Josh Bowman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Joshua Bowman did not go to Bradfield ....... He is NOT Jewish ........ He did NoT date Amy Winehouse I know this because I am his Mother ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.61.58 (talk) 08:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reporting it. I agree with your edits. I've removed the poorly sourced mention of dating Amy Winehouse. It was in a showbiz gossip piece and at most amounted to him reportedly saying "we're just very friendly". I also removed mention of him having dated Miley Cyrus sourced to gossip mag US Weekly since "has been linked to" generally means they stood next to each other at some point. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 12:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with 92.6 about the lackluster sourcing. Although what a mother knows doesn't trump better reliable sources, nearly any challenge in this case is enough to merit removal. I am ambivalent whether to retain the source at all within the article; other editors might reasonably remove it altogether. But I did remove the religious categories as apparently baseless. JFHJr (㊟) 16:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I didn't see the categories, good catch. Another editor reverted the material back in with Twinkle, I've re-removed it and left them a note pointing to the discussion here. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 16:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the sources in question for the religious identification are Abba Nibi (states as an aside, with no source) and Entertainmentwise (citing "a source" to the Daily Express). I find these questionable. Religion seems not to have much context in this subject's biography to start with. JFHJr (㊟) 17:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The content has been added again with the edit summary "sourced"...again to the same sources. My opinion's pretty clear, but I'd like to have a consensus on it first. Thoughts, anyone? JFHJr (㊟) 23:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are gossip blogs which are generally suitable for BLPs. The "Abba Nibi" one only mentions him as an aside in a parenthetical, and it's ambiguous if "Jewish eye-candy" means not-necessarily-Jewish boy who's eyecandy for Jews or means Jewish boy who qualifies as eyecandy. The other source is similarly poor, giving references to "a[n unnamed] source" in a further source. The poor (non-reliable) sourcing aside, BLPCAT holds it shouldn't be included: there's no evidence the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question or that it's materially relevant (think rabbi) to him anyway. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 00:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous BLPN discussion

I raised this previously here (for some reason I can't find the thread anywhere; it was titled Camryn: OTRS request to remove the full name of a minor, who is a public entertainer). It's still regarding OTRS ticket: 2012031210006461. Camryn's representative wants her full last name removed from the article for privacy reasons, but it has been published in numerous online sources, some of them clearly meeting RS. I listed as many of those as I could find in the last thread, and her representative told me that they have all since been contacted directly and requested (or demanded, I'm not sure) to remove/correct her name and only use 'Camryn'. I think there was consensus last time that if those RS removed her name then we would as well, but what happens while those efforts are pending? Do we wait for completion or give them the benefit of the doubt and act ahead of the actual removals. Thanks, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 19:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm going to remove the name if everyone else does" can cause a deadlock where nobody would remove it because everyone is waiting for everyone else. Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus was clearly that we should not remove the name. There was no consensus that if the reliable sources removed the name that we would. JFHJr commented at the end: "At any rate, the correct order of operations is to seek retraction and removal from reliable sources first. If we're left with no reliable sources, we'll be more obliged to remove it." No one commented on JFHJr's comment, and even JFHJr did not say that we would remove them. I would be opposed to removing her name just because her rep has asked the sources to remove it. I don't even see why we should consider it now. If in the future, the sources have complied with the request, that would be the time to discuss it again. It's premature to do so now.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I have no problem honoring this request. She's a child for heaven's sake. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was not inclined to remove her name at first, but if the representative is making a concerted effort to contact those sources and get them to, I'm more sympathetic. He says he's in a difficult situation because, as Ken mentioned above, it's tough to get sources to remove information that is available on Wikipedia. I think it's worth a closer look. I also wonder what we gain from including her full name, as her family relations are not the main source of her notability. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She's a notable child. She performs in public. She goes on tour. She's produced singles. She has her own website. She doesn't lose all of her rights to privacy, but she loses quite a few, child or not, and I don't see how we're violating her right to privacy, anyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is pretty dismal nowadays, full of garbage clearly yanked from press releases and the like. I also believe that some of the reliable sources which attest to her name were print and not online sources; so that without a memory hole the information cannot be suppressed; and I believe at one time the article discussed her parents, at least one of whom was the subject of a Wikipedia article; and I'm wondering who removed that portion of the article, and what their justification was, since the parent-child relationship was common knowledge? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[1]. Hipocrite (talk) 19:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I’d like to thank you for taking the time to discuss my desire to remove Camryn’s last name from Wikipedia. Camryn of course is not famous yet; she is known in the tween world, but not to the general public. And because she is not famous yet, she does not travel with an entourage or security detail. However, since she is the daughter of such a powerful figure, Gary Magness, we are constantly worried about her security and threats to her personal safety. And because Wikipedia is the first source that people utilize in order to gain information about public figures, I do hope that you will remove her name because of this. We’re not trying to hide her background; we are simply trying to protect her. Yes, her last name will come out in due time, but not when she’s just 12 years old. I hope you can understand my concerns, and that you will remove this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stamez (talk • contribs) 17:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC) — Stamez (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

"We"? Who is "we"?

