Max French (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The subject has emailed with proposed changes, with his permission I have dropped them at Talk:Max French. I'd be grateful if someone could do a quick review and fix any inaccuracies in the article. Thanks Guy (Help!) 20:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Nugent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I don't think things have crossed the line yet , but I would guess they will be shortly.the current accusation seems to be sourced, but also very fresh/unverified. Nugent stepped in it again, which will likely dredge up tons of the old issues that have been brought to this board before. Article/talk could probably use additional eyes for the next bit. Talk:Ted_Nugent&curid=627342&diff=591931514&oldid=587884515Gaijin42 (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The man's a real prince, isn't he? It leaves a bad taste in the mouth defending that kind of person. Guy (Help!) 23:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He's utterly contemptible in my personal opinion, but that doesn't mean that we allow any BLP violations. I will put the article on my watch list and encourage others to do so. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Lindhout (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
As has been commented before on the Talk page, the article as it stands, is written in a highly inappropriate tone, and manages to avoid any mention whatsoever of the many criticisms that have been made against this public figure (well it did, until I through great effort and persistence managed to convince one editor to include a bland statement that "some reporters have criticized her", without offering any specifics.

I provide these links below, as two editors seem to object to any information from these sources being included in the article, on the grounds of "BLP".

http://au.news.yahoo.com/qld/a/18752373/naive-waitress-reveals-hostage-horror/ http://www2.canada.com/ottawacitizen/columnists/story.html?id=50fea71f-7c28-42e5-8bf5-04dd83147c8d&p=2 http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/09/20/chris-selley-amanda-lindhout-and-her-critics/ http://www.news.com.au/national/kidnap-victim-nigel-brennan-speaks-of-ordeal-anger-at-federal-government/story-fncynjr2-1226772297591 http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/09/06/escape-from-hell/ http://www.elle.com/life-love/society-career/amanda-lindhout-somalia-reflection http://malaysia-chronicle.com/index.php/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=154391:i-was-raped-beaten-starved-by-warlords-woman-journalist&Itemid=4&tmpl=component&print=1#.UuAbtbSxXIV

For those who can't be bothered reading, I'll summarize a few dot points of potential information to be included in the article:

- Lindhout worked for Iran's state-run outlet, Press TV. Which has been banned from satellite providers in the UK, EU, Latin America, and a number of Arab countries.

- In Iraq in January 2008, Lindhout was held hostage for several hours in Sadr City. Some reports say she paid off her captors, she denies this.

- Lindhout and Nigel Brennan, her Australian ex-boyfriend who she convinced to accompany her to Somalia, are captured on their third day in the country. He will also later write a book that received a lot of attention in Australia, but almost none in Canada or the US.

- Robert Draper, a journalist on assignment for National Geographic, describes Lindhout as "recklessly perky". He writes: "Within minutes, she was asking where all the bombings were taking place, because that’s where she wanted to be. That night I e-mailed my girlfriend: “She’s going to get herself or someone else killed.”" }} - Lindhout and Brennan no longer speak. In his book, Brennan writes that he overheard Lindhout speaking to her mother on the phone begging her mother to take the entire $500,000 that Brennan's family had raised, and use it to pay just for her release. Brennan writes: "I don't think I have ever felt so lonely and cheated in my life... I'm furious at myself for trusting her." The bank account for their ransom, it turns out, is held in Australia, her mother unable to access it.

- When Lindhout and Brennan were still speaking, before Brennan published his book, Lindhout attempted to stop him from doing so.

InTheInterestOfObjectiveReporting (talk) 23:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the editor, InTheInterestOfObjectiveReporting, who has repeatedly tried to add this gem of a sentence, "This led to some journalists to criticize her for her 'naivete' for parroting Iran's anti-Western state propaganda" to the article. If so, do you really believe that this complies with our neutral point of view policy? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. This point was made across Canadian and Australian media, by at least half a dozen different journalists. Do you want me to quote them for you, or can you use Google? Do you have any idea of the nature of Press TV? Do you realize it is effectively banned across much of the globe? That it was banned in the UK for broadcasting an interview with a Newsweek journalist that was obtained through torture? InTheInterestOfObjectiveReporting (talk) 10:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From reading the article's talk page, I understand that the editor believes that WP:BALANCE is being met and not WP:NPOV is achieved by making these statements. The question is whether the sources all carry the same weight and why this WP:SPA is editing this particular article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How can I not be a "SPA" when I have only just joined? Surely everyone is a SPA when they're editing their first article? If I am allowed to continue to try and improve this article, I'll move onto others. InTheInterestOfObjectiveReporting (talk) 10:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone else noted the similarity between the edits of this editor and acknowledged IP edits, and those of indefinitely blocked serial puppeteer Ledenierhomme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? RolandR (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I came across an article about Carl Freer and Tiger Telematics about a month ago and recommended Freer for deletion. The article asserted a claim of him being a criminal but his actions are similar to thousands of others and did not seem to amount to WP:CRIME. With the exception User:BabbaQ who voted to keep (although did not really elaborate how it meets WP:GNG), the other reasons for keeping the article left by editors were not based on guidelines. After the article was kept, I edited it to more conform to BLP guidelines for neutrality, original research, and verifiability (at least in my opinion). The edits were reversed yesterday by user User:Universaladdress who asserted that the content I added and removed was already “approved” and from reliable sources. However, the information removed was WP:UNDUE and the information I added was something other editors left out when introducing negative information.

While I do not care about Tiger Telematics or Gizmundo as they are company pages, BLPs are different and need to be strictly adhered to. While Freer and Erikkson do not seem like saints, they also do not appear to rise to the level of WP:CRIME. If they did meet notability for criminals, we could double the size of Wikipedia’s database with criminals who would qualify as well. Also, after the Freer article was kept, a User:Universaladdress requested page protection which was applied to the page. Page protection should be requested for persistence vandalism, not because someone disagrees with an article being recommended for deletion. This is poor use of page protection in my opinion.

