Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:36, 2 December 2014

• WP:BLPN
• WP:BLP/N
• WP:BLPNB
• WP:BLP/NB

This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input.

Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.

Additional notes:

• Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases.
• For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies instead.
• Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

Pamela Ribon

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

A small handful of IP editors are repeatedly inserting this line into the biography of Pamela Ribon:

She is listed in the Oxford English Dictionary under "muffin top."

She is not listed so much as she is quoted from a book to demonstrate ways the term is used in context. I believe that this line is meant to be offensive and intentionally misleading. I have already reverted these edits twice so at this point I would like to ask for a second opinion. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 20:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

seems bad to me. thanks for catching this. Jytdog (talk) 02:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Strange addition - nothing in the OED like that. Legacypac (talk) 15:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Recently all the text in the entire article was deleted except for a few lists. Surely that isn't the solution. I propose on the talk page to revert those deletions.PizzaMan (♨♨) 18:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I added the BBC News item about "Barbie" as establishing notability. Collect (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Christina Hoff Sommers

The subject has mentioned inaccuracies and slurs on the page. Just doing a quick report. Could you check? (User:SatansFeminist) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.157.105 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The quotes are all hers and sourced. What's the problem? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

whew that is a bitter dispute. article is full-protected now too. Jytdog (talk) 03:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect to Christina Hoff Sommers, it is not especially helpful for her to say that the article is full of inaccuracies and slurs without saying what they are or how she thinks the article should be changed. I think there are BLP problems with the article, but my view of them may not be the same as hers. Among other things, there is a sentence reading " The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy categorizes "equity feminist views as libertarian and socially conservative " that is poorly sourced and needs removing (it is also very confusing and poorly written as it presently stands, which gives you some idea of the low-quality editing that has been going on at that article). There has been some discussion of this on the talk page, and I invite interested editors to review it. ImprovingWiki (talk) 03:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

If there are "inaccuracies and slurs" in an article, in order to help you out you need to point out which edits are offending (see here for more info). We really can't help you out if we don't know what we're looking for, sorry. As this is Misplaced Pages the best solution is often to improve an article on your own! ♪ Tstorm(talk) 09:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

She is, and these are her own words frequently stated, a 'card carrying Democrat.' It should at least say that she says that. The article is being slanted to paint her as solely conservative. If you look at the article from a few weeks ago it was far less of an inaccurate character assassination in that respect, which is important to her as a BLP subject.SatansFeminist (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I've been trying to compare the version from later July with the version now, and it seems that the version now is much improved - in particular in the removal of unbalanced criticism that was there in July. The July version did have a statement along the lines of "Author Barbara Marshall has stated that Sommers explicitly identifies herself as a 'libertarian.' Sommers is also a registered Democrat." Is this the line in contention? The article currently describes her views as libertarian, so I assume that the concern is that it doesn't also say that she is registered as a Democrat. - Bilby (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

What the article looked like previous is irrelevant, though it's good it's improved. That's more a content dispute and this is for BLP violation discussion. We need very specific things that are "inadequacies and slurs" as you claimed. For what specific reason did you start a thread here? I'm not just dismissing the issue because I haven't looked into the article in depth, but I don't know what your intentions were without evidence. Multiple instances and diffs, specifically. As the complainant you need to do the research. Is there anything beyond what Bilby and ImprovingWiki have stated above? The goal of this board is to give BLPs proper help, after all. ♪ Tstorm(talk) 15:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The part about Barbara Marshall saying that Sommers explicitly identifies as a libertarian was removed by me, and I think I was justified in removing it. It does not seem especially significant how one author claims Sommers self-identifies: WP:UNDUE applies here. ImprovingWiki (talk) 09:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

There are still real problems with POV-pushing attempts to make her seem more right wing and anti feminist than she is, plus inaccuracies. This is a living person and she is really effected by this smearing.SatansFeminist (talk) 14:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Same as before... everything is sourced and she is quoted extensively. I see not BLP violations. If you're concerned about WP:UNDUE, discuss it on the talk page. Frankly, the article seems balanced. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Wait... you started the same discussion already a few days ago... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

SatansFeminist, there may be problems with the article, but it isn't appropriate or helpful to start an entirely new section on Sommers when one section on her already exists. That only confuses matters. I have moved your comments into the old section, which is where they should have been in the first place. ImprovingWiki (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Navin Raheja

A user is trying to put some defamatory content in this article. The user has made first edit on 20 November and second edit on 24 November.