I also point out that she is notable in some circles (else this article would not exist), and that you are seeking to suppress public information that has been published for years in various press outlets; the cat is out of the bag. Her name came out when she started becoming a performer, with the consent of her notable parents: you can't have it both ways. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you want to risk endangering a child because of her parent's decision? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endangering?? Verges on hysteria. Full name available at IMDB. Without endorsing the state of the article (and by the way I've just removed "notoriety" from the lead), I don't think this genie is going back in the bottle. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nomo. Let's see: a possibly talented child is pushed out into the world, with press releases, a website, publicists, etc., by her billionaire daddy the film producer, and because billionaire daddy didn't think to separate her publicity from his, and apparently didn't think this whole tween-idol thing through, we are the bad guys? Abusing Wikipedia is not a solution to his mistakes. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay -- as a matter of fact I'd like to reverse. I don't know what sort of danger is involved here, but if there are editors who think there is something that merits consideration in these terms, then fine, keep it out, at least until we get some sort of consensus on inclusion (normal per BLP). I'm not convinced that it will make any difference given the extent to which the name is already out there, but I see no great loss in keeping it out at least temporarily. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have no evidence of anything of the sort, Nomo. This User:Stamez is an s.p.a. with a pretty obvious conflict of interest. A Quest, of course, is a real Wikipedian; but nobody else is taking this kerfluffle seriously. Why are we letting a billionaire push us around to cover up his afterthoughts? --Orange Mike | Talk 18:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care even a little bit about the billionaire. I'm more troubled by a child losing privacy via choices made mainly by others. I agree that there's no evidence of danger, and in the end I expect that the article will include her surname (as do the other sources that cover her). But I'm not sure I see the advantages of our doing so. In any event, I have no intention of reverting any edit that includes it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Taking an adversarial stance regarding this request is not the right approach. The whole premise of BLP is to mitigate the potential harm that Wikipedia's prominence can have on living individuals. A child actor can be more vulnerable to stalking, kidnapping, or other threats if her private life is too closely connected to her public persona. The request being made is modest, reasonable, and not particularly harmful to Wikipedia or its readership if granted. I'd rather we treated this as an opportunity to do a small kindness for an individual, rather than as a zealous stand against the one percent. alanyst 19:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I have no problems taking her last name down, for the simple reason that it's not necessary. Her notability is tied to her stage name, not her birth name, so it's unnecessary to the article. That said, to Stamez, I'd advise you that IMDb also has her last name, and wish you luck getting it removed from there. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd feel a lot more empathy towards this individual if their obvious PR agent didn't also do this huge addition of puffery. Are we a marketing vehicle for this tween? Are they embarrassed of their billionaire parents, or do they think if their fans knew that they had billionaire movie producer parents they might not be fans? Hipocrite (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So let's not be a marketing vehicle. That shouldn't be hard. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Bbb23 pretty much sums up my position. I also think Orange Mike points out something important: it's hard or impossible to unring the bell. Who rang the bell and how willing they were is not really at issue; the subject seems to continue to be a public figure. The motives behind the request are irrelevant, and SPA-related points are peripheral. What's important, then? A last name is basic biographic stuff for a public figure; so are her immediate and notable family relations. The specter of bad things happening because of those facts is neither substantiated nor greatly augmented by having the information here in addition to plenty of other sources of higher repute. JFHJr (㊟) 03:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is watching this. IP keeps removing the sourced parents info. (Their only edits to this page) I am up to 2 reverts with a request to discuss on talk page, and also referred to this discussion here. Personally I find none of the arguments to keeping it out compelling, especially the new one IP used in their edit summary 'She gets bullied at school because of her rich parents'. Her parents are (semi) notable, she is (semi) notable. While I hesitate to make accusations, if the IP is close enough to know she is being bullied at school, there is probably a COI involved. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well thats 3 reverts for me and I am done. Have been reverted twice by IP and once by a single-edit account. No talkpage discussion and little edit summary of use. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Tone and content addressed; see WP:BEFORE for notability concerns. JFHJr (㊟) 01:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Newbury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This does not appear to be neutral. Most edits are by the original creator, a user that has since been deleted. The sources given are mostly written from what appears to be the same prepared press release, possibly from the person himself or somebody promoting him and his interests due to the positive bias and tone. The person in question, while apparently a successful individual, is not particularly notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.167.150 (talk) 21:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you think the user who created the article has been "deleted". I agree the tone was bad, along with some other problems, and I've done some work to improve the article. As for notability, the article has been tagged since January 2012, but there's been no discussion on the Talk page, nor has anyone done anything about it. On the face of the article, the only thing he appears notable for is the bionic leg.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've tidied up a bit further. Any BLP issues seem to have been addressed. Without discussing my personal feelings about it, I think the subject probably passes GNG. If anyone is inclined to challenge, the first step is at WP:BEFORE. JFHJr (㊟) 01:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Miller (umpire) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This [2] is neither 'very big news' nor adequately sourced; without proper cite assessments re: strike calls appear to draw conclusions based on original research. Here's ESPN's characterization [3], which is quite different, and clarifies that it's more newsworthy for the player than the ump. Wiser course is removal of content as trivial. 71.241.200.94 (talk) 00:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the entire section. If we include every controversial call a sports official makes we'll be at this for a while. Some eyes please. Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 02:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that this event is reliably sourced in the article but the ESPN online coverage looks reliable. This seems to be a newsworthy event in the sports/baseball world and I do not see why it would not be included in the Miller article and referenced to the ESPN online site. The exchange highlighted both Miller and Lawrie. I think it is an interesting event in Miller's life, not that he might have made a bad call but the chain of events after the calls. I think it could be included but needs to be rewritten more in accord with the ESPN account.Coaster92 (talk) 05:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between a single bad call that got coverage at the time, a single bad call that got persistent coverage - see Jim Joyce (umpire), and an umpire with a history of bad or controversial calls - see Joe West (umpire). If the Lawrie/Miller flap is still getting coverage in July, maybe. But otherwise it's recentism. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I don't see that a bad call is the newsworthy event here. Rather, the chain of events that gave rise to a MLB player assaulting an umpire (even unintentionally) is the event as I see it. As I understand it, this type of occurrence is rare and newsworthy at least to sports/baseball followers, who are the likely readers of an article about a sports figure/umpire. Could you direct me to the policy that would apply here to exclude this? Thank you.Coaster92 (talk) 04:34, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PERSISTENCE is about notability, though WP:NNC allows non-notable content into articles about otherwise notable persons. Between the two, content must be assigned due WP:WEIGHT. That means some things appear as sections, others as single mentions, and others yet not at all. It doesn't matter if an editor here finds it interesting or unusual; it matters if reliable sources do, though. So is this event of enduring biographical importance? If it is, what does the coverage look like? Just one ESPN? JFHJr (㊟) 01:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JFHJr for pointing out these policies. First, this is an article about Bill MIller the umpire, not the event. It looks to me from just googling Miller that there are sufficient sources to establish his notability. Then there is the question of whether to include the assault against him by the MLB player. From googling Miller, a number of sources in addition to ESPN appear about the event. I do not see why it would not be included in his bio article. The article as it is now needs development and additional sourcing but it seems to me that Miller and the event meet the criteria for inclusion.Coaster92 (talk) 03:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it does, but we must be careful not to give it undue weight. It's a possibly significant event, but I doubt it has long-lasting significance. As such, a 1-3 sentence mention of the event, stating only the facts, would be appropriate, while giving it much information wouldn't be. Example (feel free to just copy/paste this): "On (date), Miller was involved in an altercation with Toronto Blue Jays player Brett Lawrie. While disputing a strike three call by Miller, Lawrie spiked his batting helmet on the ground near the plate, which ricocheted and hit Miller on the hip. Lawrie was immediately ejected, and was suspended for four games." If it has more than that, it's probably too much. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input Jorgath. I reviewed WP:UNDUE and I do not see how this situation falls under that policy, which deals with opinions and how they are weighted. Maybe there is another policy that would apply here? Otherwise, it seems this event would be appropriate for coverage. Thanks.Coaster92 (talk) 05:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Cowell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is out of date.

