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

Madconservationist edited wrong information aiming at harassing the target.

Are you talking about this edit, which is the only one that shows up under that editor name? I am not clear on how that amounts to harassing the target; given that it is the user's only edit and its three months old, I don't see any ongoing problem. The edit was unsourced, but so is the current claims about his family. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The following RFC Talk:Shooting_of_Michael_Brown#RfC:_Should_article_mention_Brown_had_no_.28adult.29_criminal_record.3F could use additional input from uninvolved editors. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Michael Brown's juvenile record, or should I say the lack of one, has now been introduced into the article content as well. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Poorly sourced rumor about Igor Girkin "found hanged in Rostov-on-Don, Russia" should be removed.

Were this true, there would be good sources. This entry is neither verifiable nor neutral.

Just look at claimed source. Makes wikipedia look foolish, being used for implied death threats.

Thank you.

(I have never commented or posted at wikipedia in any way before now.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.4.102.71 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Solved, it was not verifiable. It was removed by the user that posted above: 171.4.102.71 contribs at 22:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC) --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Pardon me for editing the top of the discussion, but for clarity we are discussing material in the Atrazine article, and not currently included in the Tyrone Hayes article. Formerly 98 (talk) 23:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

There is a disagreement about the admissibility as a reliable source of the following material posted (all at the same URL) on the Syngenta corporate website:

1. 1 A letter from Syngenta to the University of California complaining of "unethical behavior" by Tyrone Hays. This letter makes certain allegations that I will not repeat here in the event pending a ruling on whether this would be a violation of BLP, but the letter can be seen here.
2. 2 A letter from University of California legal counsel, on University letterhead and signed by University of California Vice Provost Nancy Chu, stating that Hays had acknowledged certain behaviors and agreed to cease and desist.
3. 3 Photocopies of some emails sent by Hays to Syngenta scientists. These have been linked to in a a Nature article, have been directly quoted by the New Yorker having been on the Syngenta website since 2010, and would surely have sparked a libel suit if they were faked.

I believe these letters and the cited emails from Hays are a reliable source, as they have been quoted/linked by at least two reliable secondary sources, the letters are on official letterhead and signed by senior officials of the company and university, and have been on the website unchallenged by either Hays or the University for over 4 years. I'd like to ask @Binksternet: his opposing point of view also, so we can be careful to remain within the guidelines. thanks Formerly 98 (talk) 22:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

No, we cannot use the Syngenta-hosted documents, which can of course be shown in altered form by Syngenta, for the purpose of attacking Hays, their bitter enemy. The correct guideline here is WP:BLPPRIMARY, which says no legal documents. Instead, we rely on third party discussion of the matter. Binksternet (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Binksternet. This is what I took from WP:BLPPRIMARY:

"Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies"

I believe that in citing the Nature article, my use of this material was compliant. Also, I disagree with your characterization of these letters as legal documents. Aside from wikilawyering, is there any particular reason you believe this material to be non-authentic? Formerly 98 (talk) 22:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe it adds anything to the article and the secondary source is sufficient to discuss the issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks NorthBySouthBaranof. Any objection to the use of the following secondary source? http://news.sciencemag.org/2010/08/i-told-ya-you-cant-stop-rage-uc-endocrinologist-hayes-writes-syngenta

Syngenta has also attacked Hayes in many ways, including threatening his family, disrupting his lectures, funding an attack website, and so on. Both sides have delivered hot broadsides at the other. However, this is an encyclopedia we're writing, and we're not here to fan the flames. We use calm, neutral language rather than language to inflame. None of the spiteful little details of this brouhaha should be in any of our articles, just a general description or summary. Binksternet (talk) 23:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Well said Binksternet, but the article already contains several paragraphs describing Syngenta's alleged improper behavior. I think that {{WP:NPOV]] requires that we treat the misbehavior of both sides in the dispute equally. I will be happy to leave out the Science Magazine material if we can agree to cut back the lengthy discussion of the allegations against Syngenta, some of which have no corroboration.

No, that's not what NPOV requires. NPOV does not require that we treat things "equally" — rather, it requires that we weight allegations in accordance with the weight given them in reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: I respectfully request that you stop editing the article for POV while the discussion is ongoing here and that you revert the edits you have made during the previous 30 minutes pending the attainment of a consensus. Formerly 98 (talk) 23:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Then likewise, I have reverted your recent edits per the bold, revert, discuss cycle and I request that you discuss your proposed additions and changes on the talk page and gain consensus before adding them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: You reverted my edit without giving any reason other than "Please discuss before making changes per BRD", which directly contradicts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle#What_BRD_is.2C_and_is_not.

"BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense."

Please also see WP:FIXED

""Please discuss before making such drastic changes." is listed as an argument to specifically avoid. It is certainly not reason enough by itself to revert.

I respectfully request that you return the article to the state it was in at the beginning of this discussion, and engage in a meaningful discussion regarding why you don't think that Haye's behavior, which is discussed at length in 3 first tier scientific publications, is worthy of equal coverage with that of Syngenta. Thanks. Formerly 98 (talk) 04:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the primary materials sourced to atrazine.com, which is of course extremely biased in the matter. Regarding the BRD cycle: discussion is supposed to be conducted with the recent change reverted, that is, the article staying the way it was before the editor made the disputed change. Binksternet (talk) 04:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Sauce for the goose, Formerly 98. You did not discuss my good-faith efforts to improve the section before simply flatly reverting all of my changes back to your preferred version.

You made bold changes to the article. I made bold changes to your changes, in an effort to improve them and make them conform to the sources. Rather than continue engaging in good-faith back-and-forth editing, you just undid all my edits. What does that tell me? That you're not interested in editorial engagement, but simply making the article conform to your POV. In my mind, that makes all of your edits suspect. So I reverted them in return.

You can hardly argue that it's somehow fair and justifiable for you to revert my edits but unfair and unjustifiable for me to revert your edits. Well, I suppose you can argue it, but nobody is likely to buy it. It amounts to "I get to edit this article, you don't." And that's not how Wikipedia works. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: The issue that my reversion was intended to address was that you began editing the article when a discussion was still in progress rather than waiting for consensus to be reached.

You still have not provided any reason for your reversion of my edits that is compliant with Wikipedia's policies. Could we begin to address the issues here? Formerly 98 (talk) 08:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

And? There is no prohibition against editing an article while a discussion is underway. You didn't wait for a consensus to be reached before adding the information, and as Binksternet notes, the BRD cycle suggests that discussion take place with the disputed material removed and the status quo retained. Once again, sauce for the goose.

Apart from the BLP issue already discussed here — that the primary source is likely to be inappropriate — the reliable sources don't seem to support the language you use in regards to the studies. It seems there are other studies which support Hayes' position, and the way you wrote it did not disclose that fact. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I will drop the subject of the reverts for now, as further discussion of that issue does not seem to be helping us find common ground.

With respect to the language and information in the article, here aree are my concerns and proposals:

1. There is a lot of conflicting conclusions in the primary literature about amphibian feminization by atrazine and the only secondary references reflect the EPAs viewpoint. Can we make a list of all the key papers along with any concerns about industry funding and the like to make sure we have covered the best arguments for both sides of the issue?
2. The article in its current form goes on at great length about Syngenta's bad behavior, including discussion of a lot of non-corroborated accusations, but mentions nothing about Hayes' misbehavior although both have been extensively documented in reliable secondary sources. I see this as a problem of balance and NNPOV. But the extensive criticism of behavior in this article is really fairly tangental to the subject of atrazine, and I would be happy to reduce the amount of space spent on these accusations against both sides. Can we find a compromise here?
3. I'd like to see the data describing the actual atrazine levels in surface waters, in drinking water, and in the studies described in the text restored. I believe it is relevant to evaluating the level of threat and am not aware of any persuasive reason to deny our readers this information.

ThanksFormerly 98 (talk) 09:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

There is currently on an going discussion on Skyler Page on whether to include the fact that he was accused of sexual assault. Every source says that his firing of Clarence was a result of the accusations. WP:BLPCRIME says " For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." Some editors are using this to say that we cannot add the allegations until there is a conviction. However, it says "consider not including " and not to never include. I think that this is one of the times when we should include because every source that talks about him being fired mentions the allegations. Even if it turns out to be false, I still feel that the allegations are important and belong in the article. Skyler Page has received more media attention since the allegations than he had when working on the show. However, we need a consensus on the matter. So please weigh in on this discussion. JDDJS (talk) 02:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

JDDJS is a relatively new editor to the page. There has been consensus for a long time that the reason is to be omitted because it is a BLP violation to include. Indeed, multiple editors have affirmed this and even edited to keep the reason out of the article. So it's not just 'me' editing it. Additionally, it's relevant that there have been at least two discussions about this, one on this very board about it: BLPN noticeboard link and One on the TV show's article talk page. Tutelary (talk) 02:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I never said it was just you. However, neither discussion you mention shows any consensus to not include it on the Skyler Page article. The first one was just between you and another editor and the other editor said that it was off topic on the TV article and that it would need better sources to be included on the subject article. I have included several reliable sources. In the other discussion you mention, there is a consensus to not include the allegations on the Clarence article. That does not mean that it cannot be included on Page's article. So, currently, there is absolutely no consensus to not to include the allegations on Skyler Page. JDDJS (talk) 02:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Is this the issue?__ E L A Q U E A T E 02:13, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes. It is also talked about here: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] JDDJS (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider most of those usable sources. Quality is more important than quantity here, as gossip can be spread widely and still be BLP-problematic.__ E L A Q U E A T E 02:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure not all of them are reliable. But the Daily Mail is reliable. The AV Club is one of the most common sources I've seen for TV reviews, so it's news report has to be some what reliable. Georgia Newsday also seems to be reliable, and I know I've seen Deadline used as a source before. And there aren't any sources besides CN press release for Page's firing that do not mention the sexual assault allegations. It's not debatable whether or not Page was accused of sexual assault because it is obvious that he has been. The question is whether or not it should be mentioned in the aritlce. JDDJS (talk) 02:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is not a reliable enough source in this case. WP:BLP guides us, in spirit an in letter, to be extremely cautious regarding adding contentious material about living persons. Whether you have 1 or 50 gossip columns mentioning this, it does not belong on Wikipedia. @JDDJS: unless there is a discussion you can link that shows very broad consensus to include this material, our default per BLP is to keep it out. VQuakr (talk) 04:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not gossip. He has clearly been accused of sexual assault. That is not debatable. I can show you exact tweets accusing him of sexual assault. The Daily Mail is not a gossip column. Georgia Newsday is not a gossip column. The question is whether or not to include it on the article. I don't understand why we can't include it. All the recent media attention towards Skyler Page is about the sexual assault accusations. While Skyler Page is not well known, I would argue that almost everyone who does know about him, already knows about the accusations. (P.S., while this is not a reason to include it on the page, people have already complained on tumblr about how WP is hiding this). JDDJS (talk) 04:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how this effects the discussion, but after looking further into this, I found this [13] and [14]. Apparently, Page's close friend has claimed that Page is has bipolar and possibly schizophrenic and has exhibited other wild behavior. Multiple sources have mention this post, so the part about him being Page's friend is true. I'm honestly not sure what to make of this in general. JDDJS (talk) 04:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the article mentions he was fired with a link for details, without Wikipedia implying he's guilty of anything, That's good for now. I would cite it to the Variety piece over something less obviously reliable, but I don't think adding more BLP speculative material would be appropriate, at this point. If he pops up again, and a source references any issues in a way that we can use neutrally, then it should be re-visited. Wikipedia has no deadline, and I think his firing will probably prove a major event in his life over time, but it will be better if we include it in the least-sensationalized way we can.__ E L A Q U E A T E 10:44, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't get why we can't at least say something like "Multiple news sources have claimed that an accusation of sexual assault was the cause for his firing." That's not implying that he is guilty. That is stating a fact. I have never seen Wikipedia hide relevant, notable and sourced information before. If it was a couple news outlets talking about the sexual assault accusations, I would agree with not including it. But everything that mentions his firing also mentions the sexual assault accusations. I don't see any reason why Wikipedia should be the only thing to mention his firing without mentioning the accusations. JDDJS (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree that WP:BLPCRIME would advise against including the accusations for such a minor, non-public figure. I will say it's most unusual to find Tutelary fighting so hard to keep this material out, considering their own various attempts to add much more poorly supported disparaging material into the biographies of Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

User:5.202.119.79 has been making repeated unsourced POV-pushing additions to Jeffrey Beall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), as well as once to its associated talk page. (Example: [15]) I think these edits are clearly a BLP violation (as well as WP:OR) and that this user should therefore be blocked. Jinkinson talk to me 18:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Removed the edit your mentioned above, since it is not properly sourced. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 06:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• IP has been blocked for edit warring for 24 hours, article semi-protected for 48 hours. --Randykitty (talk) 08:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Ahmed Hassan Imran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Much of my edit in the article was deleted by citing that it was a libelous information. I had tried to write the article in a non-partisan manner by citing reliable secondary sources in inline documentation. I had included opposing viewpoints on matters related to the subject. However, major portion of the article was deleted without any notice or discussion. I reverted it back because it was pure vandalism to me and an unfortunate edit war followed. I stopped editing but personal attacks have continued since. The article has now been protected. However I believe that the claims on which major portion of the article was deleted should revisited. Can I seek that support through this request? BengaliHindu (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

This is not true. I posted my edit reason to the editor's page and those information were recently published on a news story which is not verified. The news report itself presented accusations made by other politicians and even these reports are changing day by day. Ahmed Hassan Imran himself challenged those accusations. Verification of the allegations are subject to court's ruling so I requested the other editor to wait till further reports come out or any verdict from the court. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Verifiability are particularly relevant here as such unverified accusation based on a news report against a living person damages his reputation and potentially harmful to him. I believe an encyclopedic article about a living person should not broadcast a recent news story which is unproven and challenged as this may be libelous to the person in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MehulWB (talk • contribs) 16:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem here is that the number of editors with BLP expertise that are able to assess the validity and reliability of the sources used in that article is probably closer to zero. So I'll just point you both to WP:BLPCRIME and ask that you use that as guidance. Otherwise we'll have to protect the article indefinitely. Alternatively, searching for and using sources in English would go a long way to make this easier. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:25, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