Please pay your attention towards this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhaskargupta269 (talk • contribs) 08:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Leoaugust User: The content is not defamatory but factual. The person in question has had over 45 lawsuits filed against him and his company in July & August 2014, and all this is part of the persons profile. These cases area of serious nature, and just a mention has been made without reproduction of the charges. All citations are made and reliable sources provided, and the law is that what is true cannot be defamatory.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Leoaugust (talk • contribs) 12:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• The article as a whole needs some serious cleaning. The lawsuits do need to be mentioned since they are prominent in the media, but the editor is writing about them in a somewhat sensationalistic manner. However at the same time, I do see where someone is trying to write about Raheja in as positive a light as possible. Either way of writing is unacceptable on Misplaced Pages and the article needs a complete re-write. I do have to warn you that if someone is known in relation to something negative, that must be covered if there is enough coverage of the event- which it does appear that there is, at least at first glance. We cannot remove or block this content from appearing on the page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
• I would like it if more editors can come in and help clean the article up and ensure that the article is neutral and does not sway in either direction. This looks like it's gearing up to become an edit war and I'd like to avoid taking this to any other boards (ANI, 3rd opinion, etc) if I can possibly help it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
• I think this might actually need to get escalated to ANI. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Roger Pearson (anthropologist)

Some attention from experienced BLP editors would be good at the perennially controversial article about the anthropologist Roger Pearson. Pearson has now created a personal website which specifically criticizes the coverage of his person in wikipedia, contradicting and criticizing much of the published literature about him. And he appears to be personally participating in the talkpage discussion, arguing for inclusion of material from his website. I have tried to include his specific responses to some of the claims made in the literature and repeated in the article, but being a main contributor to the article I would like some outside eyes to see if what I am doing is reasonable from a BLP perspective.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Sangeeth Varghese

References are not mentioned properly and most of the content could not be verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.51.232.65 (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Dara Torres

The Dara Torres article is currently a Good Article candidate. The fourth paragraph of the last section (see Dara Torres#Personal life) mentions that a doctor with whom she previously worked was investigated for the illegal distribution of human growth hormone. No credible allegations of steroid, HGH or other performance-enhancing drug use were ever made against Torres during her long-lived competition swimming career. This strikes me as a relatively straight-forward attempt to forge an implied link between a BLP and an unproven illegal/unethical activity with no evidence. I propose to remove the paragraph in its entirety, and I would appreciate some extra eyes on this subject for objective, uninvolved opinions regarding the BLP issues. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you that this is problematic Dirtlawyer1, and should be removed from the article. It is an implication of guilt by association. Cullen Let's discuss it 03:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Cullen. Reactions from any other BLP/N regular participants? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed that this is an inappropriate and undue mention in a brief Misplaced Pages biography. The appearance of the connection, presented without context and based upon a single media reference (albeit a very high-quality one) suggests that it be left out, and the absence of any follow-up coverage on the matter further suggests that the implied connection does not exist. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for review, NorthBySouth. Based on BLP/N feedback, I have deleted the questionable paragraph here. If anyone wishes to comment further, and/or believes the questionable content should be restored, this thread will remain open until archived. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Sharon Lamb

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

Hello. I just noticed someone created a Misplaced Pages entry about me. I added the sentence about my PhD. I noticed that one of the references for the APA (2007) Sexualization of Girls Task Force Report has an erroneous author on it. Jeanne Blake is listed as the 7th author but she was not one of the authors. I removed her name under the section called "ARTICLES" but was unable to remove it in the section entitled "REFERENCES." Also, one of the co-authors is EILEEN (not Ellen) Zurbriggen, which I corrected under the section called "Articles" but should also be corrected in the references. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.161.4 (talk) 03:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Corrected. Thanks for drawing our attention to this. Usually the talkpage of the article would be the best place for this kind of minor concerns. Here we mostly deal with problems where biographies of living persons are biased in favor or against the subject and need attention to become objective.Nonetheless, many thanks for correcting these mistakes.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Jian Ghomeshi