Matthew Newton is not the host for Australia's "The X Factor" and never actually appeared. It was intended that he be a host but due to criminal charges for assault being laid against Matthew Newton he was replaced before screening. The original host was Daniel MacPherson. The current host is Luke Jacobz.

See wikipedia article on Australia the x factor and the official X Factor site au.tv.yahoo.com/x-factor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.47.8 (talk) 00:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the content accordingly, and per WP:CRYSTAL. JFHJr (㊟) 01:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandar Simić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Aleksandar Simić is getting spammed all over now, and there seems to be a WP:SPA with a possible WP:COI scenario. History2007 (talk) 15:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Depuffed a tad. Collect (talk) 18:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I cleaned up a little more as well, looks reasonable now. History2007 (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed a reference to youtube and some WP:PEACOCK that pointed to event literature. The latter is reliable to say something happened, but not to say anyone's noted, notable, etc. JFHJr (㊟) 03:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article was re-puffed repeatedly by a single editor, 12text12 (talk · contribs). Several instances of outright fluff, and a few of WP:OR, as citations offered failed verification. This contrib at Commons makes me think the contributor is actually the subject's relative or someone closely associated. I've rectified the problems above for now, but this appears to be WP:COI and I have a feeling it will continue. JFHJr (㊟) 20:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

12text12 (talk · contribs) is apparently the subject himself. JFHJr (㊟) 20:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Daigle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A couple of jokers keep inserting a bit of trivia in this article, a minor event that in a continuous election cycle easily makes the papers. Consensus is claimed; it is even claimed that she is notable because of this. More opinions are appreciated. Drmies (talk) 22:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A good example of sourced content that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. A local councilwoman had a run-in with a security guard, and local media covered it. Let's exercise some selectivity. 71.241.196.71 (talk) 23:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Drmies' take on the trivial nature of the content in question. It's not additive to her notability: it's local coverage and apparently of little to no enduring significance. I've left a note on the talk page; discussion seems to be coming along there. JFHJr (㊟) 00:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has been nominated for deletion again. Dru of Id (talk) 10:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Buckley (novelist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Yale is an institution with ancient customs. Undergraduates are housed in "colleges" so Jonathan Edwards is in reality a dormatory, not a college fom which Christopher Buckley could have been graduated. He earned a B.A. from Yale College and lived in Jonathan Edwards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.253.28.218 (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The text has been rectified. It wasn't terrible to start with. You could have easily corrected it with no problem, I suspect. Next time, when there are several people with the same name, please be specific as to what page you're talking about. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 19:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not resolved (or at least not correctly resolved). My understanding of things (having actually attended one family graduation there) is that the individual colleges are not simply dormitories, but have (or had, it's been a while) some specialized academic programs, that the diplomas actually listed the "residential" college, and that each college held separate graduation ceremonies for its students. Perhaps we should get some guidance from someone with specific information, perhaps, say, a Yale student or graduate. There ought to be a fww out there. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for correcting my premature resolved template. I'm open to discussion, and to preserving the version before my edit (I don't often marry my edits). I'll sit back from here, if that's alright. I trust Hullablloo is more knowledgeable, but won't rely on just personal knowledge in rectifying BLP content. Thank you again. JFHJr (㊟) 10:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endre Rosjo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This individual is claiming to have been given Admiral Type Powers by the British Government during the Falklands Campaign  Removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightowl777 (talk • contribs) 10:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• An IP seems to have added a large amount of unsourced material in late April. I've reverted. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 10:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  Admittedly the older stuff isn't a whole lot better. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 10:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the rant by Nightowl as a BLP violation and WP:NOTAFORUM.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin Curran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