On the Wikipedia page for Genaro García Luna, somebody removed the "Links to Organized Crime" section, despite well-sourced links to articles in both English and Spanish that document the controversies surrounding Genaro García Luna, including a "Forbes" article and books from a respected Mexican journalist. On the talk page, the person claims these sources have been discredited, yet provides no evidence or sources except for his or her own opinion. I suspect this person is linked to Genaro García Luna; therefore, this page should be protected, or at least reviewed and monitored by an editor to prevent further vandalism and edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.241.242 (talk) 16:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Would anyone like to take a look at Alex Marcoux? It's rather promotional and there may be notability questions, but there's also an apparent WP:COI in that the article was created by MSquaredPR (account recently blocked as an organisational username) and cites the website of M Squared Public Relations and Marketing which carries a short profile of Alex Marcoux as the firm's co-founder. I think it needs a look from someone who's more familiar with these issues than I am - I don't think I'd guide anyone well (and I'd really like a little wikibreak too). Sorry. NebY (talk) 18:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I've nominated it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Marcoux DGG ( talk ) 02:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I've removed a claim that a specific scholar's work is incompetent or dishonest, a claim which otherwise amounts to defamation per se. The source is an unsigned blog devoted to attacking the author's work. I'm mentioning it here for comment since this seems like a blatant violation of BLP. μηδείς (talk) 20:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

That's perfectly fine. It's a blog, which usually cannot be considered reliable (it's just one person's opinion), and the wording was seriously non-neutral. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

That bit absolutely fails WP:SPSBLP so was correct to remove. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Good removal. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Saineolai has restored the same information adding three more blogs as sources, but no reliable or academic ones. μηδείς (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Could someone take a look here. According to the sources, she is not "considered the youngest", but "considered among the youngest," so I don't see any notability. I'd rather not use AfD, but if someone wants to use A7 I have no objections. The usual "do no harm" reason applies here--altho there are a few news accounts, WP is more prominent. I understand from the accounts her parents want the publicity, and I can understand why they might want to make a cause out of it, but it still seems unfair to the child. And there's something a little unusual about the name of the contributor. DGG ( talk ) 03:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

There are persistent WP:BLP violations by Vanderwielobsessed (talk · contribs) at Gregory van der Wiel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I have already issued a warning at the Vanderwielobsessed talk page, but Vanderwielobsessed persists with the WP:BLP violations. Flyer22 (talk) 05:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Claims of Bell's death have been added by an IP user, 107.133.164.7 (talk), who claims to have been present at Bell's deathbed. The user has also made legal threats on their user talkpage.--Auric talk 15:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The legal threat has been reported at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Sitush/Carol_Moore. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Ariana Reines page is being vandalized.

I'm sorry I don't have time to learn wiki code properly, but I didn't want that to stop me from making a notice. Thanks for looking into this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:5900:12C0:E97D:FBC9:B9B1:D878 (talk) 19:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for letting us know about this. It seems User:Randykitty (no, really, that's their username) has dealt with this piece of vandalism, possibly thanks to your report here. I have watchlised the page, I imagine User:Randykitty has done so as well, and I encourage others here to do so also. Thus any future similar vandalism over the next few days will be equally quickly removed. If the vandalism persists, we will arrange for the page to be semi-protected. Please feel free to remind us if additional problems don't seem to get dealt with quickly. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey! I did edits. Remove the notice, please (sophiedookh) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophiedookh (talk • contribs) 07:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

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

This article about a Russian "conceptual artist" is seeing some energetic back-and-forth editing, and, I think, would benefit from some scrutiny by BLP-experienced editors. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: I have restored the foregoing notice which was improperly removed [16] by one of the editors making changes on the page. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Thisnothing123, who already has a history of issues in this and other articles, has been engaging in disruptive editing on JTG, a pro wrestler. Issues:

1. The user is insisting on a height of 5'9" that is unreferenced vs. a height of 6'2" that is referenced (references seem to say either 6'1" or 6'2"). It has been explained by me to this user that the height concerned is billed height rather than actual height to no avail. This user has also substantially increased the wrestler's weight and didn't supply a reference. In both cases, the user is insisting on using data from their own personal experience. At first, this user seemed to accept that a citation was needed for his changes, then just a while ago, the user removed the {{citation needed}} template along with other removals.
2. The user has removed JTG's image several times, with explanations of replacing the image, but the user only deletes it.
3. The user has been removing article content without any explanation.

This is difficult to narrow to specific diffs, but this user has been seeming to be going back and forth with these edits since early July. The user doesn't seem to care that his stats have no backup and doesn't seem to want to understand any other wiki protocols. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

For the time-being, this is resolved. Thisnothing123 restored the referenced height and weight. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 12:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

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

This article about an Italian entrepreneur seems to be vandalized by a person that claims it to be self-published and doesn't like the sources (maybe because of some sort of veiled personal vendetta?) such as the ACM ICPC official website and a well-known Italian newspaper. Is there a way to avoid the sources being removed? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.124.149.178 (talk) 06:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I checked and could not find any issues with these sources. Self published sources are OK within some limits as per WP:SELFPUB. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the clarification! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.124.149.178 (talk) 21:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that outside the self published sources, there is very little. Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and claim notability. For that reason, self-published media, such as personal websites or advertising sites are largely not acceptable as sources. For example: [17] reads: Registra la tua azienda su ReteImprese gratis (translation: Register your company on ReteImprese free) where you fill in the details. The heading "Rome Chamber of Commerce" is a write by the registrant, not ReteImprese. My attention on Mr.Macario article was a causal connection on it.wikipedia, and now a don't remember anymore why. Anyway I simply edited a notability tag ad opened a discussion on the talk page about it: [18]. The reaction was heavy, as you see; and with my surprise after a couple of days the page was deleted. But it was interesting what I found when I accidentally clicked on the creation of the page:

---

Accertati che sia davvero opportuno ricreare questa pagina; potrebbe essere cancellata di nuovo senza preavviso. Puoi chiedere consiglio allo sportello informazioni. Elenco delle precedenti cancellazioni e spostamenti:

   * 20:25, 12 set 2014 User:Vituzzu (Discussione | contributi) ha cancellato la pagina Giuseppe Macario (cfr. WP:E)
   * 19:58, 15 mar 2014 User:LukeWiller (Discussione | contributi) ha cancellato la pagina Giuseppe Macario ((C4) Contenuto palesemente non enciclopedico o promozionale, CV:)
   * 10:09, 7 ott 2013 User:Aplasia (Discussione | contributi) ha cancellato la pagina Giuseppe Macario ((C9) Redirect non funzionante, con titolo errato o non conforme e reso orfano:)
   * 16:41, 24 apr 2012 User:Triquetra (Discussione | contributi) ha cancellato la pagina Giuseppe Macario ((C4) Contenuto palesemente non enciclopedico o promozionale, CV)

---

The page has been deleted four times. I understand that what is not notable in one wiki, may be notable in other wikis, so I did not automatically ask the deletion, but following WP:SPIP I asked the most contributing editor to add third party sources [19]. Waiting I wanted to prune out the "weak" sources, to make evident the lack of good sources, but I have only angered some IP editor's without they trying to talk with me. And I suspect one IP editor of putting yesterday an obscene writing in my italian talk page, but may be it is only a timing coincidence. --Robertiki (talk) 02:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I have a simple litmus test to see if a person is notable <if the person does not want his bio page, may it object (legaly or not)?>. If he is not allowed to refuse a bio page, the person is notable. --Robertiki (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The article Danièle Watts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was just created after an unpleasant incident she had with the LAPD which has attracted a lot of attention online (her account naturally differs from that of the police), and users have been adding potentially defamatory information about it, in particular giving 'eyewitness' accounts as fact. Last I checked, the information wasn't extremely biased, but I think the amount of information for this single incident is undue for a biography. Some more editors' help is needed. I am also concerned about the subject's notability, so I have brought the article to AfD, and it'd great if people could help establish whether or not she is notable. —innotata 06:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure why you say her account should "naturally" differ from others. We don't know, actually, as the tape that was allegedly released has not been identified as such by LAPD. An unidentified IP address has tried to say she was a liar, by misunderstanding an article from Buzzfeed they used as a reference. I am concerned that this stub may get deleted when it should really be expanded. I created it because she has appeared in several films, including an international success, and she is currently a main cast member of a major TV series alongside Kelsey Grammer. Please see the discussion here. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Assume good faith, please. I'm saying her account differs from the police because police are inclined to dispute allegations like hers, rightly or not… While anons and other editors have been adding possible violations, and these need to be removed, don't jump straight to questioning their motivations, especially if they're at least sometimes acting with good intentions. Misunderstanding ≠ malice. —innotata 00:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

This involves no charges, the BLP-offending stuff must be taken out while it's discussed, not after.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Can anybody provide any guidance on what the article should eventually include as far as the LAPD incident, though? —innotata 00:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

An editor removed all inlined sources from the article twice. I have reverted it. I won't do it a third time because I don't have all day and I don't want to "edit-war," but this is clearly an attempt to make the article look weaker and try to get it deleted. I would add that more sources probably exist in magazines, newspapers, etc., but that this is a stub and it could get expanded later. There are no lies on this page and all can be double-checked. Now, if we only allowed actors who have won Academy Awards, I would understand...but we don't.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlocking_the_Truth i have no idea what i'm doing, except being bold. link to fb is incorrect: needs reference to: band. in addition, i'm too bold to have a signature, but not malacious & pretty sincere. refer to me as mausbug (if possible) if you can sign me in. (edited after intro from fellow wiki'er & creating an account)Mausbug (talk) 22:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

After reverting Guurl (talk · contribs) for a second time at the Scarlett Johansson article (first time here, with a followup-fix edit here), I saw (by looking at his contributions) that he has been adding WP:Unreliable sources to WP:BLPs regarding ethnicity; this needs to be remedied. Instead of simply reverting him on all of that, and likely getting reverted by him in turn, I have brought this matter here first. Flyer22 (talk) 10:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I see that he has reverted me here at the Scarlett Johansson article; I reverted him in turn, as that link shows. Flyer22 (talk) 10:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Scarlett's Swedish ancestry is correct. Flyer22 (talk · contribs) keeps removing it plus reported me for re-posting it. Ejner Bainkamp Johansson is the son of Axel Robert Johansson and Margrethe Hansine Hansen. Axel Robert Johansson was Swedish and born in Sweden. The Johansson family tree: http://family.nose.dk/getperson.php?personID=I10&tree=Johansson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guurl (talk • contribs) 10:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC) Name ONE edit i did which is unreliable. As far as my edit's go i'm positive it's all accurate. I want to report Flyer22 for removing my edit on Scarlett Johannson.

Change my heading again, as you did here, and I will likely report you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WP:ANI). As the above heading implies, I created this section to primarily focus on your edits to WP:BLPs, not only the Scarlett Johansson article. I'm already thinking of reporting you at WP:ANI, for a quicker and wider response to your inappropriate editing of WP:BLPs. Clearly, you have yet to read and comprehend the WP:Reliable sources guideline and the WP:BLP policy. Flyer22 (talk) 11:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

2over0, I'm not sure that blocking him for his three edits to the Scarlett Johannson was needed, but something was indeed needed to stop him from adding poorly sourced material to other WP:BLPs; so the block helps in that regard. Look at the other WP:BLPs he has edited. He needs the importance of the WP:Reliable sources guideline and the WP:BLP policy explained well to him. And then if he still fails to follow those rules, blocking him indefinitely might be in order. Flyer22 (talk) 13:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I started looking through the contribution history before blocking for edit warring and BLP violations - it is full of links to non BLP-compliant sources. I am trying to sort through it now. I would of course not object if someone wants to unblock purely for discussion here or if Guurl agrees to abide by the relevant policies. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, 2over0. Flyer22 (talk) 00:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

There may be a potential BLP violation in regards to Rick Perry and his booking at the Travis County jail. Rick Perry was not arrested for his indictment; he was summonsed. This is sourced and in the article and not disputed. The potential BLP violation occurs in regards to the write up on Perry's booking.

Even if a defendant is summonsed in Texas, for any crime that is punishable by jail time, a defendant must still get fingerprinted and take a picture or mugshot for TCIC, which is Texas's criminal history database. This is also the only way the FBI will know there is a charge. That being said, this was a custodial arrest. If I got a marijuana ticket in Texas, I would also still have to appear to the county jail to get booked.

So there is a BLP issue that has occurred now in how you refer Rick Perry coming to the Travis County Jail. Perry just had to get booked and did not have to pay any bond. If he did not appear at a certain hour, no police officer could arrest him legally without a warrant that was never issued.

Thus, there is a major BLP issue with the verbiage of how you refer to Perry's booking. A couple of editors, in violation of WP:BLP, are clinging to one article that uses the words "Perry surrendered", even though other sourced articles say "Perry arrived" (to the Travis County Jail for booking). One editor, perhaps out of a unfamiliarity of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, wondered how a defendant could just arrive for a booking. Just to put some context on this, one article speculated that Perry's CHL was revoked, when a Texas indictment would only lead to suspension, Commenters on that article tore the author apart for his mistake of Texas law. Point is, just because a journalist makes a factual error, that does not give editors cover to violate BLP, especially if other sources get the facts correct. In this case, to surrender implies that a warrant was out for Perry's arrest, a warrant that never existed. According to the fifth amendment, warrants can only be issued on a finding of probable cause by the judge. Afronig (talk) 14:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you mean the Fourth amendment, not the Fifth. (Oops). :P MastCell ^Talk 15:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

To editor Afronig: I couldn't find the specific section or the edit history of the BLP violation, could you link directly and provide diffs of the relevant edits? SPACKlick (talk) 14:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

No idea why this has been brought up now. The current wording is "On August 19, 2014, Perry arrived at the Travis County jail where he was processed", an edit that has been unchallenged for quite a while. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Since September 8 to be exact [20] - Cwobeel (talk) 15:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I nominated this page for deletion using Twinkle but took a while to do so because I was at the same time rereading the relevant policy pages to make sure I understood them. In the time between my opening the page and creating the AfD entry, someone else put the page up for speedy deletion, with the result that there is now a redundant page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pedram Khosronejad and a redundant notice on the author's talk page. Is this an issue that must be resolved? --Richard Yin (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved the speedy was declined. --Richard Yin (talk) 19:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Good evening Since a while I saw articles about a man called Ken Ham (in fact Alfred Kenneth) The references seen on web are always pointing the one of Wikipedia and repeat that this guy has a scientific diploma from a Australian university (see talk behind article). I've asked to this school what was the status of this so called Ken Ham and discovered that he was not listed in the databank of the school. everybody has the right to have his proper view on life, biology and universe but I think a encyclopedia may not repeat evident lies. I would assume that this article should be corrected accordingly by deleting the § about career of the pretended scientist (or bachelor in applied science) and the reference n°7 which is obviously coming from a non independent book writer.

have a nice night Laurent Quadflieg (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2788:684:F66:CD99:B7A5:DF8E:201A (talk) 21:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The encyclopedia summarizes what a reliable, published source reports about Ken Ham. Do you know of a reliable, published source that disputes the claims about his education? Huon (talk) 22:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I strongly suspect either COI editing or a complete ignorance of our BLP policies in this article. I had cleaned it up some, and along comes editor Zambelo who re-instates, in this edit, 5k worth of external links (including a section called "Media/press mentions"), and a bunch of links basically containing the subject's resume, with journal articles and presentations. We don't list journal articles (unless they are proven to have been important) and we certainly don't list conference presentations. And on top of that they removed the "like resume" tag, even while reverting the article to a previous state--of a complete resume. Their edit summary: "Please don't delete content before issues can be addressed", showing a pretty blatant disregard for NPOV and BLP. Your help is appreciated; perhaps one of you can help turn this article into something acceptable. (Note: basically, the article lacks secondary sourcing completely.) Drmies (talk) 23:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Added to watchlist. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The article is sourced to organizations close to this person, and there are no secondary sources that I could find that speak to his notability. I'd think that stubifying may be the way to go. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Go for it, Cwobeel--I couldn't find anything either, but I'll go through that enormous amount of linkspam and see if there's wheat among that chaff. Drmies (talk) 00:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I did a thorough cleanup, but notability may still be a concern. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I added two sources: one sort of confirms his winning the Leo J. Ryan Award, in a bio blurb above an interview he did; the other, while self-published, definitely confirms one of his views that needed citation. LHM^{ask me a question} 01:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

What you did is remove most of the article, without prior discussion, justifying this by placing a template on the page. You had been doing this to other articles before you got to this one, which is why I reverted. Sources close to the person are valid in this context - they are his peers, after all in the circle of sociology/psychology and psychiatry. Removing content without discussion isn't productive, and makes any eventual re-additions difficult. I'm not saying the article doesn't have issues, but gutting it isn't the way to go. ˜˜˜˜

Can somebody please take a look at the Akin Ambode article which is a replication of a previously deleted article at Akinwunmi Ambode Afd.