So, long story short, there seems to be some major BLP violations with Eriksson and Freer. I would request that it be looked at by those familiar with BLP guidelines in order to ensure that they are being followed with these articles. The talk pages show much contention among editors who are either trying to heavily weight the articles against these guys, as well as other editors who want to whitewash the article. Looks like something that has gone on for years and will go on for years until someone steps in. I would love to do it, but leaving it up to those who deal with issues every day is probably the best. Also appears that people are either using multiple accounts on the talk pages or people are coming to Wikipedia solely for the purpose of these pages, which makes it dangerous as they are here to put specific information into the articles that they want, not putting information in objectively.

Please take a look at the following for additional information:

1. BLP violation post on Carl Freer talk page made by me on 1-17-14 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Carl_Freer#BLP_violation_and_neutral_point_of_view_

2. Edit comments on Freer that explain the edits I did to the article a few days back. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carl_Freer&action=history

3. Edit history of Stefan Erikkson showing the edits I made a few days ago http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stefan_Eriksson&action=history. Also notice that it appears people do not care about the Eriksson article as much as the Freer article as no edits were made since I made them to Eriksson.

4. Talk page of User: Universaladdress explaining my reason for edits to these articles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Universaladdress I should have assumed more good faith and will take the heat for that as I should have developed better communications; however, the history of the talk page for these articles showed me that all editors

So, either what I read here at BLP is wrong, it is being interpreted differently that how it is written, I simply don’t understand the policy even though it is pretty clearly written, or there is a major BLP violation with these articles. If am wrong, please let me know so that I understand the policy going forward. I am also completely open to taking my lumps from more experienced editors for not assuming as good as faith as I should have. And, ultimately, I would like to see Wikipedia to be used as an encyclopedia, not a platform for airing out complaints about people they don’t like.--JakenBox (talk) 03:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the primary-sourced stuff about RICO doesn't belong - WP:BLPPRIMARY clearly prohibits using court documents, etc. as sources in BLPs. However, if this person is notable (and per the AfD decision, he is), he is primarily notable for his involvement with a massively-dubious game console that is one of the most famous gaming business failures of all time, and thus there's going to be some significant negative slant to the coverage. That may be so, but that appears to have a significant and fair basis in the reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. AfD 1 resulted in no-consensus with AfD 2 being kept based on votes. If you look at the discussion, there does not appear to be anyone giving a reason to keep the article other than non-policy reasons. What confuses me is why Eriksson is being mentioned as a "business partner" when the reference doesn't state that they were business partners. They both were higher ups in the company, but if we include Eriksson in the article for Freer and vice versa, then all the directors should be included in the articles. Introducing information about Eriksson in Freer's article and vice versa only slants the information to them being co-conspirators and criminals together. The other part is the sentence that states, "Freer was also engaged in an abortive attempt to relaunch the Gizmondo, claiming a potential launch in the 3rd quarter of 2008;[7] however, this never occurred." The reference doesn't say that the potential launch was aborted and stating that it "never occurred" can be logically concluded since you don't see it on the shelves at Wal-Mart, but a BLP should include information from the references, not what can be concluded. Finally, if they are criminals, there is no way that they meet WP:CRIME. The events that they would be known for do not have a lasting effect like what would be needed to support notability. Basically, it looks like someone created both articles as attack pages. They are interweaved along with the pages for Tiger Telematics and Gizmundo with information that is weighted too heavily based on sources. --JakenBox (talk) 03:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Stefan Eriksson are all appropriate, in my opinion - removing either unsourced/dubiously-sourced material or stuff which is completely irrelevant (his girlfriend being pulled over, etc.). Nice work there. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea how to address Eriksson any further. The majority of the references are in Swedish and Google translate is very poor. Thinking of just stripping everything that isn't referenced. --JakenBox (talk) 03:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could really use some BLP experts to help with this article. It's a recent event that made international news and seems to have some notability to it but I'm not sure I've structured it in the best way. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever happened to WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E?--ukexpat (talk) 15:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just a minor case, it's risen to being addressed by both of the leaders of the countries and made international news. I was operating under the "Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic" guidelines which we do have a subheading found [[33]] that deals with this but with the level of attention this case is recieving internationally it merits a stand alone. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am the subject of this page, and I wanted to update my name, which is now Erin Siegal McIntyre.

You can see this change reflected in the links, etc.

Thank you for your help

Erin

I've renamed the article to Erin Siegal McIntyre. Erin Siegal now redirects readers to Erin Siegal McIntyre. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The date of birth of Geraldine O'Rawe is 4th March 1971. The material relating to her date of birth currently is incorrect. It is causing concern with her work as an actress, is bing used in other publications as a true DOB and is damaging. A passport or birth certificate is available if needed. Please can the above be changed to DOB 4th March 1971. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.24.48 (talk) 10:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assume the 31st December 1969 DOB came from ulsteractors.com or perhaps they copied it from Wikipedia. I've removed the DOB from the Wikipedia article for now given that there is an apparent mismatch. I don't think the DOB can be changed to 4th March 1971 based on a message on this noticeboard. Is there a reliable published source that contains the correct DOB ? If not, see WP:BLPSELF which includes a link with contact details for the Wikimedia Foundation. If you send an email to the address under "Questions related to Wikipedia", someone there should be able provide advice. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In discussing the start of his career the story goes from his early days in Nashville getting signed to inde label, then new paragraph... when his house got seized by the IRS which I can only assume happened many years later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.55.182.80 (talk) 14:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Adam Mitchell (footballer born 1994) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Andy80214 (talk · contribs)

Andy says he is this subject's father, and says the DOB is incorrect - it should be 18 October 1993 and not 2 December 1994. I have no reason to doubt him, but almost every source uses the latter date. Further help at the article talk page would be appreciated so we can resolve this. GiantSnowman 18:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

St Clair, New South Wales (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Request revdel of these three edits, which (though possibly self-referencing and intended, I assume, to be humorous) are potentially defamatory to a person named in the edits. [34],[35],[36] Dwpaul ^Talk 19:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a revdel, you should either ask at ANI, or preferably ask an admin to do it directly - it is usually better not to draw attention to such material. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revdelled and semi-protected to slow down reinsertion. Zero^talk 21:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Kates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) apparently ended up missing a plane due to a bra wire setting off a metal detector. Clearly this is of surpassing significance and it's vital that we include it, establishing, as it does, her significance as an artist. Or, you know, not. I personally think we can do without this. So does she. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Balcer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

All external links not pointing to TJCenter.org appear to be dead. ~E$ (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article has ballooned with minutiae in recent months, lots of it is completely inaccurate and relies on highly partisan primary sources.