"Hyacinth" inserts repeatedly the words, "Of Jewish descent" at the beginning of the bio of this living composer. Reference in the text to the fact that Curran often uses Jewish themes in his music, or that some of his music reflects his Jewish origins, would be unobjectionable and even useful, but the phrase inserted without a relation to the music is not only irrelevant but offensive (suggestive of the frankly antisemitic wording "The Jew Alvin Curran"). (I might add that I am writing with Curran's own approval and support.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susiebaby (talk • contribs) 15:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You're part of the problem, too. You clearly know how to edit a page; you clearly know how to improve the wording to something relevant and "unobjectionable"; you've even written some of it in this noticeboard section. But your only approach to editing the actual article is to revert again and again. Stop being a knee-jerk reverter and write constructively! If you know how to make the article better with an improved and more explanatory wording (that is verifiable), do so. Reverting is not your only tool. Uncle G (talk) 12:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vahakn Dadrian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Grandmaster added harrasing material with no direct citations [4] to the BLP of well-known Armenian-American scholar and during discussions aggressively deletes even the tag for citation [5], sending me to a website (highbeam) which asks for signing in or payment [6]. During the Internet search of added sentence ("a college arbitrator had found him guilty on four charges of sexual harassment in 1981, but had allowed him to return to work because the arbitrator believed they were singular events that would not happen again") it appears only at Turkish hate site http://www.tallarmeniantale.com/dadrian-sex.htm . Gazifikator (talk) 16:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment the only citation to the material is the Highbeam article. There is nothing wrong with a citation to a source that requires logging in or payment. I have no comment on the "hate site" as (1) it's not being cited and (2) I have no idea whether it is or isn't. I have looked at the cited source and the material fairly represents what's asserted, although part of the end of the material should have quotation marks because it's a quote from the arbitrator. Thus, the only way you can reject this material is if you think it violates some BLP-related policy, and although I'm not fond of this sort of thing in academic articles, if there was an actual finding (as opposed to just an accusation), as here, it generally remains in unless it's WP:DUE, which this doesn't seem to be.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Normally we would require multiple sources for this sort of thing. Apparently there's only one reliable source; I also agree that WP:DUE is is a concern here. So I'd lean towards removal, unless someone can produce more sources that show this was a bigger deal than it apparently was. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I did not add this material, as Gazifikator claims, it was in the article for years, and Gazifikator removed it claiming that he needed direct citations: [7] I simply restored it, because I believe being fired from University is a notable episode in anyone's biography, and Associated Press is a very reliable source, known for fact checking and accuracy. I don't think BLP means that we should omit facts from people's biographies, when they are supported by a reliable source. BLP only requires us to not use material from questionable sources, and in this case the quality of the source is not an issue. Therefore I think the info must remain in the article. Btw, I found the article in the online archive of the newspaper, so Gazifikator can access it now for free: [8] Grandmaster 18:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It may be just a product of Turkish propagand. According to material at Turkish site the "harassment" happened on April 24, the Genocide Remembrance Day. Something unreal... And then, even if it is from AP, this info exists only at Highbeam and Turkish sites. Nor AP official portal nor the Geneseo University site support this info, and there is not a decision of court, so this is just an accusation which is not published anywhere except of a newspaper. And if Google.books has 8300 materials on 'Dadrian', it shows nothing for 'Dadrian sexual harassment'. Is it notable for anyone except the Turkish site? Gazifikator (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No one ever referred to that Turkish site. You are the only one mentioning it. Grandmaster 19:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I found this material in another database, ProQuest:

A 54 year old professor at the Geneseo campus of SUNY has been found guilty of "hugging and kissing a student without her permission, making personal inquiries into her sex life, and taking her by the arm and trying to lead her into his office." There were 4 other counts of sexual harassment that were dropped on technicalities but the teacher, Vahakn Dadrian, has not yet been dismissed. Women Together, the feminist group at Geneseo, is determined to continue fighting sexual harassment. (New Women's Times, May `81)

Hayes, L. (1981, Jun 30). Women fight back -- and win. Off our Backs, 11(6), 12-12.

Looks like the info could be verified from other sources as well, at least with regard to 1981 charges. Grandmaster 19:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Gazifikator, I think you're trying to tie this to an anti-Turkish site is a loser. There is a reliable source supporting the material and it's a verifiable source. That's the end of that story.

@Grandmaster, I don't think an article from a political organization is a reliable source for this material.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I'm not proposing to use the second source, I just wanted to demonstrate that the info was reported in other non-Turkish sources, besides AP. Grandmaster 19:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23, I'm connecting this not with the Turkish site, but with the Turkish state-organized denial of Armenian Genocide. It's sad you don't see the difference... What you're saying is against the WP:BLP policies: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out". Please show me multiple reliable sources you and Grandmaster are using except of Times Union paper. Gazifikator (talk) 03:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I don't see what Dadrian's dismissal from the Uni has to do with denial. Second, I see that Dadrian launched a case against the Uni, which he lost: [9]. 81 NY2d 838 Dadrian, Matter of, v State Univ. of NY/Geneseo. Decision was: Motion for leave to appeal denied with one hundred dollars costs and necessary reproduction disbursements. [10] The fact of dismissal I think could also be verified through the court decision, if there's actually a need for that. Grandmaster 07:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pranitha Subhash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

1. I am Pranitha Subhash. I am the actress based on whom the page has been created. There are a few wrong details mentioned. But i am really helpless as the page is protected and i am not able to edit it. Please help!