• Subject appears to have repeatedly put up Wikipedia edits despite several warning and sock puppet deletions.
• Subject appears to have vandalised a previously existing wikipedia article Ambode (vandalism edit can be found here) to subvert article deletion process
• The page (as previous edits) seems to be used as an advertorial tool as seen on subject's campaign website at every stage of edits; indicating article is being supervised by and used as an advertising tool the politician himself
• Reports indicate tv ad spots in Lagos carry the Wikipedia page link

Oyekunlesumbo (talk) 12:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

It's been speedily deleted.--ukexpat (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Should not be deleted and article doesn't fit to be in deletion policy it should be there without any red notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.178.197.36 (talk) 14:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The place for discussing whether this article should be deleted is at the articles for deletion discussion currently going on for this particular page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Steven G. Kaplan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Prior problems from Babybirdhouse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) = cropping up again from socks

Please help keep an eye on Steven G. Kaplan.

We're getting fragrant BLP violations from sockpuppets of same sockmaster that was previously  Confirmed and blocked in the recent past, I've reported them to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Babybirdhouse.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 17:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah the sweet smell of BLP violations!--ukexpat (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

What is the problem? I dind't see any major issues. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

IPs keep adding an unsourced allegation that the article subject is a lawyer and the subject of a disciplinary proceeding. Since the bad edits are coming only from IPs, and there are no good IP edits, I've semi'd for 6 months. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much!!! — Cirt (talk) 05:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Could experienced contributors take a look at this article - much of it seems to have been written with a clear intent to disparage the subject. A person claiming to be McPhedran has posted at the Help desk [21] and the article clearly needs substantial work to ensure NPOV and accurate representation of sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The most problematic material has been removed. Could someone please check out the copying issue (per the tag on the page)? Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

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

On his talk page, Professor Carl Hewitt is compared to "Bozo the Clown." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.224.152 (talk) 01:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Not seeing that, or as vandalism in recent history. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

You need to look again. There is clearly some background to this, so I'll avoid commenting further at this point, beyond suggesting that more eyes on the talk page might be helpful. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I managed to completely miss the fact that the IP was referring to the talk page... §FreeRangeFrog^croak 07:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Some background: [22]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The IP is mistaken—there is no problem at the article talk apart from the fact that IPs are arguing about irrelevancies. It is much better to put energy into discussing text in the article—is any text ini the article wrong or inappropriate? Johnuniq (talk) 07:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Seconded. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The Fine Young Capitalists (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I just semi-protected The Fine Young Capitalists because of ongoing BLP problems. However, it appears to me that it might still contain some BLP violating material. Of course I could well be 100% wrong so if somebody could take a look and remove anything they see. I don't really want to state what I think the problem is in case it is just my imagination. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 07:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Why does the article exist in the first place? It does next to nothing to demonstrate the notability of the group, and seems almost entirely concerned with the ongoing GamerGate controversy. In short, the article is a coatrack, and should be deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I haven't been following the whole thing so I have no opinion on the suitability of the article. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 07:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Not really sure where to post this, but here goes - I want to create an article on Neil Baldwin, who has a variety of 'claims to fame' - see here and here. I cannot think of a suitable disambiguator - any ideas? GiantSnowman 17:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Interesting subject. Perhaps "British personality"? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

What's he famous for? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Being an eccentric personality, but not famous for any one particular thing, as I said. There's a film about his life about to be released called Marvellous. GiantSnowman 18:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Then I would suggest "British personality" or "British celebrity" or just plain "personality" or "celebrity". I wouldn't let this hold you up creating the article. If someone thinks of a better disambiguator, you can always change the article later. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd use 'eccentric' Stuartyeates (talk) 21:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The noted theoretical physicist João Magueijo has recently published an imprudent (Portuguese-language) book complaining about or despairing of the British. (Note that he considers himself partly British, and at at least one point in the book provides a sample of his own behavior as an example of British disgustingness.) Below a rather clickbaity headline, an article about this in The Guardian (which is where I first heard of the book) fails to get very upset about it. Ditto for an article in The Daily Telegraph, which if anything fails more completely to get worked up about the (non) matter. But of course some people are most upset, and some of these are keen to edit the article here on Magueijo. Most seem to mean well, but there's a fair amount of original synthesis and of attachment of such syntheses, etc, to existing references. The article doesn't (yet) need s-protection, but it soon might; in the meantime (while I sleep) I think one or two experienced and unflappable editors should keep an eye on it. -- Hoary (talk) 13:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Renee Paquette (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

We keep having an issue in the personal life section of Renee Paquette with unsubstantiated gossip. People keep reversing it but it's changed back almost immediately. Also, her birthdate is verified through IMDB, regardless of what is said on Twitter. Can we please get a protection template to put a stop to this? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by FactChecker2172013 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

IMDB is not sufficiently reliable to verify dates of birth. —C.Fred (talk) 15:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I've also started a discussion at Talk:Renee Paquette#Date of birth to get more input from editors of the article about what DOB, if any, should be listed in the article. Right now it doesn't look like there's any reliable source cited. —C.Fred (talk) 15:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Richard Gene Arno (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Article does not have NPOV. Sources cited are from Arno's own organizations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tres1162 (talk • contribs) 05:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

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

The name of the producer Oscar Ravichandran is redirected to a page which is named "Venu Ravichandran" which is a wrong name, his name is just V. Ravichandran. Please make the change as soon as possible. Our producer is mistaken for another associate producer "Venu Ravichandran" of Tamil Movie "Majaa". Naveenvaradarajan (talk) 06:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

 Not done The problem is that the other person is actually known as "Oscar" or "Aascar" and runs a company called "Aascar Films" (previously "Oscar Films"). They are both producers. You need to clarify which it is you are talking about and why we should redirect to one over the other. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premakeerthi_de_Alwis Assassination section

Please note that there has been a dispute going on about the assassination of the person mentioned in the article, Premakeerthi de Alwis. De Alwis's murder has been officially investigated and murderer has been sentenced in the High Court of Colombo, Sri Lanka and the verdict has also been upheld by the Appeals Court of Sri Lanka.

However, nearly a quarter century later, his wife, Nirmal de Alwis has written a book accusing Hudson Samarasinghe, the Chairman of the Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation and self published it. Recently at the 25th death anniversary of the deceased, Nirmala has shouted out at the president of Sri Lanka "why he was protecting, her husband's killer, Samarasinghe". This shouting at the president received a huge amount of publicity from mainstream media. However, those media reports are merely quoting what Nirmala de Alwis was saying. Not a single person in the world has made this accusation except for Nirmala de Alwis. Her claims are knowingly false and unsubstantiated. Mr. Samarasinghe has never been questioned or investigated for the murder of de Alwis.

A user named Wipeouting(other names -Academiava, Academiava2, Academiava3) has been trying to get this information included in the article. This information has been repeatedly refused by Wikipedia administrators as it violates the biographies of the living persons. However, wipeoutings plea was heard by an administrator (Bill w) and has been requested another administrator Obi2canibe to rewrite the article to include this unsubstantiated claim by his wife. Although Samarasinghe's name was not mentioned, all the references are indirectly pointing to Hudson Samarasinghe which ultimately injures Samarasinghe. You can find an analysis of her false accusation at http://ceylonreport.com/premakeerthi-de-alwis-official-court-ruling/

I am kindly requesting that unsubstantiated accusations starting with the line "In 2009 de Alwis' widow Nirmala" be removed from this article. --Ramya20 (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello @Ramya20: Two RS document that she made the claim you mention above. And the way the information is written it clearly states that this is nothing more and nothing less than a claim she made in a book she wrote. On first look, to me, it seems both notable and unbiased, since it's stated as her opinion and not as fact. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

If you find a properly sourced and relevant counter claim made in response to her allegations you may want to add it. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The section clearly violates the WP:BLPCRIME which is a part of the Wikipedia policy regarding biographies of living persons. It states that cases like these accusations of criminal activity should not be added unless a conviction has been secured --Ramya20 (talk) 12:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the material per WP:BLPCRIME. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

@Diannaa: It is disappointing you have unilaterally removed the content based on the canvassing of User:Ramya20. WP:BLPCRIME states [in full] "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." I have highlighted the first part because User:Ramya20 has deliberately left this out in his canvassing.

If the accused is well known, we can include the accusations if they are reported in reliable sources, even if the accusations haven't resulted in a criminal charge (e.g. Cliff Richard, Jim Davidson, Jimmy Tarbuck) or even if the accused has been acquitted (e.g. Nigel Evans, William Roche). The individual accused by Nirmala de Alwis is well known in Sri Lanka, he is the chairman of a national broadcaster, politician, former MP and a twice presidential candidate. Even if the accused was "relatively unknown" we only have to have serious consideration on the merits of including the accusation, there is no automatic presumption that the accusation must be excluded.

Needless to say that the accusation must be written in a neutral manner and must attribute the source of the accusation, not make the accusation in Wikipedia's voice. This was what the content you removed did.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 13:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I am no more acting unilaterally than any other editor would do; it's not an administrative action. I don't believe including the material is the right thing to do, as including these unproven accusations could do real-world harm to the person. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Obi2canibe has definitely improved the article and I thank him for that. However, unlike the sample biographies he has provided above, Hudson Samarasinghe has never been questioned or criminally investigated in this case. He has never been associated with this murder in any way for last 25 years. If Nirmala de Alwis has filed a lawsuit or if she has filed a police complaint on her own accord, it is fair to include that information. However, a for-profit book written nearly 25 years post his death is a questionable motive. Further, it is unfair to include accusations when this murder has been officially investigated and closed. --Ramya20 (talk) 16:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

@Diannaa:These accusations have been widely reported in Sri Lankan media and I don't believe mentioning it on Wikipedia will do the accused any appreciable harm, particularly as it didn't mention the accused. The accused has given interviews to the media about the accusations - he is not trying to suppress the accusations. @Ramya20: I have to correct you again, a complaint has been made - the police have taken a statement from Nirmala de Alwis - this was mentioned in the removed content. As for your last point, WP:NPOV requires articles to fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources. By suppressing the views of the victim's widow we are not fairly representing all significant views. As it stands the article only represents one view - that of the highly politicised, corrupt justice system of Sri Lanka.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 20:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

A complaint has NOT been made by his wife. The police summoned her to get a statement. She appeared with her lawyer. If it does not violate the Wikipedia policy, I am okay with a neutral controversy section included but this cannot be a part of the assassination section. If this accusation is included in the controversy section, her newest accusation of TV Company Owner should also be included as that was also in one of the references.^[1]

Obi2canibe, please note that Sri Lankan news media is not impartial either. As you may already know that most of the media that carried out her interviews (mirror, Times) are associated with relatives of UNP leader whom Samarasinghe criticizes regularly on his daily program. Samarasinghe has also sued Sunday Leader several years ago for defamation. While papers like Daily News and Sunday Observer are associated with the Government and carries government propaganda, private media is also owned and run by people who have special party potical interests. I do not seek in any way to suppress viable content. However, hypothetically if someone else self publishes a book saying that Santa Clause killed Premakeerthi and gets media coverage, should that be included as well.

--Ramya20 (talk) 00:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

this page has been re-written in a pretty balanced and factual manner.[[23]] user Ramya20 trying avoid the truth of this assassination . please change this article to reasonable vision and protect this article (Academiava3 (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)).