Among the inaccuracies:

• The subject has never been funded by the Dutch government.
• The subject did not cause "a stir by posting a false Twitter tweet in February 2012 about supposed Israeli Likud party intentions to storm the Temple Mount/Al Aqsa Mosque and build a Third Temple."
• The subject was not a participant in the flotilla to Gaza that included in the Mavi Marmara, but he reported on it. (This has been partially corrected by another editor.)
• The subject did not initiate a statement condemning Gilad Atzmon.

The article is full of redundancies and minutiae:

• The discussion of the subject's writing titled "We have no words left" appears twice in different sections of the article.
• The subject has likely visited hundreds of places in dozens of countries in his lifetime, but there's no explanation why his visit to Maghazi Camp in Gaza is notable.
• The subject's views of various other people such as Joshua Trevino, Greta Berlin and Gilad Atzmon are not contextualized to explain why they are notable enough to be mentioned in this article but not theirs.
• There's a section for "criticism" of the subject, but the article is filled with criticism from primary sources in almost every section.
• The subject has likely appeared on television to debate dozens of people hundreds of times, but minor appearances are described in great detail.
• Most of the sources for content added in late November 2013 are highly partisan and may be primary sources.

It's hard to catalogue all the problems with this article. It is riddled with falsehoods and deserves review by editors who understand the policies of wikipedia with respect to the biographies of living people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.34.157.122 (talk) 02:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am the subject of the article. It should not say that I was a Bergin Fellow at the Dublin Institute of Advanced Studies. I was merely a Scholar (1967--9). The Bergin Fellowship had not yet been created.

Thomas Charles-Edwards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.156.34 (talk) 15:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Prof. Charles-Edwards. I've corrected it using the same terminology used in the cited source in the article (announcement of your appointment at Jesus). DeCausa (talk) 20:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wyatt Kaldenberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) needs some attention. It's sources range from a Duke University Press book which looks excellent to a letter held on the Stormfront site. Dougweller (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at it. I am not sure the subject meets notability guidelines. Most of refs seem self-published. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed it for deletion, along with another article created by the author. The Duke publication on this one looks good, though, but I'm not 100% convinced it's enough to sustain an article however. He gets a paragraph in one other book I've found, which isn't really significant. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have access to an e-copy of the academic source, Gods of the Blood. It does contain a substantial discussion of the subject of the article, about six pages. Whether or not that is enough to sustain an article, I really don't know. I am concerned about the use of so many primary sources in this article, that perhaps this lone academic source is being just to justify a lot of synth and OR. Gamaliel (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The book is also available in preview through Google Books, but I'm also pretty wary of a BLP being sourced from one publication, and an unfriendly one at that. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I declined the prod. I don't know about his current activities, but he got a reasonable amount of coverage in the early 1990s for his involvement with Tom Metzger (white supremacist) and White Aryan Resistance after they lost the SPLC lawsuit for helping Metzger hide assets and then going to jail for contempt over it. That much was widely covered in Oregon and San Diego papers and even in the NYT. One could probably make a GNG claim on the basis of that alone, and then with the Gods of the Blood thing I feel that notability is covered. The article's in dire shape, though, and is going to be a trouble magnet.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article will be getting many views, since its subject was recently in the news: [37] [38]. Someone has added a mug shot to the article. On Commons, I found another photo but it's also a mug shot. I looked for a freely-licenced photo on the Web but didn't find any. —rybec 01:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Eric Tillman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Attack on Eric Tillman's wikipedia made by User: Hirolovesswords. Addition of misquotes, adding untrue information, taking some facts out of context. I personally contacted Eric Tillman who was distressed by this constant harassment made by this user: Hirolovesswords. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Computergenius1 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent edit by User:Hirolovesswords notes that Tillman started his career in football with the Houston Oilers' PR department. This is backed up by a newspaper story source: "With a degree in journalism, in 1981 he joined the NFL's Houston Oilers to work in their public relations department."[39] I'm not sure how that counts as a misquote.

With all due respect, User:Computergenius1, if you're editing at the request of Tillman, you have a conflict of interest and need to be especially careful that all your edits are backed up by reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 01:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have people trying to restore content about criminality sourced to the New York Post, New York Daily News, rap lyrics and court documents. Eyes would be helpful. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Bieber who has had a large share of tabloid articles, now has the full tabloid treatment in his BLP, with every minor article from the past year now SYNTHed into a "Legal troubles" section making up 2/3 pf his entire "personal life" and including his mug shot, even where the incident did not directly involve anything on his part. Eyes and keyboards please examine that BLP - I durst not get too involved there as some appear to regard de-Bieberisation as their one true calling. Collect (talk) 13:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the monkey bit should go. It's puzzling that the lead makes no mention of this aspect of his life (the general issue, not the monkey bit). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only the monkey bit is all you see as being tabloid fodder? Um -- look closer at the "stuff" and the SYNTH in it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:32, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

needs editing-typos, double bagel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.86.254.21 (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A double bagel in women's tennis refers to a straight-sets win where a player doesn't win a game. It refers to the two zeroes in the score 6-0, 6-0. Hack (talk) 03:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Craig J. N. de Paulo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Craig J. N. de Paulo article appears to have a number of problematic issues. The principal editor of it, Augustinestudent (who is a suspected sockpuppet as investigated here), appears to be very closely associated with de Paulo and only edits on him and pages associated with him, such as his Collegium Augustinianum. There appear to be clear COI and user name issues as well as other possible issues. The de Paulo article and related ones appear to have been created for promotional purposes. I would appreciate some administrators and other experienced editors having a look at these articles and assessing the potential policy issues with them. Thanks, Afterwriting (talk) 04:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your concern, Afterwriting. I am a graduate student in philosophy, and I am very interested in these topics. But, there is an individual who continuously writes slanderous and biased remarks. I think the page should be watch closely! Augustinestudent (talk) 04:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be closely watched for the kinds of issues I originally mentioned. Afterwriting (talk) 04:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having taken a quick look at this article, there's nothing that seems overtly promotional about the biography, and I feel that it's fairly sensibly written. Could you be a little more specific about your objections?