2. 'Spouse' name entered does not exist. The person concerned (Pranitha Subhash) has NO spouse. I am single. This has offended me. Please block anyone from entering any such personal matters.

3. Also Age and birth date entered is wrong. My real birth date is 17th october 1993. Please change it for me. Please block people from entering wrong information. Please make the changes as soon as possible.

Please make these changes as soon as possible. Its my request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pranita17 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Both these unsourced pieces of information have now been removed by User:JFHJr. The article does not seem to be protected. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Pranitha Subhash article is indeed not protected. You can edit it by clicking "Edit" in the upper right of the article or any section. However, it is good of you not to edit your own article overly much because of the inherent conflict of interest. I have removed the information that was unsourced: spouse, date of birth. I have not added the date of birth you have provided because there should be a reliable source to cite. Unfortunately, posts here do not qualify as reliable sources. Finally, there is no sure way to prevent inaccuracies from returning; editors don't generally get blocked here at BLPN, and pages don't get protected here. But if you notice an ongoing or repeated problem at Pranitha Subhash, please don't hesitate to post again. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 20:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being 16 in August 2008 is consistent with the year of birth claimed here. But I haven't found a source with a month or day. Uncle G (talk) 12:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm afraid consistent is another word for WP:OR in this case. We need to wait on a reliable source. JFHJr (㊟) 10:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Harry of Wales (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Resolved

 – Fixed by NeilN. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 15:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has inserted quite a bit of speculative material in here about the Prince's sexual preferences, with all of the writing skill of a 15 year old Youtube addict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.75.211.5 (talk) 14:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's gone, thanks for reporting. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Aguirre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Mark Aguirre's father was born on the southside of Chicago. His fathers' father is from Mexico. Mark has three sisters on his mother side, he has other brother's and sisters from his father side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.211.233.94 (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Prove it! If you want to contradict the Seattle Times and add all of that other stuff, show a high quality published source that says what you claim. We are not in the business of taking unsupported biographical material from unidentified people. Show where this claimed biographical material has been published by people who are identifiable and who have checked their facts. Uncle G (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Shipley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Earlier I came across the article Tony Shipley. The 'Controversies' section is reasonably well sourced but leans a bit too far into synthesis, OR and gives undue weight. I'd have a crack at fixing it's getting late and I have an early start. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it editorializes utterly -- I reduced the material which is actually sourced to the bit about blackbirds on a flyer - the rest was pure campaign rhttoric (especially since one source directly contradicted some of the claims made). Collect (talk) 22:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Bourque (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'd like to request that a neutral party do a WP:BLP review on Pierre Bourque (journalist). A user, User:Spoonkymonkey, has attempted twice in the past two days to have it speedied — first with no deletion rationale at all, and then when that was declined he tried again with the rationale that article is mainly a criticism of a non-notable person that implies the subject inflates his own importance. He also previously tried to have it speedied in 2010, with the rationale not notable but no further detail on how that was true.

While I can see that there is some potentially problematic content in the article, the problem here is that there's significant reason (edit history, etc.) to believe that Spoonkymonkey may actually be the same person as a cluster of now-banned usernames which previously waged an active vendetta against Mr. Bourque — including the introduction of much of the content that he now disputes, an effort to overwrite the article with a WP:COPYVIO piece that was pure criticism of Bourque without even the slightest attempt at balance or fairness, and multiple attempts to remove the article's strongest claims of notability in order to bolster still other attempts at having the article deleted as non-notable (e.g. removing the fact that Bourque actually did hold a seat on Ottawa City Council, so that instead of an incumbent councillor who failed to get reelected, he was just being portrayed as a dude who ran once and lost.) So regardless of the article's merits or lack thereof, Spoonky can't be considered the most reliable judge of that.

However, since I've been directly involved in some of the previous disputes around this article, I'd like to ask for a neutral third party to review the article and make any adjustments necessary for compliance with BLP. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 23:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The central problem with the article was its lack of balance. It's mostly an attack page with a few stray background facts thrown in. I've pared it way back so the criticism part (no longer in its own section) is just a summary. I've also removed unsourced material. The article probably needs some expansion as to his political career because the sourcing for him having been a councillor wasn't really there, and I didn't go looking for it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. As I've already mentioned to you, one of the existing references that was already being cited in the article actually did support the city council stuff and just hadn't been added to properly footnote it — so I've readded it with the inline referencing to that source. Otherwise, thanks for your work; the whole thing's certainly been a bit mystifying and frustrating. Bearcat (talk) 00:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kweku Hanson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A lot of negative info. Not sure this guy even meets the notability guidelines. It may be that most of the negative info is true, but the citations should be much heftier if so. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The same likely applies to his colleague, Paul Ngobeni (created by the same editor). Dominic·t 01:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

I've been skeptical about this article's notability for several months now. Tim Pool is an amateur journalist who received media attention during the hype over Occupy Wall Street. His journalism methods were considered "revolutionary" by several papers at the time. Praise towards these methods was brief, ending by early February. I would expect impactful or game changing people to have coverage extending beyond a protest.

I believe this contradicts with Wikipedia's notability policy, specifically Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event. My attempt to convince other of this back in January was met with a barrage of activist criticism, preventing any progress. Now that OWS has toned down I think its time to reconsider. Thanks--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 03:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I disagree with you and think that Pool is sufficiently notable for continued inclusion. His footage continues to be used by numerous major reliable news organizations and he himself continues to be the subject of numerous news articles in such sources (in fact another wave of these have appeared in the past 24 hours, as a simple google will reveal). Your assertion that Pool's time in the spotlight is over is obviously false. If he continues to be notable enough to have his material used by major news organizations and to be personally the subject of major news media reports, then I would argue that he is certainly notable enough to continue to have a WP article about him.