It is surprising that users like Academiava3 (a sock puppet of blocked user wipeouting, Academiava, Academiava2) are able to delete their page history and harass other users on their talk pages^[1]. A controversy section can be included to cover the recent events without violating the Wikipedia policy.--Ramya20 (talk) 18:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I am asking why This lady Ramya20 is trying to Avoid this multiple issues of this assignation. please stop factual vandalism. this page has been re-written in a pretty balanced and factual manner by User:Xymmax and Wtwilson3. please protect this Article from Violate editors . The User-Ramya20 is doing edit to Wikipedia since four year just only for this article. anyone can see her work history. (Academiava3 (talk) 18:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC))

Academiava3, surprised that you refereed to me as a "lady" although you referred to me on my talk page a derogatory term "ho" and then cleaned up the history to cover the tracks.--Ramya20 (talk) 16:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

page has been re-written in a pretty balanced and factual manner on 19:42, 21 August 2014‎ by user:Xymmax and contribution of user:Wtwilson3. but user:ramya20 made a huge propaganda avoid this version with multiple issues . we really appreciate if somebody can involve fix this mater and revert to previous version. and please banned user:ramya20 and against to factual vandalism and high protect this article. please do real justification to assassinated we known journalist in sri lanka. (Academiava4 (talk) 19:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC) )

Nirmala’s argument is not a fiction or hypothesis like Santa Clause. She came with facts. Hudson s is the number one corrupted media person in sri lanka. Please search on internet his whereabouts. I am putting some suitable links. in situation of highly politicized , ceylonreport.com/premakeerthi- article by user Ramya20 crated avoiding the truth recently. Please do real justification for this assassination. [[24]] [[25]] [[26]] [[27]] [[28]] [[29]] [[30]]

please see this link too

The Way the Country is Moving (Rat Yana Atha)”, death threats and derogatory comments were directed by callers toward Dr. Nimalka Fernando. [[31]]

Academi100 (talk) 17:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC) 

Academi100 (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

This noticeboard is about discussing a previous inclusion of an accusations of a crime, and the above comment by Academi100 alias wipeouting further proves his resort to injure Samarasinghe using Wikipedia with further personal attacks. As I indicated before, the removed content violates that policy. --Ramya20 (talk) 11:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Ramya is making a operation protecting her relative. we don't need to injure Hudson personally. he has explore his corrupted behaviors well. please keep up this article in a pretty balanced and factual manner in highly politicized context in sri lanka. And please do real justification to this assassinated journalist.--Academi100 (talk) 16:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Please do not call me a relative of Samarasinghe. Do not try to make assumptions about my identity. All you have tried to do for last 4 years was to injure Samarasinghe with accusations, starting with blog posts and facebook inclusions in Wikipedia until I requested Wikipedia to remove those to meet the policies and standards. Now you are bringing back the same accusations with media coverage. I have no doubt that your intention is malicious and violates WP:BLPCRIME policy. Nothing has changed except for recent media coverage.--Ramya20 (talk) 16:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

why do you want to protect Samarasinghe? you have already prove your identity. samarasingaha has explored already his behavior. you cannot clean those. please do real justification to this is worst assassination and crime in sri lanka. samarasingaha is using government baking and coverage ovoid those issues. ramya20 is doing this job in Wikipedia. please involve administrator solve this mater properly and find out all necessary information about this assaination . we need to fix this article pretty balanced and factual manner. .--Academi100 (talk) 16:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Isidro A. T. Savillo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Madambaster edited the isidro A. T. savillo article shamefully. All the inline citations were removed and I could not find a way of undoing her stupid work. Important facts about his life like his editorial membership, etc. are no longer seen. I hope that there will be a better edit and also to include his awards. I would request this mad Madambaster to not participate in editing this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Towering peaks (talk • contribs) 06:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Calm down. Madambaster only acted to remove excess details and trivia. Remember to Assume good faith.--Auric talk 12:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

List of celebrity baby names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Since the arguments are likely going to largely hinge on BLP issues, thought I should give a notice that there is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of celebrity baby names, if anyone is interested in participating.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

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

I updated the biography of Gonzala Lira to reflect a chronology of accomplishments to include a timely reference from 2014 reiterating his opinions of 2010.

Revisions are "creeping back" which are marketing related. Left user talk back.

173.68.144.130 (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)173.68.144.130173.68.144.130 (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I reverted your edits—they're terrible.

From your edits in the first paragraphs of the entry, it's not clear who the subject is, or their relevance. That's just bad editing.

You also keep referring to single episode appearances of the subject, whereas—from a cursory search on YouTube—he has about a dozen punditry appearances (probably more, but I didn't bother checking). So one opinion of his on one show is irrelevant.

Finally, the subject, in fact, is/was a prominent blogger. He might not be now, but he was at one point in time. That fact is undisputed—and relevant to the subject's article.

MILH (talk) 01:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Sandahl Bergman was the main female character in Conan the Barbarian. Not Edie Falco. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:3:8B00:2E0:AC04:9F3A:80C5:ABB5 (talk) 10:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. --GRuban (talk) 20:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

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

This page needs to be edited there is fictional content especially in the international section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.86.125 (talk) 23:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The international section is fine, I just fixed/replaced all the dead links. Could you be more specific?--Auric talk 00:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Neil deGrasse Tyson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is an ongoing dispute about the inclusion of material regarding a quote alleged to be by George Bush that Tyson has referred to in speeches. Issues of RS and UNDUE apply, and the dispute has spilled offsite with a partisan website attacking individual editors. Neutral editors should have a look. Gamaliel (talk) 13:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that patheos.com is a reliable source. It looks like a blog to me. Aside from that, I don't think that it's necessary to include both of these sentences:

Hemant Mehta called the incident "the most serious example of Tyson’s alleged quotation negligence."

Tom Jackson of the Tampa Tribune called it "... a vicious, gratuitous slander."

Both quotes are essentially saying the same thing (more or less). I would recommend removing one. BTW, this content is in the section on Politics, which seems wrong. IIRC, Tyson's point was about scientific literacy. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Its pretty much indisputable it happened, there is multiple videos of it. While the larger point is about science literacy, he chose to make it political, by making up a quote and attributing it to a political person. However, I do agree on the WP:UNDUE part, until/unless this starts getting picked up by more mainstream sources, its just some non-notable opinions talking about it. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Are any admins reading this? They've been edit-warring over this for the past three days. We made need to lock it down. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The slander is not that of Tyson but by Tyson (of Bush). It does not diminish Tyson who as a scientist can make mistakes. Many do. I don't see the huge deal in this. Limit-theorem (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

After spending more time thinking about this, I think I've changed my mind and now believe that it's undue weight to have this in the article. There are literally thousands of articles written on this topic, we can't put every little detail in an article. If this was truly important, more sources would have picked up on this. They haven't. If that happens, we can always reevaluate. I'm also a bit concerned that even the couple sources that do cover this don't appear to be straight news stories but are basically opinion columns. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather: (or any other admin reading this) Given that this content is potentially disparaging to both George W Bush and Neil deGrasse Tyson (depending on how you want to look at it), I think that the safest thing to do is to have the disputed content temporarily removed until consensus can be achieved. The article is locked, so I cannot do this myself. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

There is an RfC ongoing at the article's talk page on this issue. It seems civil. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@A Quest For Knowledge:, do you mean these two paragraphs that were re-added by User:Sphilbrick, themselves an admin? CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 23:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@Gamaliel, A Quest For Knowledge, Gaijin42, Limit-theorem, and Capitalismojo: I see that this thread was started on the 19th. I just became aware of it because someone pinged me. The instructions say that {{BLP noticeboard}} should be placed on the artilce talk page, so that editors will know about this discussion. Why was that not done in this case? I am not a regular here, so perhaps I am misunderstanding the directions?--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Spin-off article Neil deGrasse Tyson fabrication allegations created by Kelly. I find this article to be a BLP violation as there clearly is not enough sources/notability for a stand-alone article. I temporarily redirected it to the main article , but this has been undone. Probably most correct to nominate it for deletion, but should the article be allowed to be kept up while the ADF discussion is ongoing? My suggestion would be that it should be temporary blanked for BLP concerns. Iselilja (talk) 13:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

  Could you specify the specific unsourced BLP concern that you have? I've been careful to specify that these are simply allegations and I have used reliable sources on all controversial info so far as I can determine. Kelly ^hi! 13:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

My concern is WP:UNDUE weight to controversy by having a stand-alone article on it, as it is currently only covered in a couple of articles in Reliable sources. There exists much more coverage of other part of Tyson's life which doesn't have a stand-alone article. Only major controversies with tons of sources merit their own articles. Iselilja (talk) 13:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Certainly there is nothing preventing anyone from expanding the content on Tyson to include articles on other parts of his life. Kelly ^hi! 14:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Raffaella Di Marzio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Here we go again: another instance of a BLP being fluffed up. Here's the version I ran into, with much of the content having been added by Zambelo in this edit. Note how the "more than 100 articles" is sourced to the subject's own website (completely unacceptable, of course), and how the "She has been interviewed" so many times is sourced not to a secondary source saying so, but to the interviews and such. So I clean it up, reorganize it, and tag it some in a few successive edits, summaries and all, to rewrite it in agreement with how we typically do BLPs for such subjects (writers, academics, etc). Then Zambelo comes by again, adds "She is a member of the managing board" of an organization so that it's in there twice now, and complaining that I "remove[d] information on education"--I didn't, I reorganized it as prose, which is what we're supposed to do. In a subsequent edit they restore wikilinks for Italy (WP:OVERLINK), add a link for International Cultic Studies Association (so now there's two, since Cultic Studies Review redirects there), add a useless wikilink for "academic journal".

You'll note that in the current version much of the information is in there twice, and that Zambelo re-added the stuff we don't put in such articles--like a list of articles, and here also a list of "contributions" to encyclopedic books, without even the actual contributions listed. Sheer editorial laziness, and please note also that in their last grand revert they remove the only real secondary source in the article, which I added--Stevani, Milena (2011). "Rev. of Di Marzio, Nuove religioni e sette". CESNUR. Retrieved 23 September 2014..

I urge some seasoned BLP editors to have a look at these reverts, which kind of make a mockery of accepted practice and indicate that the editor does not seem to grasp what's secondary sourcing. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Another one of these? We should give it the same treatment as the other one: reduce fluff and stubify. I'll keep an eye as well. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, another one, and it's looking more and more like the anti-Landmark movement is digging trenches--see remarks at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous. Anyway, I appreciate it. Drmies (talk) 18:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

What you did was gut the article. Are there some parts of the article that are unacceptable and don't belong? Sure. But you removed over half the article, without any sort of prior discussion. "She has been interviewed" links to the articles that say in which capacity she was interviewed, referencing her various roles. I reverted your constructive edits, because you had made so many small edits that it was difficult to re-add (and discuss) any of the relevant material (even if you think it isn't). Instead of rampaging around, perhaps try discussing the content before you destroy other people's work? Zambelo; talk 12:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out if this person (Boris Malagurski) is notable enough to have his own article. With the majority of sources being foreign (from Serbia), how do I determine whether or not this article should exist on the English Wikipedia. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Ha. There is no requirement that sources be in English--if most of them are in Serbian (or whatever), perhaps you can't make that determination (I couldn't either). Drmies (talk) 18:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

You can try asking some folks at the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Serbia. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

A suggestion: Some browsers allow for direct translation of the pages, Its not easy, because the translation is usually faulty, but you can probably verify if the statements are backed by the sources. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

But how would you determine if the sources are reliable? -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Again the wikiproject is a good place to start, but we have articles on several of the sources themselves, which would also be a good place to look Politika Nova srpska politička misao etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Somedifferentstuff, I came across this by accident and hope you don't mind me 'chipping in' here. There are/were ex-editors on BM pages, who were much more knowledgable than either of us about reliability of Balkan sources, sometimes, in the past it has come down to individuals as much as publications. An additional problem, is that many sources are 'feature articles', and it is probably true all over the world, that features are not fact-checked in the way that 'hard news' stories are. If the interviewee says something that sounds interesting, the feature writer will be inclined to include it (if it isn't libellous) - especially if the claim is made about something alleged to have happened half-way round the world.

The short answer to your opening question, is that within certain sub-cultures, which include FYR states and their diaspora communities, the film maker has a fairly modest fame/notoriety, outside those groups, nobody knows who he is. Whether that justifies several WP pages, is a matter I don't have an opinion on. There have in the past (I believe, as it was before 'my time') been attempts to delete some of these articles, which have usually narrowly failed. Pincrete (talk) 23:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC) … … ps however, anything that attracts the interest of neutral editors (inc. this post), can only be good for the pages .Pincrete (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

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

• @Bbb23 and Pietaster:

Pietaster and I have a disagreement over usage of a source on the Anca Heltne article. The subject was suspended for doping by the governing body for athletics, the IAAF. As a citation for this, I have added the IAAF's newsletter suspension list (which is the way the body publishes such information). Bbb23 believes this contravenes WP:BLPPRIMARY, as this is a primary source, not a secondary one (meaning such material should not be published Wikipedia). I find this frankly absurd as the IAAF is the only authoritative source for people the IAAF doesn't allow to compete. This addition has been reverted several times now - should this statement be restored? SFB 19:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I can understand Pietaster's concern, based on this: if this is a significant issue, it should have been reported in secondary sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Looks like it's been reported in secondary sources.[32][33][34][35][36][37] --GRuban (talk) 20:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Then there is no problem in including. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I just have a few comments at this point. All the sources cited by GRuban are in Romanian. According to GRuban's user page, they speak Russian - don't know if they speak Romanian. There's nothing wrong with foreign sources as long as the person adding the source can state that the source supports the material. Second, because they are Romanian sources, I don't know how reliable they are. Finally, if we can all agree that these sources are reliable and support the material, I would cite both the IAAF decision and the secondary sources. There's nothing wrong with citing a primary source as long as it's coupled with a reliable secondary source.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted and added a secondary source. SFB 18:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Article is Martin Leach-Cross Feldman. The problem is not specifically an edit, but rather a grossly insulting edit description for the edit. The diff is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martin_Leach-Cross_Feldman&oldid=624081130 The user was Special:Contributions/107.35.133.183 and was the one and only edit by that IP. The edit occurred back on September 3, 2014. Safiel (talk) 05:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• I have deleted the edit summary. Thanks for your vigilance! --Randykitty (talk) 10:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Some one has delete many items from the Chino Rodriguez profile on Wikipedia Chino Rodriguez, profile was posted years ago. It remained untouched until this year 2014. The entire profile had all notifications and certifications in place and linked for verification the entire item has been vandalized and no one at Wikipedia has returned the deletions back as it was - everything was correct and verified... is this how the editors at Wikipedia control the information that was posted years ago and information that was verified, certified and had links proving the validity of the living profile ??? ... editors should review what was posted years ago and remained until it was vandalized recently. The person or persons which delete the information is trying to re-write history and eliminate the truth, this is not right and not fair to the public interested in preserving the truth and history of Latin Music events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.231.58.20 (talk) 06:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, the biography was previously filled with material which was improperly sourced, or not sourced at all, along with vast swathes of material on subjects which had nothing to do with Rodriguez's notability as a musician. We do not use unpublished anonymous and unverifiable 'interviews' and the like as sources, and nor are we interested in every minor detail of Rodriguez's career in IT and so on. The article was not 'vandalised', it was edited to conform to appropriate encyclopaedic standards, as laid out in Wikipedia policies in guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

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

This article refers to Klaus Iohannis, the mayor of Sibiu, Romania and a presidential candidate in the upcoming Romanian election. Someone has tampered with his name for what appear to be political reasons, adding "6 Houses" to it, a reference to political accusations that he owns 6 houses and would thus be "abnormally wealthy".