Canadian TV personality Jian Ghomeshi has recently been arrested, charged and bailed in relation to the accusations which have previously caused problems. See also the recently deleted Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jian Ghomeshi alleged sexual abuse scandal. The main issues are the extent of the section on recent issues; whether coverage should be limited to there or be mentioned in pretty much every other section; and the relevance media-reports rehashing details from what might (or might not) have been a stand-up comedy style event. It doesn't help that the publisher of many of the news reports (the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) is not independent, having been his employer during some of the time when the alleged actions happened. More eyes wasted please. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:33, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks like a severe case of recentism. Metamagician3000 (talk) 07:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Justin Berfield

User:Mrmoustache14 keeps adding "Category:LGBT Jews" and "Category:LGBT male actors" tags to the Justin Berfield page even though there are no sources presented in the article to identify the subject as gay. As a justification for the tags, Mrmoustache14 offered the following explanation at Talk:Justin Berfield#Keep the LGBT Tags "It's known that Just Berfeild has been in a relationship with his business partner Jason Felts. Although I'm not sure if they're still together, the fact they ever were makes Berfeild LGBT. Even if he's had a girlfriend, he could be bi, but isn't straight". Obviously, that's not anywhere good enough justification, in terms of both WP:V and WP:BLP. The addition of tags was originally reverted by an IP, then Mrmoustache14 re-added the tags, and I have removed them again. I left comments explaining my revert both at Talk:Justin Berfield#Keep the LGBT Tags and at User talk:Mrmoustache14 Since I am basically almost completely retired, it'd be good if somebody else keeps an eye on the page and also comments at Talk:Justin Berfield#Keep the LGBT Tags regarding this issue. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 11:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Categorization as such requires self-identification. Been settled a long time. such categories should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's sexual orientation is relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources. Collect (talk) 15:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Malky Mackay

User:Amusedkid is adding defamatory (and poorly sourced) content to this article. The subject is currently undergoing an investigation by the sport's national governing body (the FA), but has not been convicted of anything. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

List of British mobsters

List of British mobsters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An entirely unsourced list of "organized crime figures within the underworld of the United Kingdom", including redlinks, and at least one apparent blue link which actually redirects back to the list. Can anyone give me a legitimate reason not to preemptively blank the lot per WP:BLP policy, until such time as it is properly sourced? I can't think of one... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Redlinks should be removed, but what was the result of the semi-recent similar RFC about lists and sourcing where the individual articles were sufficiently sourced? (I can't remember the specific topic of the list in question, but it was in the past month or two and was a bigish kerfuffle) Gaijin42 (talk) 03:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

If the RfC came to any conclusions (I can't find it either) it doesn't seem to have resulted in any change in policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump It was the porn list issue mentioned below I was thinking of, but I couldn't remember the exact topic. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd say to remove any link, red or blue, except where there is an article that identifies the subject as a "mobster" with unquestionable sources. Note that "mobster" is arguably not the same thing as "criminal". Lankiveil 10:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC).

Removed the lot. If someone adds even a single name, it must have absolutely reliable strong sourcing. In fact, I would suggest the "List of mobsters"-type articles should all be Hoovered of any names where the sourcing is peccable. Collect (talk) 15:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The list has been nominated for deletion: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of British mobsters (2nd nomination). AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually the Rfc, resulting from a discussion as to whether porn star lists needed to be BLP compliant, did result in a slight policy change, makoing it clearer than ever that lists need to be BLP compliant. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 18:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that there was a more recent discussion of the subject somewhere or other. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately a single user is not merely restoring BLP violating material here but threatening to treat those who remove such BLP violations as vandals. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Please note that the majority of these people are dead, therefore WP:BLP does not apply. Amongst those that are not dead there appear to be sufficient references to demonstrate involvement in criminal gangs. Therefore I do not consider the mass removal of all items on the list justified by BLP - if anything task should be taken with the linked articles if SqueakBox believes they contain errors. Artw (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