Additionally, many of the points raised in objection to your earlier attempt to delete the article remain valid for his notability in themselves. Based on what I see here, for you to attempt to characterize the expression of some reasonable and well-supported opinions supporting Pool's notability as "a barrage of activist criticism" seems disingenuous.

Finally, given the recent major OWS-coordinated protests across America on 1-May, and the current role OWS is playing in the massive NATO protests in Chicago, I believe your dismissal that "OWS has toned down" is premature. Autumnalmonk (talk) 07:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deepak Shimkhada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deepak Shimkhada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Biography has multiple issues, especially regarding paucity of sources, and has been prodded. Yet I wonder if the subject's positions and published essays establish him as prominent in his field of academic study, per WP:PROF. Further thoughts welcome. 99.153.142.225 (talk) 10:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. Does he meet notability? He has many publications, which suggests he is an expert in his field but I did not find reliable secondary sources on him. I reviewed relevant policies but did not find an answer to the question whether having multiple publications in a field establishes notability without confirming how often they have been cited (which apparently costs money). Perhaps other editors have dealt with this situation.Coaster92 (talk) 05:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands it's a difficult call. Mostly I brought it here because the article had been prodded and subsequently deleted altogether by its author, and rather than adding a speedy template, as I would have had the subject been obviously non-notable, I thought it still merited a few looks. 99.153.142.225 (talk) 12:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated for deletion JFHJr (㊟) 04:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Fineman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello, there are two minor errors that warrant correction in the Howard Fineman biographical article. I spotted these errors because I work with Howard Fineman. Because my employment relationship presents a WP:COI, I was wondering if someone here on the BLP/N would be able to review and make these two corrections:

1. Update the first sentence of the intro paragraph to read as: "Howard Fineman is an American journalist who is editorial director of the AOL Huffington Post Media Group.(citing this source)" Reasoning: The current version is simply outdated, as it uses a prior title of "senior politics editor." The subject of this article is currently "editorial director" as shown here.

2. In paragraph two of the Education and early career section, remove the phrase "a practicing Jew" due to inaccuracy and unverifiability. Reasoning: The Wikipedian who wrote this sentence seems to have made an honest mistake in describing the subject as "a practicing Jew," as this is not correct (nor is it verifiable in reliable sources). They seem to have misread the source cited, jweekly.com, which states that "He attended a predominantly Jewish high school before moving on to Colgate University"; however the source never actually describes Fineman as "a practicing Jew."

Thanks for your help. If any further sources are needed to justify the changes suggested above, please let me know and I'd be happy to provide those. Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 16:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out that an editor from the WP:HELP IRC live chat was able to make these two changes, so this request has been handled. If anyone has additional feedback on these changes, though, I am more than open to it. Thanks, Jeff Bedford (talk) 22:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Bedford—While it is true that the source you cite above would not seem to support a term such as "practicing Jew", it would be a source that would support that Howard Fineman is Jewish. We find at that source:

• "But Yiddishkeit and lively discussions at the dinner table ruled. 'There's a direct line from my table to 'Hardball,' Fineman notes. 'My dad was like Chris Matthews because he would both ask and answer his own questions."

• "His parents, both teachers, also taught Sunday school at the local synagogue where Fineman was bar mitzvahed. He attended a predominantly Jewish high school before moving on to Colgate University.

• "While there, he earned a postgraduate fellowship, for which he undertook what he calls his 'kosher roots project. I bought a VW bus and went to Jewish places in the Old Country, then to Israel for three months. I recapitulated Jewish history.'"

• "Fineman says America has proven a uniquely hospitable home for Jews because of the nature of its founding."

• "'That, plus the innate philo-Semitism of the founders, who analogized their situation to the Jews of the Old Testament, makes the country unique.'"

I would suggest that we have support in the above source for our article to be saying that Howard Fineman is Jewish. I am saying that this edit has removed too much material insofar as it has also removed that Howard Fineman is Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 19:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isobel Redmond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article says Isobel came from NSW and implies she immediately set up her own law firm in Stirling, SA. She has told me her first legal job on SA was with Labor law firm Duncan, Groom, and Hannon. Terry Groom formerly of that firm, and a former ALP Minister in SA went to school with me, and he confirms that. It may be that she set up her own law firm in Stirling thereafter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.160.87 (talk) 02:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The person who rewrote that section has been notified. See User talk:Timeshift9#Factual errors in your biographical writing. Uncle G (talk) 11:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cassandra Clare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cassandra_Clare&diff=prev&oldid=493533879 has once again added grudge material which has been repeatedly removed by editors over the past several years as violating the biographies of living persons policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.58.212 (talk) 02:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I've removed the personal attack in question and issued a warning to the culprit, who appears to have created an account solely for vandalising that article. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 02:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've also requested semi-protection for the article due to the BLP/attack nature but it may be decided that the volume of vandalism is too low to warrant such measures being taken. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 03:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Update - page protection has just been granted, which should curtail vandalism and BLP issues of this nature. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 03:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It may also be worth deleting the SPA's edit summary; the people behing this campaign have learned that the edit summaries persist even after the content has been reverted, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