Y Corrected. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

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

A new controversy this week involving this individual is now 72% of the article text. My attempt to invoke WP:UNDUE has been met with the response "I'm going to file a formal complaint against you". I have a project deadline today and don't have time to get into protracted discussion about an obvious policy violation, so if some other editors could intervene please, I would appreciate that. Otherwise, I'll just invoke BLP protect the article. Gamaliel (talk) 17:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

And I'm the person who made that response. Gamaliel is the one in violation, by not discussing things and, instead, acting unilaterally. Please see item 10 on the article's TALK page; note that I am simply insisting that we figure it out, together, before Gamaliel just unilaterally effectively vandalizes the article. Please read what I have written in item item 10 of the article's TALK page. I, too, am busy. I'll see Gamaliel's project, and point-out that I was just diagnosed with esophageal cancer, with a 20% chance of five year survival; and am spending most of my time, today, making sure that I get into the clinical trial at University of California San Francisco, into which I was invited, so that I might actually live. I don't have time to keep reversing Gamaliel's actions -- his/her effective vandalisms -- which s/he keeps doing instead of just talking it out, first; and allowing others to chime-in. S/he is an example of what happens when an editor becomes too self-important, and officious, and has forgotten how this place works!

Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

This place works by adhering to policies like WP:UNDUE. I don't care at all what that the article says about this issue, write it however you want, but policy dictates that it cannot take up 72% of the article. Neither one of us has the time to devote to this today, so why don't we both drop it? There will be plenty of time to get a mutually agreed version in place later. I wish you well in your fight against cancer. Gamaliel (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Chimed in on article talk page. Best of luck in fighting cancer. --GRuban (talk) 01:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• Moms Demand Action (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Matthew Yglesias (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An IP editor has repeatedly inserted text into this article about a twitter comment made by a regional leader of this organization agreeing with a quote from Joseph Goebbels.[38] The material is sourced to a blog, which does not meet WP:RS. The text of the comment is inflammatory, stating that the activist "posted support for" Goebbels, when the activist agreed with a quote from Goebbels. The notability of this incident has not been established by reliable secondary sources (nor has anything else).

The same editor has also added text about Matthew Yglesias receiving the "Dumbest Blogger on the Internet" award. No source was provided, nor is there any evidence that the award is notable.[39]GabrielF (talk) 02:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The Moms Demand Action edit was a clear and unambiguous WP:BLP violation - I've removed it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Likewise the Matthew Yglesias edit - though I see it has already been reverted. Given the edit-warring at Moms Demand Action (3RR violation) along with the BLP issues, I think a block is a certainty - I'll ask at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

As management for Shaun Foist, a Wikipedia page was created for him with the required criteria for a public figure, and is currently under review by Wikipedia. However, this poorly written page somehow became live on Wikipedia as we await this approval. I would like to request that this page be removed and the one created by myself, which meets the threshold for verifiable links and information, replace it. Your kind consideration is greatly appreciated.

I realize that simply replacing information on the existing page is something that can be done, but I have spent hours creating the page which is currently under review and do not wish to duplicate the effort, if at all possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiTruthTime (talk • contribs) 15:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I have declined the draft submission, though really what I want to do is a selective merge from the draft to the mainspace version. Both versions have their own problems, as good writing isn't enough - BLPs need to be verifiable to high quality sources. For example, you can't say "Shaun received rave reviews ...." and then cite a single review piece. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Based on the references in both versions of the article, I'm dubious that even merging would give us an article that would pass muster on notability concerns. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I think there's enough to pass WP:NMUSIC #6, though Picture Me Broken looks like a potential AfD. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd question whether his current "ensemble" qualifies either for granting him notability; it seems not yet clear that the new formation under that band name is notable in itself. It doesn't seem too broad a reading that it is meant to include performers who are part of the notability of said band, rather than people who come on board legacy acts. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

My next question would be - how did the original EVEN go live, with less than stellar content? At the very least, I did the submission via Wiki protocol. How did the one currently live even GET live??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiTruthTime (talk • contribs) 17:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

While we strongly encourage individuals with a conflict of interest (such as a performer's management) to go through the Articles For Creation process, that is not our default method of creating new articles. Most articles are created "live". --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

This article appears to be nothing more than one attorney's attempt to advertise. I don't know if it is a proper subject for a Wikipedia article.

If it is, perhaps I should create a similar one about myself.

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

Greetings Administrators. I need some clarification with the nationality parameter on Wikipedia. Davido was born in America but lives in Nigeria. Since he has both an American and Nigerian passport, should his Biography read: Davido is a Nigerian American recording artist .... or Davido is an American born Nigeria recording artist...? Which is correct. I need some clarification because I believe the former is right. Thanks. Versace1608 (Talk) 01:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The second seems to be clearer. (Though make it American born Nigerian.) The first could mean that he is an American of Nigerian heritage. --GRuban (talk) 13:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not positive about this--and it's a minor quibble at any rate--but shouldn't it be "American-born", with a hyphen between the words? LHM^{ask me a question} 14:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Please let us know why you delete the list of his books whereas I see other living people have included it and they have not been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mansoureh Sharifzadeh (talk • contribs) 17:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

User Stuartyeates removed the overwhelming list of books stating "this is not a cv". Meatsgains (talk) 05:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Neil deGrasse Tyson fabrication allegations

Basically an attack-job citing non-RS blog posts, tweets, and other self-published sources. Article will probably be deleted soon, but while it's up at least it should respect BLP conventions. Attempts to scrub BLP violations and rename to NPOV title repeatedly reverted by original author. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 19:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Are there any uninvolved admins/experienced editors reading this? The AfD can be safely closed now as a snow delete. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Has anyone actually looked at the sources on the article? And what is the specific BLP violation being alleged? Kelly ^hi! 19:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Closed. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

This seems relevant. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Well that's not surprising considering the number of times that blog appeared in the references section of the article. In fact almost the entire thing was sourced to them. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed more once I looked into it. Just ran into that link on a different matter, and then saw the same words on my Watchlist. Serendipity of sorts. Wasn't trying to be Captain Obvious. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

In regards to sourcing - no, not really. The main sources were The Washington Post, The Week, Physics Today, The Daily Beast, The Tampa Tribune, and others. Kelly ^hi! 06:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Notice that Kelly appears to be trying to force the dodgy sources into List_of_Wikipedia_controversies also, Second Quantization (talk) 12:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

  Force? National Review and The Weekly Standard are reliable sources according to the archives of this very the reliable sources noticeboard. Kelly ^hi! 12:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Sign. I have already rebutted this argument several times, but you conveniently forgot that once again, Second Quantization (talk) 00:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I mean, really? So, the owners of a website get all worked up because we are going through an AFD? That is a controversy, only for those that want to make it one. A great example of a storm in a teapot...- Cwobeel (talk) 00:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Please remove personal life section of Dave_Stewart_(baseball). The sourced content is from 1985 and is inaccurate. As I have repeatedly tried to remove said content I am now accused of warring. Unfortunately, your users will not source articles from today that clearly state he is not married and has 4 children. They also insist upon adding the word transsexual to the lewd conduct information. I will take legal action against Wikipedia and all sources if this personal section is not removed. As it is not accurate and highly contentious. User: Alst17 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alst17 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

While I do sympathise with this situation, I cannot accept edit-warring or legal threats. There are avenues open to you which have been mentioned at your user talk. The block can be undone if and when your legal threat is withdrawn. --John (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• It is accurate, though, Alst17. I read each of the sources, and there's nothing inaccurate about it, though I did clean up the prose a bit, and explain the plea deal he reached. And as noted above, legal threats will not be productive for you. LHM^{ask me a question} 17:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Her middle name is not or ever was Estelle. We are her representatives for acting and we please ask for you to edit this on her page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfargoasst (talk • contribs) 21:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Looks like you removed it, that's fine if it's not sourced. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• I have stubified this article, as it has been tagged as a poorly-sourced BLP for 18 months now. I didn't remove the filmography, etc., though I thought about it. LHM^{ask me a question} 02:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

At José Areas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), there are repeated removals of a child molestation matter involving José Areas. I have reverted the removals, but, taking a closer look, I removed one source as WP:Self-published. Regarding the San Francisco Chronicle material, should we leave that in since he apparently "[admitted] to some acts of child molesting"? Flyer22 (talk) 23:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Removed. Per WP:BLPCRIME there must be either substantial coverage or a widely-reported legal outcome. That just reads like hearsay at best, so it's better to leave it out for now. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance, FreeRangeFrog. Flyer22 (talk) 00:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, even if the bit I removed had been well-sourced, it's one person's account of another living person's alleged abhorrent behavior; therefore, it shouldn't have been in the article either way, and I should not have restored it. I should have paid better attention to all of what I was restoring, not simply the initial part regarding the San Francisco Chronicle. Flyer22 (talk) 04:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Sokolov did not entered the Leningrad Conservatory aged seven (and could not do it). He entered the specialised music school (primary/secondary/high school) affiliated to the Leningrad Conservatory. As to the Leningrad Conservatory, he entered it after having graduated that school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.179.65.216 (talk) 03:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Added the clarification and a reference to support it.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

This article is about Ross William Ulbricht, who is accused of being the operator of the (now defunct) Silk Road website. The article should therefore be called Ross William Ulbricht or Ross Ulbricht (or just deleted) - however, both of these currently redirect to Dread Pirate Roberts (Silk Road), so I am unable to make the name-change. At the moment the title of the page constitutes a massive BLP violation (if I understand the situation correctly). zzz (talk) 08:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

("Dread Pirate Roberts" is what the operator and founder of the website was known as). zzz (talk) 08:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

"Silk Road 2.0" is also run by "Dread Pirate Roberts" (I believe) ie not Ross William Ulbricht, who is currently under arrest (I believe). zzz (talk) 08:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I see from reading through this page that there is a specific policy WP:BLPCRIME which states "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." I would agree with this - the article should be deleted entirely. It is unbelievable that anyone thought this was a valid article. zzz (talk) 09:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Or at the very least, put the guy's name at the top of the article, not who he is accused of being! It is a complete mockery. zzz (talk) 09:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I have been bold. But perhaps not bold enough. -- Hoary (talk) 11:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd be happy to see the article deleted. It's never said anything of interest about "Dread Pirate Roberts"; even now it says too much about allegations of crimes by somebody who hasn't been found guilty of any. -- Hoary (talk) 12:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes. There's absolutely no need for it. The Silk Road article already appears to cover the arrest, etc. zzz (talk) 12:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with zzz, having an article explicitly for a person charged but not convicted of a crime is a BLP violation, especially since I don't think it will stand up to WP:BLPNOTE. Everything of note with this guy was that he was arrested, and there doesn't seem to be any sustained coverage otherwise. All of that can be covered in the Silk Road (marketplace) article. If someone wants to nominate it for deletion, I would support that. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Since there is clear support, I suppose that a WP:FMERGE to Silk Road would do the trick. zzz (talk) 21:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Done! zzz (talk) 21:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Disappearance of Hannah Graham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An IP has been adding the name of the "person of interest" to Disappearance of Hannah Graham despite consensus on the talk page not to do so until and unless he is convicted. I want to make sure that I (as well as User:VQuakr) am in the right in reverting this addition (which I did a few seconds ago, and which VQuakr did a few days ago). The policy at issue is WP:BLPCRIME, which states that "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." Jinkinson talk to me 22:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Removed name per BLPCRIME, and watchlisted. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I tried removing such negative content from Techno Viking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) a guy who took legal action because of unwanted publicity, and Jameis Winston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), quoting an incident that got him suspended. Both sourced to a user-editable site which many users have already said is unreliable (1, 2, 3).--Otterathome (talk) 09:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• I've fixed the latter by replacing the source with a reliable one with both states Winston's comments and notes the website from which the meme came [40]. I'm going out now but will have a look at the other one later. Black Kite (talk) 10:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Hello I am this Theron Smith and when my name is searched it says I died in 2010 can this please be changed? Thank you for your time 1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.76.153.92 (talk) 03:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Our article says nothing about this - are you sure you were looking at Wikipedia? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

That's Google that's giving that information; while Google gets some of their biographical information from Wikipedia, they mark Wikipedia as the source when they do. That's not what's happening in this case. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I have dropped a note in the appropriate place to Google; no idea how long it will take them to address it, if they will. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

In the past, when (for instance) Google was pulling the wrong image for a person, they fixed it within a matter of a couple days once notified. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

As of tonight, Mr. Smith is no longer dead in Google's eyes. May he live a long time! --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

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

There is a dispute on this page regarding how to characterize the subject of the speech. There are two versions of the lede revolving through the turnstyle:

The Misogyny Speech was delivered by then Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard on 9 October 2012 in reaction to perceived sexism from opposition leader Tony Abbott.

and

The Misogyny Speech was delivered by then Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard on 9 October 2012 in reaction to opposition leader Tony Abbott's record of sexism.

The key distinction between the two revolves around characterizing Tony Abbott's record. In the second case, the wording is based on a news article from The Sydney Morning Herald which writes "Prime Minister Julia Gillard has lashed out at Opposition Leader Tony Abbott's record on sexism as the Coalition made a failed attempt to have Peter Slipper removed as Speaker by parliamentary vote." In the first case, the word "perceived" does not appear to be supported by any sourcing.

Please advise. aprock (talk) 03:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The second one isn't supported by the sourcing you give here either. "Record of x" and "record on x" is very different. A judge may have a "record on murder" of having given seven murderers life sentences... but she wouldn't have a "record of murder" unless she killed someone. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Good catch. Is the phrasing "record on sexism" a reasonable characterization, and within WP:BLP guidelines? Is "perceived sexism" supportable? aprock (talk) 03:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The first choice is the best as it does not assert as perfectly true that Abbott has a record of sexism. Instead, Abbott's record will have various observers calling it various things, with some siding with the Herald and some not. Binksternet (talk) 03:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Many sources do not characterize it one way or the other. Several sources clearly characterize it as sexism while discarding misogyny. No sources that I've found outside of opinion pieces suggest that his statements were not sexist. aprock (talk) 03:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

But if Gillard was talking about Abbott's record on sexism, we cannot assume that he was talking about Abbott's sexism, perceived of otherwise. That's a different topic. Talking about Obama's record on terrorism cannot be referred to as "Obama's terrorism" or even "Obama's perceived terrorism". And if "perceived" goes in there in any way, it would be "perceived record on sexism", not "record on perceived sexism"... but that's probably not appropriate, as talking about someone's record does not mean necessarily talking about someone's record accurately. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it's clear that Gillard thought Abbott had a record of being sexist - in the speech, she says "Misogyny, sexism, every day from this Leader of the Opposition." StAnselm (talk) 05:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Certainly, but characterizing her views without any sort of source is editor synthesis. aprock (talk) 17:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I think this profile [41] is fine for uncontrovertial background, etc. OK? Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, that interview is fine for standard biographical details, but should not be used to describe the results or significance of her research on black carbon. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Ben Padnos - the article is written by himself. - it exsists since 2008 (how could that happend?) - the companies he founded are not real companies (just websites) - the Article is a stub. - this is just an advertisement for himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.211.190 (talk) 00:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I've done some slight cleaning up of the article, but haven't done the research to see if it should be deleted. If you feel it should, I encourage you to take it through the articles for deletion process. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Fan of Lira authoring a bio religiously since 2006, will not allow article to be adjusted to NPOV Even minor edits to fact are not possible. Talk:Gonzalo_Lira

--Did not realize there is another Notice on same issue

-- User_talk:MILH <will block all edits, minor, factual, major - "as owner"

Talk illustrates why a minor changes needed to be made with NPOV examples illustrated from other biographies. Immediate reversion of any change confirms ownership problem. Talk versus the edit history prove bad faith

Lfrankbalm (talk) 13:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

User Lfrankbalm has been trolling this entry under anonymous IP addresses 173.68.144.130 (talk) (which eventually led to his being banned), and IP address 200.73.224.212.