I will note that the sourcing isn't great and relies heavily on primary sources linked to the subject, but there's nothing in it that would seem to violate WP:BLP. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When the de Paulo article is considered with the articles related to him, especially the Collegium Augustinianum article, being edited by Augustinestudent, it is reasonable to suspect that a promotional agenda is being pursued by this editor. You should also check the sockpuppet investigation link I provided above. Is there, perhaps, a better place for these issues to be discussed than on this BLP discussion page? Afterwriting (talk) 04:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel like there is overly-promotional material in the article, feel free to remove or rewrite it. If you feel that the article is unsalvageable, you may nominate it for deletion. The best place to discuss specific issues with particular content in an article is the article's own talk page.

The only obvious BLP issue I can find in the page history was an unsourced insertion of negative allegations, which has been properly removed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A little promotional (I removed a few items), but nothing that is concerning that can't be handled by the usual methods. I do question the notability, so perhaps deletion might be the way to go.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit questioning too, but there are a number of dead-tree publications he's responsible for that apparently would clear him through WP:PROF - that's according to DGG, who accepted the article. Whether it's sufficient to pass an AFD muster is another question. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I raised the question on the talk page to have a pre AfD discussion. No BLP issues exist IMO.Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked for an opinion. I think de Paolo will pass AfD as a notable author, 2 of his books are in over 500 libraries, which tho not a formal standards, is an indication. I think the article is a little absurdly promotional, including every possible distinction, down to Honorary Kentucky Colonel, and it is rather vague about the exact nature of the "many professorial appointments " There's no point using AfD unless it turns out the promotionalism can't be removed otherwise. My first impression about the university is rather similar: appropriate for an article, but in need of even more trimming than most university articles. It's unfortunate that though we have a simple method of enforcing whether or not to have an article, we have no equally straightforward method of making enforceable decisions about quality. DGG ( talk ) 06:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Afterwriting and other editors, if you notice there has been a great deal of slanderous remarks made on this page, calling the subject a convicted criminal and many subjective, biased comments that even come up today. Augustinestudent (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ericka Huggins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

To Whom It May Concern;

I am writing regarding an issue related to the Ericka Huggins Wikipedia page. There had been a number of defamatory and historically innacurate statements, particularly in a section titled New Haven Trial that I have been attempting to rectify. There is a user Pokey5945 who is undoing all attempts to remove the negative material. The user is not only not neutral but is disseminating disinformation and manipulating facts to paint Ericka Huggins as involved in torture which is neither true or verifiable.

Your policy on this matter is quite clear. A quick look at Pokey5945's talk history shows a history of bad behaviour in hijacking other pages as well to further their own agenda via an sustained campaign of disinformation. If you follow their edits up to the most recent you will notice an escalation in their defamation of Huggins. With regards to your own policy this should result in being blocked or suspended. Please let me know what can be done to make sure that your own policy is upheld in this case.

Please confirm receipt. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Politigrafica (talk • contribs) 05:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I now have the article on my watch list, have commented on the talk page, and encourage other editors to do so as well. Ericka Huggins was accused of serious crimes connected with a 1969 murder, but the jury voted 10-2 for acquittal and the judge dropped the charges in 1970. Under these circumstances, I believe that including lengthy and lurid details about the crime, and what other defendants were convicted of, is a violation of BLP policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Johnny Depp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Johnny Depp's rumored engagement should not be included on his Wikipedia Page. As widespread as the rumor may be, it's neither official nor it is backed up by any evidence. Wikipedia shouldn't be a gossip page. Johnny Depp's Wiki page reads that he's been engaged on "Christmas Eve" as if that was an official announcement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Golta (talk • contribs) 11:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Win Butler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I can find no evidence in the articles cited that Win Buttler is a 'practising' Mormon. In one quote in the article Win is actually quoted as saying that he does not go to church. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.12.6 (talk) 13:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the statement on the basis that it's contradicted by the Guardian source. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Jackie Evancho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A new editor recently began deleting content form this article claiming a close family relationship. The material being deleted was claimed to be compromising the privacy of the individual; I looked at the content and did not see anything problematical. I could be wrong there but that's easily corrected. Can I ask for eyes on the article to determine if the content should stay or go, in what quantity and what wording? As it stands, the content is removed from a good article due to some edit warring problems and I do not want to leave it in its present state, but am administratively involved. Thanks Tiderolls 16:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Brabeck-Letmathe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm currently engaged in an edit war with another user in the Peter Brabeck-Letmathe article over contentious and poorly sourced claims. A diff is here. The material includes a youtube video in a foreign language, which the subject of the page denies contains the material the wikipedia page claims, and a dystopian "award" from an obscure activist organization. You can see his denial here. If I am found to be in the wrong, I will of course relent. Quick actions is appreciated. C0h3n (talk) 18:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the youtube link contains a clip from a documentary (as appears to be the case), then the reference can be changed so that it refers to the documentary. The "award" can only be included if there's a secondary source for it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded the criticism to be more NPOV. Hopefully this satisfies the other party, but I have my doubts. C0h3n (talk) 03:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two years ago, this article was stubbifyed as it was considered to be extremely innacurate with several problems in its sources. I personally believe that that sole contributor to the entry has something personal against the subject, as he does not show a neutral point of view. Once again he has rewritten his attacks to Antonio Petrus Kalil and not only are his sources poor, but he actually invents things that are supposedly sourced from his head. As a family member of the subject, I can say that I have been personally affected by the lies posted by user DonCalo in a very negative way. I would like to request that the article would be sent back to the stub and that this used should be banned from editing this entry as he clearly does not have NPOV. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.73.193.83 (talk) 05:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree the article is a mess and the sourcing is confusing at best, I will note that the BLP policy does not require removing all negative information about a subject. That said, I think that the policy on criminal acts applies: "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." I will therefore redirect this article to Jogo do Bicho. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should not have said that before reading the talk page. I see that DonCalo has been working with SlimVirgin, Husond, and Idontknow610 to address these sourcing concerns. I suggest that you continue the conversation with DonCalo on the article talk page, and I wll see what I contribute there. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