George Tierney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I would like to request additional eyes on George Tierney and Greenville, South Carolina for potential BLP violations. A person sharing that name has recently attracted a bit of attention and it is resulting in inappropriate edits. I have already removed the violations on both, but it would be a good idea to keep an eye on both articles as well as the name popping up anywhere else inappropriate until the attention dissipates. Monty₈₄₅ 02:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Botsa Satyanarayana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

He is not a leader as projected. Botsa has dubious distinction of being part of [redacted] since 2004. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.22.55.2 (talk) 05:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Alright. Besides leveling commentary, can you provide any reliable coverage by unrelated parties indicating such? If you believe this article is fit for deletion, I suggest you start at WP:BEFORE. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 10:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Psst! JFHJr! Read this edit. I've just excised a whole paragraph of wholly unacceptable material (ironically for two different reasons) from that article under the BLP policy. The editor without an account wasn't asking for deletion. Xe was commenting on that removed material. Uncle G (talk) 11:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to suppress these unsupported claims. --Dweller (talk) 21:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uranium poisoning in Punjab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

While this is not a BLP article, it's raising several BLP issues as apparently two sides of some contested research are casting insults and accusations at each other in article space. It seems both sides are violating WP:COI, WP:RS, and WP:BLP all at once so I thought this needs some attention from admins. Thanks! Autumnalmonk (talk) 13:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, one party has also posted a complaint at the Help Desk, which is how I first became aware of it. Autumnalmonk (talk) 13:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Calling the content of that page an "article" is a grave insult to proper articles. It is a very rant-ish "wall of text". Roger (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted back to a decent version with inline refs and removed the wall of text. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Thomson affair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is riddled with factual inaccuracies, political bias, poor and unreliable sources, and plain, ordinary bold-faced lies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.230.139 (talk) 14:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried pointing out the problems in detail on the talk page? Talk:Craig Thomson affair --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That might be the next step, although I would ask that editors familiar with BLP policy might please examine this article and perhaps keep an eye on it; the subject is currently a very hot and very ugly current news item. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.230.139 (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please make it the next step. There is an absolute feast of sources at the moment, and the FWA report provides a rich lode of facts. However, using the subject of the article as a reliable source is not a course I'd recommend. For example, he may say that he voluntarily left the ALP, but this is inconsistent with the Prime Minister's statement. --Pete (talk) 12:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flaawless (talk · contribs) seems to be creating some sort of biography in his sandbox which mentions the names of at least 2 teachers. BLP applies in userspace - I'm not sure what's most appropriate to do here. I'll tell him about this. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Mehdi Hasan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm concerned about the growth of coverage of this political journalist's religious views (which are apparently fairly mainstream Muslim). Although some of the criticism is ostensibly reliably sourced, its significance doesn't seem likely to be enough to justify ten paragraphs (in an article running to 17 paragraphs in total.) I would appreciate it if other editors well acquainted with Wikipedia policy would take a look. --TS 16:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think some reduction and judicious summarizing (to replace extensive quotations) would help. Frustrating, though -- other parts of the article are unsourced and yet that section is fine for sources. I'll hold off for now to allow others to assess and add their views. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Dean Starr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Article not neutral too much advertising. Thks "Driven by the slogans, "The Ultimate eBook Store" and "Read and Change the World", eRead.com will feature one of the largest independent print and ebook inventories available anywhere. A portion of all sales from eRead.com will go directly to select non-profit literacy and educational causes around the world, areas specifically championed by the company's founders. The beta site launch for eRead.com will take place in the first quarter of 2012, with the official launch to follow shortly thereafter.". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loeffler86 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pruned some. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart C. Lord (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

My contributions, sourced with newspaper articles, were removed by another author, whose reduction creates a biased article. When I spoke to the author, he was quite defensive.Donalds (talk) 21:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your additions were added and removed in early March. Why are you bringing this up now? Although you did post a comment to the Talk page in March, no one replied, and you seemed to have dropped it. Also, I don't see where you raised this issue with the other editor (the creator of the article). When and where did that happen?

The removed material was out of balance. The part about Lord's resignation was far too much information that had more to do with the university than it did with Lord. The part about the layoffs at the university seemed almost irrelevant to the Lord article, although I must say there's a lot of material in the Lord article that is less about Lord and more about other things.

Finally, with respect to Lord's resignation, as the article stands now, there is a big hole. It says in the lead that he resigned, but I can't find anywhere in the body that it says so. It is a notable event and should be addressed in the body with the lead summarizing it. Perhaps you can try adding back some of the resignation material to the body, keeping it fairly brief. I'd skip the layoff stuff. I'd also post more information on the Talk page about what you're doing and why. You can also point to this discussion if you like.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Quivers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The latest entry contains incorrect information and incorrectly quotes the article. Neither Robin Quivers or her representatives have stated where the tumor is attached. They have stated that it was pressing on her bladder, not attached to it. The date of her surgery is also wrong. She underwent surgery on May 23, 2012. Please remove this incorrect information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizzire (talk • contribs) 03:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• If you'd provided an edit summary, saying something along the lines of "Removing information that misrepresents the source.", instead of leaving the edit summary blank as you did, then you wouldn't have been mistaken for one of the many content blanking vandals that idly blank random paragraphs. You could have even corrected the sentence. Use the edit summary to summarize your edits, and try approaches other than wholesale blanking when you can clearly write, as you did right here, a verifiable alternative sentence. Uncle G (talk) 10:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

This was posted on my talk page:

I'm new :waves:

I need some help. I need a neutral 3rd part to resolve an editing issue here with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz here --> Jessicka My point: "Art Slant,[11] Juxtapoz,[12][ Supacute,[13] Coagula Art Journal, [14] & Hi- Fructose [15] are all reputable 3rd party Art sources. Saying these articles are written by friends is purely speculation on your part. Jessicka's wiki page clearly states that she's an artist. Listing past art shows with 3rd party references is just like listing the albums she's released as a musician in her discography. Both are wiki relevant & significant"

Thanks!