User Lfrankbalm has a clear personal animus towards the subject. Hence I've been patrolling his edits, which he has made under the guise of NPOV.

—MILH (talk) 14:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

-Blog owner MILH deleting calls to the community to examine NPOV and content quality of Lira Biography

-No changes to biography made awaiting community input

-Serious problem whereby a single owner has dominated a Wikipedia entry since 2006

Made small changes to improve NPOV asked persistent-owner MILH of Lira entry to bring this issue to closure. Talk describing in detail why changes where made. (inordinate effort for minor changes)

Lfrankbalm (talk) 18:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed troll with personal animus towards the subject of the entry. Has used multiple anonymous IP sock puppets to vandalize entry. Am undoing his/her edits. —MILH (talk) 21:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Not agreed: see extensive description of the proposed minor-changes with justifications; (claims of vandalism, trolling, deletion of any edit, deletion of this entry, and other calls for comment on NPOV are deleted in response)

Lfrankbalm (talk) 03:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Violates Notability requirement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.19.155.67 (talk) 21:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be an article under that name. Did you mean another article?--Auric talk 22:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

In the section titled: "2014 Maryland State Senate Candidacy," the article on James states: "James is to now face Bob Cassilly, former County Council Member and son of long time Harford County State's Attorney Joseph I. Cassilly, in the General Election in November. [6]" This is incorrect. Bob Cassilly is the brother, not son, of State's Attorney Joseph Cassilly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.3.159.31 (talk) 20:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I have removed that claim; it was not sourced, and even if it was, it was of dubious relevance. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Several edits have been made to this BLP to announce his death, I believe these edits were made with good faith owing to their preciseness, but I cannot find any third party published references to his death. [42] Gareth E Kegg (talk) 22:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah, I can't find verification either, and felt forced to remove it in the meantime. Let's check again tomorrow. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Bones West, the choir group founded by George Roberts, announced his death on their facebook page - [43]. Let me see if I can find any third party sources.  NQ  talk 01:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done - Added citation from the International Trombone Association [44].  NQ  talk 16:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Needs citations. Bearian (talk) 21:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Rebecca Brown (Christian author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Article Rebecca Brown (Christian author) has claims (full article) from a total of 9 sources. They looks like one primary, a few personal sites, and a couple others I cannot categorize. I believe person is still living. Basileias (talk) 13:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

At least one of the sources is a USENET posting. This article is a tragic mess (another citation is a comic strip - no, really). I'd recommend a thorough pruning, particularly given the number of names and places listed with no real sourcing at all, but an (admittedly quick) search isn't finding anything to indicate notability at all anyway. AfD is likely the way out of that mess. Tgeairn (talk) 14:48, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

It is now in AFD, and likely deleted. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I doubt it will survive AFD myself. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

An user keeps reinserting facts with dubious sources. As stated in the talk page of the article, the info about Bianca Balti's mother being Azerbaijani was inserted for the first time in 2008, and at that time it did not have any source. The sources cited now have all been written after 2008, and most probably got their info from Wikipedia. Furthermore, in all the sites linked it is the writer that states that Bianca Balti's mother is Azerbaijani, there is no source in which the model herself says anything about her heritage. I removed the section but an user keeps reinserting it ignoring the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.7.154.104 (talk) 16:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Reverted the addition and asked the other editor to join the discussion on the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. --87.7.154.104 (talk) 22:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Article is being whitewashed by a user called RosnerPR and a Google search for "rosner public relations" reveals fairly consistent results. I personally suspect paid advocacy. Not sure how to proceed. Help is appreciated. --Richard Yin (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The PR rep has been blocked but I do have concerns about that BLP which I've expressed on the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Some subtle and not so subtle vandalism on this page - anyone time to sort it out. For example, I don't know how long this football referee has been in the category blind people. --_nonsense ferret 22:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

It needed a deeper revert to clean up the vandalism, which I've now done. I also semi-protected it for a few days. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Good job, thanks @Paul Erik: --_nonsense ferret 22:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

So Jameis Winston (quarterback at FSU) apparently yelled "fuck her right in the pussy", and that's what got him suspended for one game. Should that exact quote be in his article, or is "suspended for making an obscene statement" good enough, with of course a link to the reliable source that does quote it? Bender235, Muboshgu, and Nomoskedasticity seem to think this is of the greatest importance in informing our readers? (And is the sourcing up to snuff?) Everyone is yelling "Wikipedia is not censored" but that we're not censored doesn't mean we have to stick everything in there, certainly not if it's a BLP, and this is a bit too much like naming and shaming. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

"Of the greatest importance"? Please don't misconstrue my comment. Someone asked if the exact phrase should be included, and all I said was "perhaps". – Muboshgu (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I repeatedly pointed out to Drmies that a statement like "Winston yelled an obscenity" unneccesarily introduces ambiguity into this article. "An obscenity" could be anything. What obscenity did he yell? Well, we know what he yelled, because it has been in the media everywhere. And it happened to be a meme. So why not stick to the facts? Sure, "fuck" and "pussy" might not be words you want to teach your kids, but then again Wikipedia is not censored. If we delete the factual statement here just because someone feels embarassed by it, why not also erase other historical facts: we could remove "Nigger" from Johnny Bright Incident and just state "some people made some racist statements", right? That's absurd. --bender235 (talk) 19:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be suffering from ifitsverifieditshouldbeincludeditis. Your comparison is more than a bit lame: you're comparing an "incident" that's so notable that it has its own article with a one-week "controversy". (It's not a matter of censorship, but of editorial judgment.) Maybe you should change the vague "Obscenity" in that section title to something more truthful and precise. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

If I "suffer" from anything it's the urge to keep (unneccessary) ambiguity out of Wikipedia. We don't write "running back Smith injured his leg" when we can specify the injury. We don't write "a plan crashed" when we can identify the type of airplane. The same applies here. And there's a second level to it you fail to recognize: labelling a statement "obscene" is a normative statement we should avoid, because what's "obscene" to you might not be to me, or somebody else. It's the same reason why we don't describe movies as "great", cars as "innovative", or wars as "devastating". Because those are value-laden labels. So what do we do? We simply state the facts and let the reader decide whether he finds it "obscene" or not. --bender235 (talk) 04:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

No, we state the facts as they are reported in reliable sources. You can have your pussy, and I can have my "obscene phrase". Which one gets picked is therefore not a matter of censorship: since we rely on secondary sources, the issue of censoring the primary event is not an issue at all. Only if all, or a large preponderance of the secondary sources have the quote can our not printing the source be construed, possibly, as censorship. Don't forget that "our" censorship can only be a censoring of the secondary sourcing, and as long as I have a whole bunch that have already excluded the phrase there is no way in which I could be censoring anything. You could argue I favor some sources over others, but that goes for your side too. Judgment, please, not witchtrials and accusations of censorship. Drmies (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Problem solved then. The Guardian, a reliable source, reports the exact statement. No need for us then to hide it behind a value-ladden label then, right? --bender235 (talk) 22:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. When a comment leads to a significant event like a suspension (even only a game), it seems proper to relay what that comment was. Obscenity is a vague thing, and "obscene statement" will mean different things to different people, until they go out of their way to see the citation for the fact we omitted. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Also agreed. No reason not to use the actual quote as long as we can properly source it. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 19:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

By "properly source[d]" you mean Deadspin and knowyourmeme.com, right? Because the NYT and ESPN do not report the phrase--are you (and Bender, etc.) willing to say that NYT and ESPN, generally deemed a hell of a lot more reliable than the other two, are "censored"? The NYT has "obscene comment". Now, can we see some evidence that this is actually a noteworthy meme, as reported on in reliable sources? And please add that to this biography of a living person. Drmies (talk) 01:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Well the Guardian definitely counts. And these ones too [45] [46] [47]. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 03:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

That's great. Does that mean that the NYT is censored? I doubt anyone would want to say that, if they are not censored for not printing the phrase, by the same token Wikipedia isn't necessarily censored for not printing it. Editorial discretion means that not everything that can be sourced ought to be printed. Moreover, that such lousy sources were thrown in there suggests that whoever did that had no editorial discretion whatsoever. (Besides, of course, the obvious lack of editorial discretion on the part of the subject of this BLP...) Drmies (talk) 19:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• Ought Wikipedia include the actual obscenity uttered? [48]. I suggest that using the F-word in big red letters could be done in thousands of articles, but that Wikipedia has made a choice not to be sensationalist in BLPs - thus we can properly refer to "obscenity" without becoming the National Enquirer. More views would be good. Collect (talk) 17:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Does the National Enquirer print phrases like "fuck her right in the pussy"?? I'd be very surprised… Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It would if some Wikipedians edited it. But that does not remotely mean that the use of FUCK as many times as possible on Wikipedia is proper. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Winston' instructional guide for cotius conforms to the standard proscribed method. Vulgar yes, obscene, no.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 20:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Proscribed? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

For Gamergate controversy (already a BLP issue to start with), there's a point that has come up. We have already established that one part of the issue is the claims towards the ethics of gaming journalists. One issue that has come up in reliable sources (not strong ones but otherwise reliable normally) is this: there is a mailing list that many game journalists (roughly 150 members, the identities of these people are known, they are not anon) are on; one of the journalists sympathetic with the gamer side of the argument released a number of emails that pointed out that other journalists on the list were talking about not giving too much coverage to the Gamergate issue and patrolling forums more aggressively. (This is factual so itself not BLP). The claim made by gamers and other sources is that this shows that journalists were purposely colluding to censor Gamergate coverage (and later to other "control" of the gaming press), furthering the issues of the ethics already raised. These claims are discussed in similarly reliable sources (not the best ones, but reliable for other purposes), but they remain only claims.

The question I have if is this is a BLP issue as to not include this facet (there are other reasons being thrown around to not include but the BLP issue is one I'm worried about). To me it is not, in the sense that while the identities of people are known, it is a large group of people with no specific person identified as the sole "ringmaster" here; further, it is only a claim that is being used to describe the issues that one side of the controversy has, and the language selected for WP is careful to say if they are right or wrong, and that it is only a claim. I would also add that one of the persons on this list has come out to clear his role in the matter (as he recongized he spoke out emotionally about this to the list and realized after the matter it could be taken in the wrong way) [49]. As such, while being aware that the line between this and a true BLP violation is very thin, I don't think stating that the accusation exists to support one side's arguments when the accusation is aimed as a broad statement about a broad group of people instead of a very narrow claim aimed at a few individuals. --MASEM (t) 18:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Before commenting in more detail after I have read some more and thought about it some more, I would iterate what I understand the spirit of Wikipedia's BLP policy to be; that we do not deal in smoke and mirrors, that we err on the side of caution before adding anything, especially anything negative, and that in our tone we avoid lending credibility to anything that has a whiff of rumour about it, even well-attested rumour. That is all for now but I will be back tomorrow. --John (talk) 22:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• • To be clear it is factual that on this list there was discussion of not reporting so much on the Gamergate issue, and this was affirmed by the link above. What is where there might be BLP are those that build on that evidence to claim this was purposely collusion, in light of the fact that the entire situation has been highlighted to put the journalism ethics of video game media under a microscope. --MASEM (t) 02:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• • • The more I think about it the more I think my instincts were right that this should not be included. Is there a diff of where this was added or removed from the article, or raised in talk, so that I can look at the material in more detail? --John (talk) 18:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• It's fine to include this, provided that it's covered in independent reliable sources. The issue is that when reliable sources start calling each other names, you have to go to otherwise uninvolved sources for the reporting. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

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

All biographical data is supplied via biography on his own site.

Other source of reference is a 3rd party blog type website.

This article has been an orphan since March 2012.

Wiki page comes up at Chris Doss although persons name is William Christopher Doss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WillShuck (talk • contribs) 00:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• I have placed a PROD template on the article, as an unsourced BLP & PR piece. If uncontested, it will be deleted in 7 days. If contested, I'll likely take it to AFD. LHM^{ask me a question} 00:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • LHM, I looked at it (and just looked at it again) and saw no credible claim of importance. It said things like "has trained many people in something", but that "something" itself wasn't notable by itself, and that he is (supposedly) a public speaker and author is not in itself a reason for notability. So we look for a claim of importance (important policy maker, groundbreaking scholar, super-hip fashion designer) which must be credible (with references, or in acceptable, reasonable language, etc.). I found none of that in here and thought I'd just nominate it for CSD rather than letting it drag on in the PROD pile. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

    I'm certainly glad it's gone, as it was basically little more than an autobio/resume, as I mentioned in my PROD explanation. Procedurally-speaking, I was curious why you didn't replace my PROD w/the speedy tag, instead of placing it above it, as you chose to do. I've never encountered a similar situation, where a PROD was superseded by a speedy, so I'm unfamiliar with what is commonly done in such cases. LHM^{ask me a question} 16:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• LHM, it's not so much "superseded"; they are really side by side, since there's different procedures (and the article is listed in different categories, patrolled by different people). You PRODded it by way of PROD BLP, a tag that can be removed by the creator basically on the condition that they add some kind of reliable sourcing, but of course they might disagree with you (or an admin/other editor) on what is a reliable source. (They might argue that this is a reliable source--a somewhat silly claim, but it's conceivable they'd argue that.) In such a case, the PROD is gone and nothing happens unless you happen to return to the article and take it to AfD, for instance, another lengthy process. A CSD tag, on the other hand, may not be removed by the creator and will be decided on by an admin (or, of course, another editor, but let's keep it simple), and if the speedy is declined, for instance, the PROD is still there as long as the issue isn't resolved.