186.73.193.83 asked me to comment on this. First, I want to clarify that I'm not working on it. There have been repeated claims that the article is a BLP violation, apparently from the subject's family. The sources are in Portuguese and some are behind paywalls. I stubified it in January 2011, after a complaint on RfPP, but it's back. The equivalent article on the Portuguese WP doesn't make the claims that this one does, so I really have no idea what to do with it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me this should be moved to Operation Hurricane (Brazil) and the emphasis on the subject minimized. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it can't be verified, then chuck it.Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been appropriate if the main contributor to this article would have been notified that there is a complaint about the article. All information in the article is verifiable through multiple sources, both in English and Portuguese. Most relevant sections from Portuguese sources have been copied in the notes and have been translated into English, both by me as by other users who judges the sources they checked reliable. As far as I can check, all sources are now accessible. I restored the dead links. The fact that the Portuguese article doesn't make the claims that the English version does is no reason to disqualify the article. There are many articles in Portuguese on Portuguese and Brazilian issues that do not have an equivalent to the English ones. That is no reason to start curtailing the English versions, or is it? Every effort has been made to verify the information, and when there is a difference of opinion on the information provided, this can obviously be discussed. That has happened in the past as well. The problem is that User 186.73.193.83 (talk) is deleting complete sections that have been properly referenced. That user has an obvious Wikipedia:COI being a member of the Kalil family. - DonCalo (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DonCalo, in order to save everyone's time as this topic has been overly discussed several years ago, I will just give a brief example of your lack of NPOV. On the first paragraph of one of your most recent edits you mention the following statement… "On March 13, 2012, he was sentenced to 48 years in prison and a fine of BRL 11 million (about USD 6 million) for formation of armed gangs, money laundering, smuggling and corruption.[5]". I have asked you a couple of times on the talk page where or how could you possibly get this kind of information from the reference posted but you decided to ignore my questioning. Maybe this noticeboard might have a better chance then the one I had earlier.

Regarding being a family member of Kalil, I don't believe this affects my credibility, since I am not writing any of the things that I know in first hand just because I do not have the proper news references for it. If anyone seems to have something personal agains Mr. Kalil, it seem to be yourself with your constant personal attacks over the past years. 186.73.193.83 (talk) 14:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On your request this has been changed into: "On March 13, 2012, he was sentenced to 48 years in prison and a fine of BRL 11 million (about USD 6 million) for conspiracy and corruption". The original was based on a AFP article that mentioned "formation de bande armée, blanchiment d'argent, contrebande et corruption". However, apparently not all these crimes could be linked to Kalil, so this has been corrected. Regarding your relation with the Kalil family it is true you don't write anything on the subject, for obvious reasons, but you try to delete everything that is not in the family's interests, despite the numerous reliable sources. I am not involved in any personal attacks, I just inform people on a quite well-known person in Rio de Janeiro/Niteroi linked to its famous carnival and rather infamous but very popular illegal lottery, who happens to be convicted twice for his involvement with the illegal game. - DonCalo (talk) 15:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once again your argument just shows how your bad intentions are. For starters, this was not the article you credited as a source for the statement, besides, nowhere in this article it states that that Kalil was convicted or even accused of those crimes. It mentioned an event that included other 24 people. If you personally think that Kalil was involved in this sort of crimes but "could not be linked to them", it is a free country and you are entitled to your own opinion at any bar conversation, but fortunately a wikipedia entry is not based on opinions. The original source you mentioned http://oglobo.globo.com/rio/os-23-condenados-na-operacao-hurricane-seus-crimes-penas-4301901 is quite clear on what the sentences are for each of the accused so I still do not understand why and how could you get this information somewhere else, unless you have any other personal motive. Also, regarding the sentence, as you are so interested in the case and Brazilian legislation, I am sure you are aware that no one is considered guilty in this country until there is a proof and final decision by a higher court. Kalil is currently appealing to the sentence in liberty and has the same rights of any free man or woman, just like you. 186.73.193.83 (talk) 16:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been ressolved. - DonCalo (talk) 13:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DonCalo, Moving forward with your biased content an still keeping on the first paragraph alone: Can you please point out on the references where did these statements come from " In April 2007, he was charged again for involvement with the illegal lottery, as well as bingo parlours and the distribution of slot machines.[4]"? on the two references you present, for this statement, one is from 1993 and does not even mention Kalil, the other one only mentions he was arrested on an event that included 23 other men, but nowhere mentions why and what he was charged for. Why are you making up so much stuff? You clearly do not have any moral grounds to write about this man. 186.73.193.83 (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both sources are from April 2007 and both concern the same event. One does not mention Kalil, the other does. In combination they provide reliable information. I will add more Portugues sources, for your convenience. - DonCalo (talk) 13:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DonCalo, the problem is that we can't easily check the article, because there appear to be no English-language sources, and some of the Portuguese ones are behind a paywall. With a BLP that makes serious allegations, that is a very big problem. Perhaps you could create this instead on the Portuguese Wikipedia, where other editors can check it, and where the subject has more notability. Then, if it's deemed by the Portuguese WP to be okay, perhaps it could be translated back here. I'm pinging Rothorpe, who I believe is fluent in Portuguese, in case he has any advice about the content. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which articles are behind a paywall? I cannot find any, but maybe I am overlooking one. I don't see why it has to be published on the Portuguese Wikipedia first. Can you point out the rationale for your suggestion in the Wikipedia policies? Relevant sections of the sources are translated in English. - DonCalo (talk) 13:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy that says it should be posted first on the Portuguese Wikipedia, but that makes the most sense, because there is no notability in English-language sources. It would be like posting Death of Ian Tomlinson on the Portuguese Wikipedia, but not here. If it's on the Portuguese Wikipedia, there are people there who can easily check the Portuguese sources, and who will know how high-quality they are.