(Lifespan9 (talk))

I hope someone here knows about this matter. Thanks! George Ho (talk) 18:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• George has been extraordinarily gullible. "Lifespan9" is not a new user, as they claim, but one of a small number of disruptive users who periodically arrive from buzznet.com, editing under multiple names and IPs, determined to turn Wikipedia articles on their friends (and, sometimes, each other) into fan pages and advertising. "Lifespan9" appears to be User:Swancookie's newest sock, marked in particular by the habit of canvassing editors who've been on the other side of editing disputes (like George) with whoever's removing their promotional edits and appealing to them as "neutral third parties". Prior campaigns have included efforts to write up someone who never actually sold a screenplay as a network TV screenwriter and an interminable effort to add reports of Jessicka's wedding, including lists of gifts and guests, into a ridiculous number of articles. This should be stifled rather quickly and emphatically. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • After a brief talk with Lifespan9, I clearly begin to have faith on this person, and I have a good feeling that I'll get along with Lifespan. In the meantime, evidently, I don't know what is going on with the Jessicka issue, but I know this: Hullaballoo has been taking Wikipedia so seriously without considering another side on everybody, especially COI "violators", "sockpuppets", and primary affiliates. It has been on for years, and I don't know when the whole issue should stop. Nevertheless, Hulla gave me a trout because this user still believes that Swan and Life are the same person. --George Ho (talk) 21:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It's something that's been going on for years, George Ho. See /Archive64#Lenora Claire, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lenora Claire, and all of the discussions that they take you to. Uncle G (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, from what I've been reading, rules were broken inappropiate. However, I don't see enough communication between "violators" and "reporters". Promptly, I see some misjudgments and miscommunication, but I don't know. In my view, editors haven't known about sockpuppetry, COI, and stuff. There are harsh accusations, but WP:SPI has no reports on Swancookie. I'm still checking... As for the "gullible" part, I do the "innocent until proven guilty" approach and must always do so. --George Ho (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

White trash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a contention over whether referring to the surnames of families in the See also section violates WP:BLP. I would argue that by including family names, the pejorative nature of the term "White Trash" is being applied to the living members of the family (the merit of which I am not arguing) and violates NPOV and OR. If a familial group or individual's name were listed under a contemporary pejorative term or racial slur, this would be a seemingly clear-cut issue. - CompliantDrone (talk) 18:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• - These appear to be the names objected to - The White family - The Jukes family - The Kallikak Family - Youreallycan 18:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • were pseudonyms used by researchers in the 1920s. The families were real but not the names, and therefore no living people are named. The White Family is real and has its own article where it is described as "The family has a reputation for anti-social behavior, and, indeed, some members of the family are quite proud of it. The family, especially Jesco, is infamous in Boone County...." It seems the BLP debate should be about THAT article. Re "poorwhite trash" and the Whites see http://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=%22white+trash%22+%22the+white+family%22&num=10#hl=en&tbm=bks&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22white+trash%22+%22the+white+family%22+jesco&oq=%22white+trash%22+%22the+white+family%22+jesco&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=serp.3...130024.133176.1.133614.12.9.2.0.0.0.388.1956.0j4j3j2.9.0...0.0.iMEX3IQEHVQ&psj=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=b3737406b0891260&biw=800&bih=454 google link to newspaper report]. Rjensen (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• My initial question would be, why are we adding see also links from "white trash", when there's no discussion containing the term "white trash" in any of those articles?--Cube lurker (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears to be the "Kallikaks", "Jukes", and "Nams" slang names for poor families in certain parts of the U.S. that makes the association. Uncle G (talk) 19:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • because people interested in "white trash" will be interested in these heavily documents case studies of people who come close to the definition. Wikipedia does not call anyone "white trash." But scholars do, see White Trash: The Eugenic Family Studies (1988) by Nicole Hahn Rafter. She portrayed the family degeneracy studies that were conducted. Also: "According to Dugdale's study, a frontiersman named Max Juke married a degenerate wife and produced an astonishingly large line of “white trash." [from Willie V. Bryan (2010). Sociopolitical Aspects of Disabilities: The Social Perspectives and Political History of Disabilities and Rehabilitation in the United States. Charles C Thomas. p. 55.] Rjensen (talk) 19:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  That seems a defensible arguement for Jukes & Kallikak. I'd personally prefer seeing something in prose, but that's just my offhand opinion. In "The Whites", that google search link is problematic. It's showing a lot of results for "the white family" not The White Family". I'm less comfortable with that one at the moment. Just my two cents.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional BLP overspill

Amber L. Hollibaugh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This weakly cited low notable person has has now had a biography created to support a disputed content addition about her in the White trash article - Youreallycan

The user / creator of the BLP is now removing my templates and reverting my edits as bad faith - diff - Youreallycan 21:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

editors can read the article on Amber L. Hollibaugh and note that it is fully sourced to multiple scholarly sources, such as her books and journal articles from Duke & MIT, as well as numerous scholarly cites about her career from American Quarterly and other prestigious journals. Youreallycan has made no comments whatever on the talk page but has tried to damage and degrade the article. That's vandalism, as well as a personal attack on me (saying that I have a "conflict of interest") -- that is false and deliberately malicious. Rjensen (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]