If there are references, the article needs referencing, per policy, regardless of whether the people are alive or not. We do not cite Misplaced Pages articles as sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The references can be copied from the linked articles to the list if required, however that seems like an unnecessary duplication and not something I've seen in other list articles. Artw (talk) 21:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

You are basing your claim that it is unnecessary on the assumption that we only have articles about British mobsters on wikipedia. Because otherwise I fail to see how an article merely existing can be used as evidence that someone is a British mobster. Hence we need source they are mobsters and that they are British, and in the list article. If you are finding lists that arent compliant you might help fix that but RESTORING BLP violating material is never acceptable. Because the reality is that the list you restored does contain living ppl and does not contain a single reference, therefore you are being dishonest in claiming these references exist. Where are they? ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

In case it is unclear the linked articles are all about UK gangsters and the references in those articles predominantly discuss gangster activity in the UK. 22:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

(ec)Inclusion in a list requires evidence that the material in question meets the criteria for inclusion. That requires citation. Though since the list concerned gave no objective criteria anyway, it was clearly WP:OR, and shouldn't have existed in the first place. And yes, I am well aware that crappy unsourced lists can be found elsewhere on Misplaced Pages. Perhaps it is time that those who compiled such material actually took the time to ensure that they complied with policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and placed a Courtesy blanked template on the page, which should remain until the issue is decided both here and at the AfD. Safiel (talk) 22:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems highly unconventional to block improvement of an article under AfD, especially when there is a claim that including references from the linked articles would allow them to be included. Also you have not addressed the bulk of these people are not living (see here ]) - what is the argument for not putting them in a list? Artw (talk) 22:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

What are the criteria for inclusion on the list? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

"List of British Mobsters"? Artw (talk) 23:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

So, no actual criteria, just anyone a contributor thinks fits the description? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

They are all British and described as gangsters in their respective articles. I'm pretty sure you could argue about the usefulness of such a list at AFD, but I see no WP:BLP reasons for not including the likes of the Kray Twins on such a list. Artw (talk) 23:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree, Artw, that it is very sad the article is currrently blanked as now is the perfect opportunity to improve it. But it is entirely your fault as you kept restoring BLP violations and even went as far as to say that removing these BLP violations is vandalism. They arent actually all described as mobsters in their wikipedia articles, the first three I checked didnt use the word mobster. But how are we supposed to verify your claim that the articles mention that these ppl are British and mobsters? With reliable sources, but that is what you have failed to add, there is not even one reliable source in the article as it was. And you didnt just restore the dead ppl such as the Kray twins so dont please start making claims about them to justify your BLP violations. You have made no attemopt to prove your assertion that the original articles source what you claim they source as if you did you could have copied and pasted the alleged sources. And given that I was getting 0 out of 3 checking for mobsters I am dubious of your unproven claim. That means your BLP additions have been challenged and it was unacceptable of you to revert that challenge without citing, let alone twice. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Per my edit summary all restored items were either people or people whose articles have references showing them to be British gangsters. The claim that no rationale was given for restoring them to the list is untrue - in fact you'll notice a few that did not meet those criterea were dropped from the list. Artw (talk) 23:39, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

You are wrong here. How can you claim this. The article did not even have a reference template. This was the page as of yesterday, as we can al see without a single referenced entry. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 01:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

As you will note, SqueakBox plays this little game where they refuse to click on any link within the article. Artw (talk) 04:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The refs must be in the article. I have had this argument before and the conclusion was to tighten up the BLP policy to make it 100% clear that lists needs citing in themselves. That is the policy. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

please point me at the relevant text. Artw (talk) 00:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

"try searching "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates" on the page. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 01:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe I've ever seen a ref on a navigation page or a template. Surely this just means that WP:V must be met by the target of the link? Artw (talk) 16:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

It's clear that some material was being removed over-and-above BLP reasons and in a way that is clearly discouraged in AFD policy. Source-defined career criminals who have been dead for decades were removed, as well as basic navigational categories for the article. If the material is not sourced in the respective articles, they should be removed, but that doesn't translate to effacing all study of past criminal history in a society, as sourced by reliable historical texts. Are people actually suggesting that there have been no proven cases of a British person involved in organized crime? __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Bill Fawcett (writer)

Dear Sirs,

The entry for Bill Fawcett writer is consistently being changed back to information about me that is incorrect, professional damaging (claiming things I did not do) and potentially might open me to legal action. Virtually every line in he material constantly being posted again and again under career is wrong. I have just attempted again to simply put in a placer holder.