As for paywalls, when I wrote that the first footnote said "subscription required." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Slim, the problem is that the personal attacks happen even when the sources are in english, where he takes things completely out of context, the example I gave of " In April 2007, he was charged again for involvement with the illegal lottery, as well as bingo parlours and the distribution of slot machines.[4]" both have english sources, but neither mention any of the alegations made by DonCalo186.73.193.83 (talk) 00:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The AP source clearly says: "24 people arrested for alleged involvement with illegal numbers games, bingo parlors and the distribution of slot machines, police said in a statement." The other source says that Kalil was among them, but as I said above, I will also provide sources in Portuguese. For your convenience I now changed the sentence in: In April 2007, he was among 24 people charged for involvement with the illegal lottery, as well as bingo parlours and the distribution of slot machines. - DonCalo (talk) 13:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting ridiculous. It looks like were on another trial and DonCalo feels he is a Supreme Court judge who knows above all. For starters Im glad you had at least the decency in adding an article that resembles to your statement, but you changing the context of an article making someone the topic for a whole event. Are you going to write 24 entries for each of the persons charged? As much as you like to generalize and take things out of context, I would suggest that if you are so interested in writing about operation hurricane, you should write about the event itself with proper references and not generalizing. Please refrain from the personal attacks, you are clearly showing bad faith against this man as you have been for the past two years. This is not a question of convenience Don, no one here wants to waste their time in this discussion that is not adding anything productive anywhere. You act as if you own an encyclopedia entry about a living man! You do not care at all about the consequences that your lies affect to the lives of his family, real people in the real world. This man was acquitted from all accusations while appealing on the 90's and is still appealing IN LIBERTY to the sentence from 2012. If Brazilian justice has not formed a definite opinion on the case, why do YOU feel like you can take this liberty?

On your entry you claim to him charges that were actually to other people (as per the example above), you asociate him to the death of 53 people! Mass murder is a serious crime in Brazil and in most countries in the world! How can a man not even get away with that? You claim his involvement on another murder in the 80s as well but then mention it is unresolved! How can YOU claim an supposedly unsresolved murder 30 years ago to someone? You mention he has a casino in Paraguay, what casino would that be? You mention that his sons inherited illegal gambling sites due to an alleged testament, how can they have inherited something if he is still alive? Why weren't they charged for it if it is illegal? These are just a few examples of how biased your entry has been throughout the past years. Filled with lies and attacks. It was stubbified two years ago exactly for this reason, and you pretty much rewrote the same article, the sole interested contributor as this man does not even have enough relevance in the english speaking world (None english of the articles were written about him, they only mention him in passing for participating in the event that took place, and not even all of them mention him).

If you personally do not like this man, it is your own right. If you have a bad opinion about him, you are entitled to your opionion. You are even free to open a blog and write about YOUR OWN opinions. Now you should not use the wikipedia to try to get credibility for YOUR PERSONAL OPINIONS AND ATTACKS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.73.193.83 (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but everything in the article is backed by reliable and verifiable sources. I understand you feel angry about this, but he is convicted twice. The fact that he has appealed does not mean that the current conviction does not stand. If you have information from reliable and verifiable sources that proove otherwise, please provide them and I will be happy to include them in the article. I would also appreciate if you would keep this conversation as civil as possible and stop accusing me of personally attacking Mr. Kalil, although I understand that this affects you emotionally. Thank you. - DonCalo (talk) 16:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DonCalo, could you post the source for each of the following, along with what the source says about the subject (in English), please?

1. "In April 2007, he was among 24 people charged for involvement with the illegal lottery, as well as bingo parlours and the distribution of slot machines" (The first source doesn't mention him and says the group was arrested, not charged; the second source is a Chinese news agency (why?) and also says arrested).
2. "According to the newspaper O Globo, 53 deaths could be attributed to the association" (and is O Globo the only source for this?).

Also, if any of the sources are tabloid newspapers, that material has to be removed or re-sourced. See WP:BLPSOURCES: "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism." I would also suggest removing the claims about the named sons. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft namespace suggestion

We have a new draft namespace (e.g. Draft:Antonio Petrus Kalil). It's there for people who want to work on drafts together, and the articles don't show up on Google searches. Perhaps a good compromise would be to move the article to the draft namespace, and for DonCalo and 186.73.193.83 to work together to make sure every sentence is sourced according to BLP. When it's finished, we can move it back.

If there are sticking points, we could look for a third party who speaks Portuguese and is familiar with the policies to act as a mediator. Would something like that work? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can compromise with that just like I did two years ago when the entry was moved back to a stub due to several reasons like the ones we have again now. I just hope DonCalo will stop with his personal attacks as he did not do that after the past argument 2 years ago. 186.73.193.83 (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I've retrieved this from the archive as it's still unresolved. Also noting that I've been pinged again about it, [40] and have left a note for DonCalo asking him to respond here. [41] Also pinging Daniel, who nominated the article for deletion in 2009 because of BLP issues, and Xymmax, the closing admin. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• While we're waiting for a resolution, I've removed some of the content about family members and one of the disputed claims. I can't comment on the accuracy, but I can't read the sources or judge their quality. [42] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of linguistic competence is a basis for editing an article? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Um -- I seem to have a problem following your logic. If a person can not readily verify the claims, and where the claims are intrinsically contentious, then the current sourcing does not meet the requirements of WP:BLP. I am, moreover, pretty sure that claims that a person engages in illegal enterprises fall under the "contentious claims" rules of WP:BLP. Personally, 80% of the article should be simply stricken. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The subject's family has been complaining about this article since 2009, so I've taken it back to a stub and added indefinite full protection. I'd forgotten that MSGJ moved the article in 2010 to Talk:Antonio Petrus Kalil/draft, so that's the best place for DonCalo and Sportsmarketer, the complainant, to work on it. I've left a note to that effect on DonCalo's talk page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• .jpg (left to right) Udo Kier, Weöres Sandor, Patricia Adriani, and Gábor Bódy - hu.wikipedia.org How would I add this image to Gábor Bódy and es:Patricia Adriani -- i.e.: add a hu. image to an en. page and an es. page. Can you wiki-link from an en. page to a es. page ? Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 23:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The image only exists in the Hungarian Wikipedia, not Commons, so you cannot link to it from any other project article space. Now, it seems to have an OTRS permission but I'm not entirely sure it could be moved to Commons on that basis, since I'm unsure about copyrights in Hungary or under what legal assumptions they work. Your best bet is to ask in the OTRS noticeboard and see if someone there can help you. In any case, you'll either have to move it to Commons, or upload it to any other project (es or en) where you wish to use it. Cross-project image linking doesn't work. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the recent edit war at the Jenny McCarthy article. When a journalist as eminent as Barbara Walters showers Jenny McCarthy with praise, that's note worthy yet it seems the pro-vaccine advocacy groups are monitoring this article, making sure nothing positive gets reported because they want her to be a pariah. I'm as pro-vaccine as anyone, but I don't like wikipedia being used for smear campaigns and this kind of POV pushing and bullying. Wikipedia must meet the highest standards of journalistic integrity and that means giving equal weight to all notable content, not cherry picking to push an agenda. Historyhorror (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The addition being attempted does not belong in the lede of the article. We don't quote anyone else in the lede and there's no adequate explanation why Barbara Walters should be quoted in the lede. I have no opinion at the moment as to whether it might have a place elsewhere in the article, but it's not a BLP issue to insist on a well-written lede. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, based upon the editing history of you and User:Firstcomp, there is good reason to suspect that these are sockpuppet accounts - the editing history of User:Historyhorror contains a number of edits to an article about Michael Jackson's health and appearance and some of Firstcomp's first edits were to that very same article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

yes we're the same person. I couldn't find the password for historyhorror until this evening so I created Firstcomp. Thank you for your feedback on the Jenny McCarthy article. I will adapt my strategy accordingly. Historyhorror (talk) 01:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you must be very careful when using different accounts. Make it clear in your discussions that you were Firstcomp, and stick to just one account on this article in the future. Otherwise you run a big risk of being viewed as deceptively using multiple accounts. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

yes you're absolutely right about the multiple accounts. It was a mistake Historyhorror (talk) 01:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say there's "nothing positive". She had (has) a very successful career, and the article reflects it. Try to see the forest, not the trees. North is right about the lead. Also, Wikipedia is not a newspaper and is held to no standard of journalism. We have our own, of course, and WP:NPOV is certainly one. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:14, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Jenny McCarthy. I can only spell her name because it's in the section header. But let me take a wild guess. Was Barbara Walters' apparently effusive praise anything to do with the fact McCarthy was in the same room and Walters was about to talk to her on the TV? Seriously, that would not count as praise worthy of inclusion in the lead of an article. Formerip (talk) 01:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it from the lead to the view section. The praise is notable because (1) Walters is arguably the most admired and historic journalist in America (2) Walters is a journalist, not an entertainer, and thus her statements carry a lot of legitimacy and credibility, and (3) Walters backed up the praise by appointing to her to the panel on the view, essentially passing the torch to McCarthy as Walters prepares to retire. Historyhorror (talk) 02:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see any need or appropriateness in including it. It certainly doesn't belong in the controversy section, and it claims "record", but the source doesn't say that. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

why is it appropriate to include criticism but not praise? At least the person praising her (walters) is notable which is more than can be said about virtually anyone criticizing her. I put it in the view section. If the view is part of a controversy section, that just makes my point about the article being biased because there's not even supposed to be controversy sections in wikipedia. And part of the controversy documented in the article was not just Barbara Walters hiring her, but endorsing her, thus the least we can do is is include one of those many many endorsements. Historyhorror (talk) 02:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Baba's praise isn't particularly interesting, plus she is a little too close to McCarthy to give her praise any serious weight. Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's like when Bob Eubanks handed The Newlywed Game over to the other guy. Bob looked straight into the camera and said he'd be funny and do a great job. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:27, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

That's not to say the section isn't leaning towards demonizing her. It is. But two wrongs don't make a right, even if one of those wrongs is "positive". InedibleHulk (talk) 03:30, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

I understand what you guys are saying, that Walters has a vested interest in praising because she hired her. But then if Walters didn't genuinely see her value, she never would have hired her in the first place, so all Walters is doing is providing an explanation. But what people forget is that her critics also have a vested interest in attacking her. If her anti-vaccine pseudoscience gains popularity, the medical establishment risks losing billions in lost vaccine sales not to mention law suits, so unless we remove all medical criticism, it's hypocritical to remove walters' praise. If nothing else, it's worth documenting how she was introduced when she got the biggest job of her career. I can't believe how hard I have to fight to just get a few positive words into an article that is 90% negative. Historyhorror (talk) 03:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If a popular show is looking for "value" in a host, they'll look for someone who can draw ratings, not someone who's nice or smart or funny (though some people are both). Apparently, her opinions on autism have become hotter among daytime TV viewers than her boobs were with men. On a show called "The View", opinions are important. Her opinions on things, people's opinions of her, and so on. But this is an encyclopedia. Facts are our bread and butter. Love/hate crap should be confined to a Reception/Controversy/Criticism/Whatever section. We should discuss her hosting career independently of all that.

It's also not our job to influence or consider, one way or another, pharmaceutical business. Not on Wikipedia, at least. All part of the NPOV thing. Given that policy, I'd advise you spend your fight trimming the bias from the heavier side, rather than trying to counterweight it. That's FOX News' idea of "Fair and Balanced", not ours. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:26, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

I will say the two sections which are critical of her are undue with respect to the rest of the article. They should be trimmed accordingly. Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gerry Gable (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I posted his correct date of birth - January 22, 1937 - together with a link to his birth certificate. Instead of being added, this information has been deleted.

Over the years I have published a lot of verifiable information about this man, including the libel action he lost to Morris Riley. A scan of the court order can be found on my website. Why is all this deleted automatically? Are you in his pocket or something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.101.178 (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you describe are primary sources. Wikipedia is built in secondary sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leah Vincent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article and its talk page have been the centre of an editing dispute today between two IPs, concerning a range of aspects from this person's correct name to her sex life.

The current state of play is that the main article has been semi-protected, with contentious material removed; the talk page still contains material which is under dispute about this person's past. There are several sources but it now emerges that they might all be syndications of a single article; and also there's a claim that the person who added those comments published them to damage Leah Vincent's reputation, a common occurrence when one leaves the insular ultra-orthodox community.