  So, these two procedures can operate side by side, increasing the chance that something will happen and we won't have another unsourced BLP languishing, and more people can be drawn to look at it: an admin who patrols CSDs, and an admin who patrols PRODs. One can be turned down, the other may still be valid (a sourced BLP can still be speedily deleted, for instance, depending on the sourcing). Sorry, that's a lot of words, but I think the procedures are important to enough to get some highlighting in this forum, not necessarily for you, but for other readers. In addition, BTW, it will take another admin to decided on deletion: with A7, admins rarely shoot from the hip (delete it themselves without tagging it), so there certainly is some oversight. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Article has been edited to give undue weight to Rahall's ethnicity and position on Arab-Israeli issues, which is one of many topics on which he is active. Includes excessive amount of extraneous material inappropriate for a biography. I hope that experienced editors will help me improve this article, with an unbiased point of view. Hammerpleasedonthurtem (talk) 14:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Could you point out some examples of the disputed material? I read through it and could not find any specific troublesome material, with the exception of the Personal Section, which contain some contetious material which seems well sourced. Is that section the problem?- Cwobeel (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Found the issues, and made a few edits with the hope it helps. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• In my opinion, "positions" which haven't been reported on aren't really relevant. There's lots of votes, and it would take reliable secondary sourcing that discusses the subject's position and vote (not just lists it) to make it relevant--so I pruned one or two. Or three. Drmies (talk) 17:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the attention. There should be some threshold for which votes merit inclusion. I don't know how to draw the line, but there is clearly undue weight to some of the issues, especially Israel. Hammerpleasedonthurtem (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• See my comments here. Hammer's accusations of "libel" there appear to be baseless. Epeefleche (talk) 19:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I hope that others will weigh in on this. As seen in this reversion, why should relatively insignificant content that is mentioned elsewhere in the article be repeated in the lede? Hammerpleasedonthurtem (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Your deletions of material as "libel" appears to be based on a misunderstanding that "libel means I don't like it and want to delete it, even if it is widely covered in RSs and distinguishes the person from other House members and includes things such as how a politician voted (against all other House members)." That's not what libe means, and it's not an excuse for deletions. Your POV as to whether those heavily-RS-covered facts are significant is not what we edit by. And the goal of the lede is to summarize the most important aspects of the article; we determine importance from RS coverage, not from editor POV. Epeefleche (talk) 21:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• The jumping out of a plane incident (last sentence) is supported by two references, one of which didn't load for me and the other which is a blog. Don't we need better references? --S Philbrick(Talk) 22:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• What is the justification for the phrase "the act confused some"? I don't see any support in the blog, perhaps it is explained in the reference that doesn't work?--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• The second sentence of the mining section is criticism, sourced to "The Blog". Does that qualify as an RS?--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@S Philbrick -- I could go either way on the plane incident. I would be fine with the deletion of that entry, because the plane jump is neither typical for a bio (as details of the person's background, or official acts, or controversies). Though of course I can't see the entry that you also can't see. However, if all it does is support the plane jump, as it does not fall into one of the non-trivial acts, and is not clearly sourced to an RS, I could understand its deletion. As to the second mining ref, it does not load but appears to relate to an article by WTRF-TV. The next ref is a Huffington Post blog -- apparently written by Jeff Biggers. Such blogs fall under WP:NEWSBLOG. Epeefleche (talk) 00:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

As I understand it, the WP:NEWSBLOG exception allows us to treat a blog as an RS if authored by someone with background as a professional journalist. I'm not familiar with Jeff Biggers, so read our article about him, which does use the word "journalist" in the lead. However, two things are worth noting:

1. I don't see any evidence from our article that he has professional journalism experience. I see a suggestion that he has written for the Washington Post, but it is not stated whether this was as an employed journalist or as an op-ed contributor or something else. If he has worked as a journalist, we ought to mention it in our article, or at least provide some evidence somewhere so he can be used per the WP:NEWSBLOG exception.
2. The lead notes: "...Jeff Biggers has been a vocal critic of mountaintop removal in Appalachia " Does this make him an expert or someone with a COI? If his writing had been dispassionate reporting, it may be the former, but I don't see any such evidence. If he were an editor, I think we would treat him as a SPA. I am concerned about using a blogger with an agenda for such an opinionated statement.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

If wikipedia has boiled down to Huffington Post "The Blog" articles, Chicago Tribune Op/Eds and @Epeefleche's other biased 'information', I'm done. It won't matter because Epeefleche has way more internet dollars than I do. Interestingly I believe in his apparent POV (given the Star of David on his page and pro-Israel edits), but I choose to edit while abiding by WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:BLP policies and have no apparent recourse for what cannot be considered less than madness. 70.44.136.245 (talk) 04:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Hammer, there's a lot of ad hominem inappropriate accusations there. Beyond that, I'm not sure what Chicago Tribune Op Ed you are referring to. And as to the Huffington Post article, I simply related that it falls under wp:NEWSBLOG. What is your gripe with my pointing that out? Nor was I who inserted the sentence or ref in the first place (not that that matters). I'm really not quite sure that the invective directed at me is appropriate, and am surprised by it. Epeefleche (talk) 08:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• The way this article is currently written, and the state it is being pushed into, gives the impression that the most notable achievements and actions of this congressman concern Israel and Arab issues. In truth, however, I'm pretty sure he's most associated with environmental and natural resources issues. This is logical, considering the importance of coal in West Virginia, and is supported by the fact that his time as a committee chair was on the Natural Resources committee, and a look through his notable sponsored bills seems to emphasize EPA and resource issues. Including his vote on Israel as the one congressional action in an over 3 decade career worth mentioning in the lede is both misleading and unfortunately smells of POV pushing associated with the upcoming election.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• There is a discussion, specifically, about the deletion of a sentence from the lede here, and in the page linked to. The article included the sentence in question in the lede as reflected here at the time this conversation was started by Hammer. Given that the noticeboard discussion had been kicked off, I believe the sentence should not be deleted (and should not have been deleted) absent consensus to delete it. Which has not arisen.

If other editors, including those who have piped up here but not there (User:Cwobeel, User:Drmies, User:Sphilbrick ), could share their thoughts that would be helpful. The question is whether there is a reason that that sentence must be deleted, as Yaksar and the nom here believe (and some of don't believe to be the case). Yak could always, as I've told him, discuss additional salient issues in the lede (coal mining, environmental issues, foreign policy, endorsement of Barack Obama, etc.), summarizing important aspects in the text, but that is a secondary matter to the continued deletion. Tx. Epeefleche (talk) 09:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Top of page refs claim him as armenian^[1], yet the ref submitted states "descendente de portugueses, japoneses e índios," and his agents websites all state nothing of the sort of any links to armenian, I did find a good ref from his public figure page on facebook and it seems he is actually of "Portuguges,japanese,indian" heritage^[2]

I take it that this mixture maybe due to the Portuguese indian goa colonial rule via the spice trade? They settled large groups of japanese and indians workers together in goa (india) and shipped them out to brazil as slaves or cheap work force.^[3]

can someone here scrap the armenian part and clean up the rest of the page? thanks Caplock — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.96.38 (talk) 06:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Can someone help me fix the broken link to the FBI page? The original link to a kidnap page is broken and no longer exists. There is also poorly sourced material on this page.

It also appears to defame a band member referred to as "yellow" from the band "blue orchid" as I can find no link stating he was ever named a suspect, nor is there evidence of a crime involving Amy Bradley.

Thanks.

Disappearance of Amy Lynn Bradley — Preceding unsigned comment added by Normalsurfdude (talk • contribs) 15:43, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Some of that did seem to be poorly-sourced and WP:UNDUE, so I cleaned it up a bit. However, reading the one source, I think what I did leave needs to stay in the article. (For those who weren't on the BLPN when it hit, a thread about the above article was rev/del'd.) LHM^{ask me a question} 05:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I removed the thread (actually, a single message and an automated addition of signature) from here because, polite though it was, it incidentally broke a rule hereabouts. I tentatively agree with your judgment here. (I went a little further in deletion, though, when I realized that one of the specified sources for what remains doesn't actually name the biographee.) I invite experienced editors with no axe to grind to put this article on their watchlists. -- Hoary (talk) 05:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate, do you think, to summarize what Mr. Elman (if we take that user at his word) mentioned as his major concerns regarding his article? LHM^{ask me a question} 05:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Also, I thought I removed that one source that didn't even mention Elman by name. There must have been another instance of it, or perhaps I didn't remove it when I thought I did. LHM^{ask me a question} 05:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Below is the message that was posted here:

(Ellipses "[...]" above are of course mine.)

I have since removed an unsatisfactory reference and clarified another reference. I do not claim to have thought about the matter adequately. (For one thing, I have other, non-Wikipedia preoccupations today.) Don't infer from the quick end to my own edits that I'm happy with the result. -- Hoary (talk) 06:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

In view of this exchange, I hope that ErrantX [ping!] drops by. But he seems to be a rare visitor to WP these days. -- Hoary (talk) 07:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Given EugeneV's blatant COI on this, I think he should likely be topic-banned from editing any article related to Elman, should he ever again choose to do so. It's really quite shameful how bad that section of the Elman bio was with regards to our BLP policy, and it seems to have happened in large part due to EugeneV's persistence, as well as the article's relatively low-profile. LHM^{ask me a question} 14:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

From Elman: Thank you. I appreciate the careful additional research and attention. I believe the current version (as of this writing, reflecting edits by Hoary and LHM) is appropriate. I also concur with the suggestion that EugeveV does indeed have a COI ("blatant" is Hoary's characterization :-)...but I must agree), and request that he be topic-banned from editing any article relating to me. kk1892 15:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Additional source

I restored part of this material today, having noticed that it was treated in the current issue of Contemporary Sociology. Lithistman has now reverted it, noting simply that the matter is under discussion here (i.e., without giving a substantive objection to it). Since there won't be an objection to that source (nor to the San Diego Tribune), I'll be curious to see what the objection is. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• I have no issue with a brief mention being made of what happened. However, as the subject of the BLP has raised concerns with the article, we should wait until some consensus has been formed before deciding exactly what that should look like. And as no findings of "guilt" in this "case" were ever entered, I think WP:BLPCRIME might also be worth considering, given that such accusations can affect an academic's career in fairly sigfnificant ways. LHM^{ask me a question} 16:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
• Elman here:Here is what I am not happy about, and what complicates these references: The Contemporary Sociology information was provided to the author by the aggrieved faculty member and based solely on his claims. The context, details, and explanation for the incident are omitted, with the result that a reasonable inference is that I was guilty of infringing the faculty member's rights. In fact, when an investigation and hearing was conducted last year by the Academic Senate regarding one of those grievances, the Senate found no grounds for the complaint and dismissed it. The second grievance was subsequently withdrawn by the faculty member and the case is now closed. The SD U-T article is problematic for similar reasons: It reports a charge but not the outcome. Furthermore, that article contains some factual errors, and I was not given an opportunity to clarify those with the reporter. I appreciate LHM's awareness that such issues are often quite consequential and indeed, the accusations themselves have had significant consequences for my career. Regarding the source for my resignation, a purely factual and publically availabl source is the University's own announcement, available as http://adminrecords.ucsd.edu/Notices/2013/2013-12-2-1.html kk1892 23:19 28 September 2014 (UTC).

The Contemporary Sociology source is entirely legitimate, easily meeting WP:RS. I can't imagine how you know whether or not Dylan Riley got his information from Richard Biernacki -- but it hardly matters, and anyway it's apparent to me that even you accept that the information is true (Elman instructed a UCSD sociologist not to publish a manuscript and threatened him with censure, salary reduction or dismissal etc.). No-where are you asserting otherwise; instead it's a matter of "context" and "details". If the complaint was dismissed -- and that fact can be verified via reliable sources -- then those elements of the story should of course be included as well. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

To be fair to Elman, he likely believes that Riley got his info from Biernacki because--in his view--the article presented only Biernacki's side of the story. As for CS, very few sources are always reliable or always unreliable. We have to be very careful here. LHM^{ask me a question} 18:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• If no-one comes up with a policy-relevant objection to this material, I'll go ahead and re-add it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

  In my opinion, the university press release would be an acceptable use of a primary source, to add context to the incident, given the objections raised by the BLP to the way the material is currently being presented. LHM^{ask me a question} 18:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

  I don't necessarily object to the use of that press release. But I'm not sure it pertains to the edit I have in mind, the issue of instructing someone not to publish a manuscript, etc. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

  True. I would only say this: how likely is it that a university writes a press release that positive for someone who acted the way the CS claims Elman acted? I realize that is WP:SYNTH, but it is, in my opinion at least, food for thought on how accurately the CS presents the full context of what happened there. It makes me wonder if Elman's claims of the CS story being sourced only to Biernacki might be true. LHM^{ask me a question} 19:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

  Having taught in universities for many years, I have to say this is exactly the kind of approach an administration might use when it wants someone to step down (e.g. because things have gone tits up): "we'll say nice things if you'll agree to leave early, so that we don't have to do a messy public divorce". Here's the bottom line for me: Elman has never claimed that he didn't send the letter to Biernacki. I genuinely don't think that the claim is untrue. Now, having said that, I'm not opposed to using the press release to support some text indicating the university administration's admiration for him in the context of his resignation as dean. Care to propose some text along those lines? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

  I may work on this shortly, but will support whatever text you might propose, should you be able to work on it before I do. My main concern with sourcing the controversy only to one article is that the article does seem to be sourced primarily to someone that was pro-Biernacki, whether it was the man himself or not. Elman's side of the story is not presented in any meaningful way at all. LHM^{ask me a question} 18:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

  Thanks. To be clear: the material doesn't rely on only one source -- there's CS and the San Diego Union Tribune, and there's no conflict or disparity between them in regard to the way they support the text I have in mind (viz. the edit I did a few days ago). As for Elman's side of the story -- again, he isn't claiming here that he didn't send the letter. If there is a way to support text giving something about his side of the story, I'll be quite keen to include this -- but I strongly doubt that it will include the assertion that he didn't send the letter. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. There's really no question that he did send a letter of some sort. I think Elman's point--and what gives me pause--is that there's always a context in which such communication happens, and without that context, the mere existence of the letter places Elman in quite a bad light, given the assertions made regarding restricting academic freedom and such. With that said, I will not stand in the way of inclusion of it, but would strongly prefer if we were able to find a reliable secondary source in which Elman gave his side of the story. LHM^{ask me a question} 19:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

{{Opposition to NRMs}}

(see also the 'List of deprogrammers' section below - why essentially the same topic is spread over two threads I don't know. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC))

One or more editors are adding (and re-adding) lists of names (both unlinked and redlinked) to the Navbox Template:Opposition to NRMs. In doing so they are associating those names with (sometimes controversial) groups, and propagating that unsourced and unverifiable association across a number of articles (86 transclusions found) that use the template - many of those transclusions themselves being controversial articles.

It is the opinion of myself and at least a couple other editors (KoshVorlon and FreeRangeFrog both also removed the names) at that template that these links do not aid navigation and in fact present a significant BLP issue. The input of this noticeboard is requested. Thank you, Tgeairn (talk) 11:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

If it is an unsourced and unvarifable association in the subjects article, the name should be removed from the box. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The names have been removed by myself and FreeRangeFrog, however they are added back in (usually after about three days or so by Zambello who seems to think that it's okay to re-add them. This issue has been addressed with him not once but at least two times once by FreeRangeFrog and once by myself. He seems to not understand that if you want to make a claim about a BLP, especially if it's controversial, it needs to be referenced.

This is now past the time of just talking. Now we need mops and possibly either a TBAN or something along those lines. KoshVorlon Angeli i demoni kruzhyli nado mnoj 16:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Given Zambelo's current intransigence, I would support a TBAN. I don't think he'll stop doing it otherwise. LHM^{ask me a question} 05:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Watchlisted. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Tgeairn (and co.) has been on a vendetta against any anti-cult related article - there appears to be some sort of conflict of interest here. As I have explained earlier, the names mentioned are part of anti-cult groups, forming the anti-cult movement. As such, they are mentioned within said articles, in the references. There is therefore no BLP issue. The issue has not "been addressed", as KoshVorlon seems to think: deleting content without adequate information or discussion does not constitute "addressing the issue", it's pretty much just vandalism. Zambelo; talk 04:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• I looked into this and concur with Tgeairn, FreeRangeFrog, and KoshVorlon above. It appears that Zambelo misunderstands what templates are for: aiding people in navigating the project, as he makes the claim that they are to help people understand the structure of the anti-cult movement, which is why he keeps insisting on including unlinked or redlinked names. LHM^{ask me a question} 05:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes for navigation - by adding the names, one can both navigate the project, and see how the various parts of it interact. Is there any specific guideline/rule that prohibits this? Zambelo; talk 05:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Given that Zambelo has ignored the advice of multiple experienced contributors, and has yet again added these non-notable names to the list, [50] in contravention of WP:BLP policy, I have reverted the edit, and warned Zambelo that any repeat of this violation will be reported at WP:ANI, where I will call for a topic ban. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you being serious right now? I just added a number of references, as requested by other editors. What exactly is the problem here? Zambelo; talk 03:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

THe problem here is that you have repeatedly violated WP:BLP policy. As for your 'references', citing the same publication twice with two slightly different names will fool absolutly nobody - though I suspect it will bring your battleground behaviour more scrutiny. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Which publication are you speaking of, exactly? And while I *may* have violated BLP policy with my first reverts (debatable, entries were never not referenced), the addition of new sources needs to be taken into account. Battlegroun behaviour? Says the editor threatening to ban me. Zambelo; talk 03:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not 'threatening to ban you' - I have however warned you that if you violate WP:BLP policy yet again I will report the matter at WP:ANI, where the community will decide whether your behaviour merits a topic ban. And cut out the crap - you had cited New Religious Movements and Religious Liberty in America (eds Derek H. Davis and Barry Hankins) twice for the same persons - using the same source which consensus here is clear cannot be used to establish the notability of these people. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Where is this 'consensus', exactly? And if there was duplication of the sources, it wasn't intentional - I had a lot of data to work with. You aren't being objective. Zambelo; talk 03:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Objectively, your addition of the names violated WP:BLP policy. In the same way that objectively, your removal of my latest post at Talk:List of deprogrammers [51] violated WP:TPG. Objectively, repeated behaviour following this pattern is liable to result in sanctions against you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it didn't - because they were adequately sourced (before, and especially after the new references were added), even if one source was duplicated. Why not just remove the duplicate source and corresponding entries if you had an issue with it? I removed your inclusion in my RFC, because the opening statement for an RFC is supposed to be neutral in tone - you are effectively poisoning the well here. Zambelo; talk 04:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

My response to your misleading and dishonest RfC was not an 'opening statement'. Anyway, I'm done here, and am going to raise your behaviour at WP:ANI, where I shall be calling for you to be topic banned from all articles relating to cults, to new religious movements, and to 'deprogramming'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Following the discussion above (#Neil deGrasse Tyson fabrication allegations) I've noticed that the allegations seem to have migrated to the article Thefederalist.com - they are no longer in Neil deGrasse Tyson. As it stands, the article on Thefederalist.com appears to be operating as a WP:COATRACK. If the allegations aren't notable enough for inclusion in the NdGT article, I can't see how they could be notable enough to be forked off to another article. I'm concerned that we may have a situation where partisans are using Thefederalist.com as a home for claims that have been removed from the parent article - effectively a WP:POVFORK situation. I think it'd be a good idea for BLPN regulars to have a look to see whether this may be the case. Prioryman (talk) 19:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Is it your opinion that the reliably sourced claims (including opinions, and NdGT's statement that he intends to apologize) ought be excised from this article only, or from all articles? Collect (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm uninvolved in the issue, but my experience of 10 years of editing BLP-related material is that something may be reliably sourced but still not worth including if it constitutes undue weight on a trivial issue. Plenty of things can be reliably sourced but can still be too trivial to include. Prioryman (talk) 22:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the BLP complaint is here - the "allegations" are no longer allegations, Tyson acknowledged the error and apologized. His error and subsequent apology, along with the resultant controversy over his Wikipedia article, The Federalist Wikipedia article, etc all been covered by reliable sources. Certainly notability of the incident and associated Wikipedia controversies are currently being discussed in several places, but I think a lot of editors are attempting to use the BLP policy as a trump card or a hammer when it's no longer a concern for this particular content. Kelly ^hi! 09:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Even so, given that the material is indeed about a living person, it should be included only once there is a consensus for inclusion, e.g. as determined via an RfC. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a novel interpretation of policy. So all of the material in all of our BLPs was included as the result of various requests for comment? Kelly ^hi! 11:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

When there is disagreement over whether something belongs, that's how it should go. Not novel at all; standard WP:DR, especially for material pertaining to BLPs. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• WP:BLP is to be interpreted liberally. Once an editor has removed material over WP:BLP grounds in good faith, it should not be reverted, even if you don't agree that the material constitutes a genuine BLP violation. The burden of proof is on the editor who wants to restore the contentious material. So, unless you're absolutely positive that it's not a BLP violation, you shouldn't restore the content. Instead, editors are expected to work out BLP disagreements on the talk page and other standard WP:DR methods. Editors who restore contentious BLP material can find themselves banned or blocked. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I am absolutely positive it is not a BLP violation. Kelly ^hi! 11:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no interest in this dispute but WP:BLP is to be interpreted liberally. - No. Not at all. BLP is to be interpreted strictly and cautiously, being the strongest of our policies. You don't swing the big weapons around just to be sure. You have to be careful to use such an heavy policy only if there is no doubt it is a case where it applies.--cyclopia^speak! 12:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

If you think that it's acceptable to edit-war contentious BLP material into an article, then don't be surprised if you get blocked (or otherwise sanctioned). In fact, unless I'm misunderstanding this, ArbCom recently ruled that "discretionary sanctions are authorized for the area of conflict, namely any edit in any article with biographical content relating to living or recently deceased people or any edit relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles on any page in any namespace." See WP:NEWBLPBAN. So, I would caution you not to give editors potentially bad advice. Once an editor raises a legitimate BLP concern, the material should not be restored. Instead, you should attempt to address that editor's concern or work it out on the talk page or follow WP:DR. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you could specify exactly what part of the material is BLP-contentious? Kelly ^hi! 13:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Why are you asking me this? I think the OP was pretty clear what their concern was. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Notability? Not sure why that's a BLP concern. Kelly ^hi! 17:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not a BLP violation. The facts are verifiable, NdGT has admitted to making up the quote, and it has received coverage in reliable sources. The actual BLP violation should be stated not just claimed. Arzel (talk) 12:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: NDGT is one of my favorite public figures, but claiming this is a BLP violation is more than a bit of a stretch. Well-sourced, admitted by NDGT--what more is needed, and where is the supposed BLP violation? LHM^{ask me a question} 14:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - I second Lithistman's comment immediately above. The principal BLP concerns are satisfied when (a) the factual coverage regarding the living person is accurately reflected in the BLP article, and (c) the factual coverage is adequately verified with reliably sourced in-line footnotes. We can argue about whether trivial matters should be excluded from a BLP article per WP:WEIGHT, but that is an entirely different argument than suggesting libelous, inaccurate, or unverified material should be excluded from an article per WP:BLP. The misquote mini "scandal" which has overtaken Tyson is published material in reliable sources; it is not libelous, inaccurate or unverified. (It's also not an invasion of privacy.) In fact, Tyson himself has now acknowledged that he misquoted George W. Bush and has apologized for it. Darn difficult to see how such material constitutes a BLP violation within the commonly understood meaning of WP:BLP. You may argue WP:WEIGHT, but you don't get to automatically exclude the material based on WP:BLP while you argue it out on the talk page for a consensus to include or exclude it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:43, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • You may be right about WP:WEIGHT, but the current wording of WP:BLP specially calls out WP:NPOV in the very first sentence: "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material ... must adhere strictly to ... all to Wikipedia's three core content policies: Neutral point of view (NPOV)." So, which is it? Is a WP:NPOV issue a WP:BLP violation or isn't it? I don't pretend to offer an answer, only to reiterate what the policy currently states. And if it's wrong for policy to state that WP:NPOV issues are a BLP violation, should the BLP policy be changed? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:11, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Quest, please explain how a factually accurate and neutrally worded summary of this controversy, supported by in-line citations to reliable sources, constitutes a NPOV violation. Sorry, but I don't see it. The subject put his foot in it, and was eventually forced to publicly apologize. Acknowledging that is not a NPOV violation in any way shape or form. We can argue about whether the entire matter is somehow unworthy of mention, but reciting the truth does not violate Wikipedia's required neutral point of view -- which is required in all Wikipedia articles, not just BLPs. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Why are you asking me this? I'm not the OP. I haven't expressed any opinion on this issue. I've only cautioned editors against edit-warring contentious BLP material back into an article. Plainly stated, edit-warring it not the way to win content disputes. If you're asking me theoretically, I think Richard Nixon or perhaps Bill Clinton would be excellent case studies of how to grossly violate NPOV using factually accurate and neutrally worded content supported by in-line citations to reliable sources. In fact, giving WP:UNDUE weight in this manner is quite easy to do. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Yes. It is a BLP issue to magnify the trivial -ie., to give undue weight. It must be worked out how the issue is to be presented before it is presented per BLP. This is the do no harm principal of BLP in action. It's actually not that different procedurally than ordinary BRD, it's just that there is added emphasis and uninvolved admin BLP discretion/enforcement to getting the discussion formally worked out. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Alan, I disagree strongly. NPOV does not require that everything that reflects a living person in a negative light be removed from a BLP article. Quite the contrary: removing factually accurate information about a living person that is exclusively negative is a NPOV violation. Wikipedia is not the public relations arm for public persons. Under our BLP policy, our role is to make sure that our BLP articles are factually accurate, neutrally worded, and that facts are not used in a selective manner to distort the truth or to cast a living person in an unfairly negative light. Our role is not to censor factually accurate information about a living person, even if such information is negative.

As for whether this controversy is "trivial," let us consider the essential facts: (1) the subject is a well-known public personality; (2) the subject made disparaging comments about a former president of the United States, repeating them in multiple public forums; (3) the disparaging comments were demonstrably untrue; (4) the subject repeatedly denied that the comments where inaccurate; (5) when confronted with the incontrovertible facts, the subject eventually issued a public apology for his previous disparaging comments. If you believe that this controversy and the subject's reaction to it are trivial, please consider this: if George W. Bush were not also a public personality, Bush could sue Tyson for defamation and would have a reasonably strong chance of winning. That isn't "trivial" in my world.

Frankly, I don't give a rat's fuzzy little backside whether you love Neil deGrasse Tyson or hate George Bush, but your interpretation of our BLP policy is one-sided and oddly distorted in this instance. I keep my politics to myself on Wikipedia, and I wish others would as well. I find it difficult to believe that if these were any other two public personalities that anyone would be attempting to say these matters were trivial and trying to turn our BLP policy on its head to get all references to them deleted. Our BLP policy is not a censorship tool (please WP:NOTCENSORED). And simply repeating the mantra of "BLP violation," "trivial," and "undue weight" undermines the credibility of your argument on the issue at hand. A simple three to four-sentence acknowledgment and explanation of this controversy, factually stated and supported by in-line citations to reliable sources, is not only not a BLP violation, it is entirely appropriate. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

1) Your first paragraph is a non-sequitur. I did not say that every piece of negative information needs to be removed. What needs to happen, when an NPOV BLP issue arises is a discussion that comes to a conclusion on wording (which yes, but only sometimes, will result in no mention at all). It is rather absurd for you to claim that such things will result in all negative information being removed, because that is not how it works.

2) So how that works is: 'This section on this living person is undue, and should be edited out or edited down'. You have that discussion and then it's done, and in the meantime it's not published in article. There is no rush to get it in, in any form, after all. - Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Alan, I can't emphasize your last point enough. There is no rush. It's all too easy to get caught up in the rush of a controversy and think of it as the biggest thing ever. In a month or six months or a year, things will probably look very different. Prioryman (talk) 14:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

3) As to your last point (I trust the above covers your citation to notcensored) you as the proposer of the addition to the BLP need to actually make known what "three or four sentences" with citations you are proposing in the discussion, and then it can be worked out, modified, or rejected. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

As a point of personal privilege, I will note that your digression on feelings and politics is also absurd (yours or mine), as it certainly has nothing to do with anything I have said. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

[52] As I do not think climateguy.blogspot is RS for such contentious statements of fact. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines: It can be used as a WP:SELFPUB. I've added a couple more sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a talk page issue. There is quite a lot of unsourced speculation that is creeping on to the Talk page, much of it seems to be from a local conspiracy blog. Someone purporting to be from the family has already tried to get this taken down.

I thought BLP applied to Talk pages as well.

The named contributor does not seem to be a single purpose account, so there's no need to be too heavy handed with him even if the stuff should be removed from the talk page.

JASpencer (talk) 12:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

@JASpencer: Added a note about BLP to the editor's talk page and also to the article's talk page. I'll keep an eye on it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I actually wrote this post before the last bit was added. JASpencer (talk) 15:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)