I have attempted several times to remove or revise the information entering both long and short revisions, only to have the fallacious entry reappear a few days, or even hours, later. Your staff member (do not want to post the name, contact me for it if needed) and I have corresponded since early November about this concern. When it was revised accurately, he gave the impression the problem was solved, only to have the incorrect entries appear and reappear several times since replacing the inaccurate and damaging material. He recently no longer is responding to my emails. I spoke to the source referenced for the material and the owner of Crescent City agreed it was incorrect. (I can put you in contact if needed.) In light of the several weeks of being unable to remove the damaging material I ask that you simply remove any entry on me. I formally request this for European access, if that even applies and is needed. I commend your work and its many volunteers, but am being damaged by it and seem unable to get corrections made. Again, please remove the inaccurate and legally questionable material (the entire career sections when changed back) or just delete the entry completely to stop doing me professional and financial harm.

Thank you,

Bill Fawcett

Here is my official bio:

Feel free to source my bio on the Dragoncon.org website or use any or all of the below if you are unwilling to simply delete any entry for me and leave it gone. After writing for Dragon Magazine Bill was one of the founders of Mayfair Games, a board and role play gaming company. As an author Bill has written or co-authored over a dozen books and dozens of articles and short stories. Bill Fawcett & Associates has packaged over 300 books for major publishers. These include a number of bestselling Science Fiction, Mystery, and Action novels. The Fleet series he created with David Drake was the first military science fiction shared world series. Bill has collaborated on several mystery novels including with Quinn Yarbro including the Authorized Mycroft Holmes novels and the Madame Vernet Investigates series. He has also written Oval Office Oddities. His other solo collections include The 100 Mistakes that Changed History and Trust Me, 100 Leadership Mistakes that Changed History. As an anthologist Bill has edited or co-edited around 40 anthologies. Bill is the editor of Hunters and Shooters and The Teams, two oral histories of the SEALs in Vietnam. His historical "Mistakes" series of often amused look at how the mistakes in history changed our lives include It Seemed Like a good Idea, It Looked Good On Paper and You Did What. A military mistakes series include How To Lose A Battle,, How To Lose a War, How To Lose WWII, How To Lose a War at Sea, and How To Lose the American Civil War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bouru (talk • contribs) 19:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Bouru: Well... we can make small tweaks with a WP:PRIMARY source but not huge ones. The main thing I saw was that you were removing a history section, but I don't see anything about it that would be overwhelmingly harmful to you as a professional. Sometimes Misplaced Pages articles can contain information that someone may not want in their article, but if those things happened and received enough coverage to merit inclusion, they should be added. We can't really edit an article to only include the positive things or to only include things in an official bio if anything negative or embarrassing gained a substantial amount of coverage. (Plus us only including things in an official biography does come across a bit like WP:OWNERSHIP of the article, among other things.) That's just not how Misplaced Pages works. I do see where someone just redirected it to the main article for your pseudonym, which was what my main suggestion was going to be. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• We also cannot just ask someone if this is true or not- we'd still need coverage in reliable sources to back this sort of thing up and not word of mouth. I remember one instance where an author held an interview with a newspaper just to fix things in an article. I can't remember the author, but he was someone fairly well known in the literary world and it kind of just goes to show how difficult it is to disprove something or to fix something without an independent and reliable source. Word of mouth just simply isn't enough. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

We should just AfD this. Its only references are PW book summaries, one fleeting reference in the LA Times and the author's official bio on the Macmillan website. Doesn't really meet the criteria for WP:AUTHOR and, if it's inaccurate, would be better to just recycle the whole article. BlueSalix (talk) 18:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Update - I just AfD'ed this. BlueSalix (talk) 18:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Juan Vicente Torrealba