Could someone with experience check this over? Also, even if disputed / poorly sourced material is removed from the talk page, it'll remain in both the talk and main pages' histories, so in some sense it's "still there".

Many thanks. Nick Levine (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick, I've removed some posts from the talk page, and also her supposed surname and date of birth from the first sentence as I couldn't see them in the sources. If you think something should be revdeleted, it would help if you could specify which revisions need to be hidden. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've revdeleted the article edits and talk-page posts from the IP you were reverting. If I've missed anything please give me a shout. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Nick Levine (talk) 06:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arvind Kejriwal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The current chief minister of Delhi, Arvind Kejriwal, is described as an Anarchist on the basis of a news item. He used the phrase "Yes, I am an Anarchist" as a rhetoric, but he does not actually support the ideology of anarchism. I think the news item, if at all it should be mentioned, should be represented in a more responsible way. --Rahul (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Narendra Bhati has been 3 times MLA from western UP. Currently he is minister and Agro chairman in Akhilesh Yadav's SP government and is well knows secular leader in western Utter Pradesh.

He was in news in 2013 when an IAS officer Nagpal was suspended over her decision to raze a boundary wall of a mosque in the month of Ramzan Prayers, Initially this mosque was built by Narendra Bhati. He is well known for being a secular and a firm believer of democracy. CM Akhilesh Yadav defended his government's decision to suspend Nagpal, claiming her action of demolishing the wall of a religious structure in Kadalpur village could have led to communal tensions and riots in Utter Pradesh.

Narendra Bhati is SP party candidate from Noida for the forthcoming Lok Sabha polls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garytab (talk • contribs) 19:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like some people are messing up with this page. I found Adolph Hitler's picture under the Yevhen_Konoplyanka, I edited it by erasing it but after that I noticed a lot of abusive staff written in players description. I really hope someone adresses this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.250.122 (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a vandalism issue more than a true BLP issue. I've rolled back all edits made today to fix more of the problems. —C.Fred (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tom DeLonge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

All versions since this one[43] on 9 January include what purports to be the subject's home residence address. Request revdel of all intervening versions, all of which were vandalism. Dwpaul ^Talk 01:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, that's done. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Priske

there are no articles , interviews or sources for most of this. it reads like a personal resume of a nobody written by same said nobody. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.180.107.4 (talk) 03:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lukas Jutkiewicz

Not a violation but the infobox on this page is showing as code. I would fix this but do not know how. I thought i would bring it to your attention.

Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.207.193.227 (talk) 11:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this to our attention, I have fixed it. GiantSnowman 11:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Silly season starts early due to cold weather? In any case, we even have one editor calling the Iowa Secretary of State's official website "Schultz's website" etc. along with pretty blatant campaign rhetoric. Eyes on this "silly season" BLP are welcomed. Collect (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have a cold due the cold, but I'll be watching that :) §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cathy McMorris Rodgers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The biography of Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Republican representative from Washington who is delivering the response to President Obama's state of the union, has been amended to portray her in a negative light. I will highlight the following examples:

1. Example 1: "According to The Chronicle of Higher Education, Pensacola Christian College is "one of the strictest" schools in the country and since its founding was unaccredited until it changed policies and in 2013 received national accreditation from Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools.[4][5] " ... This is a very negative, unbalanced way to describe the college that she attended and completely unrelated to Rep Rodgers. One could just as easily have found another citation saying what a great college Pensacola College is. I suggest that this be deleted.

2. Example 2: " While a young legislator, she made news for bills ending "art funding for new schools and prisons"[9] and cutting "about $70 million a year set aside to buy the wildlife habitat of endangered species."[10] In addition, she supported a bill "that would restore the right to own guns to people who have committed crimes that include stalking a stranger, threatening a loved one and repeat drunken driving."[11]" Again, this is a complete distortion of the purpose of the legislation that she sponsored. It may be fair to say that she voted to protect the right to own guns, but to say that it was for people who have committed crimes and threatened loved ones is not balanced.

3. Example 3: "In March 2013, McMorris Rodgers did not support the continuation of the 1994 Violence Against Women Act, but "was prime sponsor of a watered-down GOP alternative to the strengthened, Senate-passed legislation."[26][27] Ultimately, her bill failed and House adopted the Senate version of the bill.[26] In late 2013, she wrote a letter blasting Democrats and accusing them of being "openly hostile to American values and the Constitution" and citing the Affordable Care Act and immigration as evidence that President Obama "rule[s] by decree."[28] In her position as Chair, she blamed the Affordable Care Act for causing unemployment and when FactCheck.org reported studies that proved the opposite and asked her office for evidence to support her claims, "McMorris Rodgers’ office got back to us not with an answer, but with a question."[29]" Another very biased statement about her political views. There are two sides to her views and this is certainly not a balanced summary of her views.

In short, I am concerned that opponents of Rep Rodgers have slipped in several misleading statements producing a very unbalanced portrait. I appreciate your attention to my concern and appreciate the great job that Wikipedia does for our society.

Thanks for reading my note! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.187.111 (talk) 02:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with example 1, but have yet to go thrgh the others in any detail yet. Mentioning the accreditation, or lack thereof without a source making note of this appears to cast Rodgers in a negative light. I have removed this info twice, but will not do so a third time. I would appreciate others looking into this. Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Accreditation is the single most important issue for a school. It is worth noting that such mentions have been white washed by Washington DC IPs and Washington state government IPs. See Talk:Cathy_McMorris_Rodgers#Why_is_there_no_indication_of_her_political_positions_here.3F. This white washing has go on for years and has not been stopped in any way. RobinBnn (talk) 05:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Example one seems well-sourced and fairly worded. To me, the issue is one of relevance, and I don't see how the particulars of the school accreditation are relevant unless we have a secondary source that says so. Example two and three have the opposite problem. The material is very relevant and fair game, but poorly and non neutrally worded, especially that horrible bit about "stalking a stranger, threatening a loved one". This should be immediately replaced with the legal terms for the relevant crimes. Gamaliel (talk) 05:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]