Juan Vicente Torrealba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article has very few watchers. A rather green editor who appears to be a big fan is adding a lot of material to the article that is poorly sourced. Initially, he didn't source it at all. Now, most of it is sourced to the subject's own website. I'm not getting anywhere with him (he just left me an angry post on my talk page). Perhaps someone could take a look at it. It probably can be made to into a reasonable article, although secondary sources may be hard to find.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I took a look at the page to see what I could improve/fix. Someone beat me to it and removed the information supported by poor sources. The page is now on my watch list. Meatsgains (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

List of beneficiaries of immigration/nationality-related United States Private Bills/Laws

Can we get some eyes on this? It's a list of non-notable, non-articled people completely referenced to primary government documents. Many of the child immigration cases are from the sixties and seventies but some are from 2000s, clearly about children, and who would still be children today. All of the cases involve subjects within the time limits of BLPs.__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Horrid. Unless the person is notable, they have no business being listed in a Misplaced Pages article. Period. Collect (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Pruned of all non-notable persons AFAICT. Collect (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Someone re-added non-notable persons. Re-pruned. Collect (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Concern re sources

The vast preponderance of refs given are gpo.gov documents, and not to any secondary source at all. Is (typical example) a valid secondary source per WP:RS and WP:BLP? Thanks. Collect (talk) 13:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not a secondary source by any stretch of the imagination. Lankiveil 22:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC).

LeGarrette Blount

• LeGarrette Blount (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Several of the references are used inappropriately to cite falsely. For ex. under early life and high school career, the link about him having a brother and a sister with whom he smokes blunts connects to a page that only mentions the siblings - nothing about smoking, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macattack415 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

That was recently added vandalism. I've removed it. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Jonah Falcon - AfD

This article is up for deletion Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jonah Falcon (2nd nomination). In the first AfD, the subject himself commented that he was about to receive major press for a screen play he had written circa 2008. This apparently did not happen as the majority of his acting resume in uncredited roles meaning he was an extra or had other lesser parts. The Afd had a non-admin close when the nominator withdrew. Now we have a second AfD with currently a single Delete (myself) and a single Keep vote with discussion. Additional input would be appreciated. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 03:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

emily Carey

• Emily Carey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The information on Emily Carey for Siblings is incorrect. Emily does not have siblings. I also object to her DOB being shown. She is an 11 year old child. I cannot see how to change this information or where it has sprung from or who has added this. I am Emily's mother. I need some help here please. Urgently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.65.124 (talk) 08:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a birthdate or siblings in that article. Puzzling... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The user is no doubt seeing it on google search which provides both bits of information and a link to wikipeida --_nonsense ferret 15:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Andy Puddicombe

Wiki article was professionally edited by marketing person. Complete article sounds like an advertisement for him and his platform. Entire article was created on March 19th and references same articles over and over. Please consider revising to not make it sound like a complete free advertisement on Misplaced Pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.111.25.85 (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Birth dates

Admin Bbb23 kindly suggested this would be a good forum to discuss birth dates of notable subject's children when the subjects themselves release press releases and official statements. He said it was alright to link to the background discussion at User talk:Bbb23#Tom Hanks.

In a nutshell: WP:DOB says nothing to prohibit this generally basic piece of biographical information. Obviously, if the parents do not make an announcement, like Christian Bale, they want it private, and under WP:VERIFY and WP:BLP, we certainly would not cite anonymous, unattributed purported "sources" at People, etc.

In the cases of parents actively releasing birth announcements to the media, there is clearly no objection on their part; when they issue a press release or a publicist's statement themselves, it becomes public knowledge at their own insistence. I think anyone looking up Kim Kardashian's life, for instance, expects to know when North West was born. Does any of this need to be addressed in the policy? Does the policy need clarification, or does it say what it needs to?--Tenebrae (talk) 02:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I see absolutely no reason why the exact birth date of a non-notable child of an article subject makes for good encyclopedic content or is a piece of information that helps the reader better understand the article subject. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution