Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:55, 21 June 2012

• 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

Joe Paterno / Mike McQueary / Penn State sex abuse scandal

 Resolved: Page no longer contains BLP-Violating material.

I am a volunteer mediator at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard. During a recent mediation I recently became aware of an ongoing pattern of BLP violations going on at Joe Paterno. See here and here for details. This involves the Penn State sex abuse scandal. The main BLP violation is continued unsourced accusations in Misplaced Pages's voice that assistant coach Mike McQueary failed to report the abuse to the police.

Another possible BLP violation (I am less sure of this one) involves head coach Joe Paterno. He is also accused in Misplaced Pages's voice of failing to report the abuse to the state police without qualifying the accusation with the fact that he did report it to the head of the University police. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

IMHO, "Paterno claims" still fall under BLP as they definitely impact living people - and any claims which can have balancing additions should include the balance, no matter what the article is about. You are on solid ground. Collect (talk) 12:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I am removing the material per WP:BLPREMOVE. BLP-violating editors are edit warring, but no action is required on that. If they keep it up they will reach 4RR. (Per WP:NOT3RR, edits that remove unsourced contentious material that violates WP:BLP are not counted as reverts for the purposes of WP:3RR.) See Talk:Joe Paterno#WP:BLP Violation and User talk:Guy Macon#DRN Paterno - McQueary. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

What you failed to say in this thread is that there were 5 citations. It was cited and as such not a BLP violation as you continue to assert. As such, I plan on making a report to ANI when i get home for continuous misrepresentation of BLP and misuse of warning templates.JOJ 20:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no citation for the claim -- in Misplaced Pages's voice -- that Mike McQueary failed to call the police. What we have citations for are:

McQueary claims to have talked to police.

Campus and borough police say they have no record of that.

The grand jury that charged the other two with failure to report found McQueary's testimony to credible and did not charge him withfailure to report.

I invited the editors who kept re-inserting the accusation in Misplaced Pages's voice to report at least A and B above, but they declined and insisted on retaining a clear BLP violation. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Guy-Macon, it does appear that you are misusing the BLP passage about removing unsourced negative information to justify removal of sourced negative information. I suggest that you reconsider. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

You have a valid point. Another editor who felt the same way has edited the page to re-insert one of the names and I told him on the talk page that I strongly approved. I consider this to be WP:BRD at work - keeping out the BLP violation while undoing what I now agree was me cutting too much. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Now what should we do about your misuse of warning templates and your inappropriate removal of talk page comments?--JOJ 23:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

What "we" can do is to encourage you to post your complaints in an appropriate forum instead of posting material having nothing to do with BLPs on the BLP noticeboard (one would think that after 30,000 edits you would have figured out where to post a complaint), inform you that you were properly warned for your violation of WP:BLP, and Apologize for the accidental deletion that I made at 20:52 and immediately attempted to revert, only to discover that a sharp-eyed editor had undone my error at 20:55. I apologize for delaying your post by three minutes. I assure you that it was not intentional and that it won't happen again. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Accidental? Now I've heard everything. You left a detailed edit summery. That's no accident, its disruptive. What you need to do is stop acting like everyone is doing something wrong but you. Noone agreed with you on those edits. You deliberately lied on this thread about the reliable sources, and your "warnings" were nothing more than using talk page warnings to win a revert war, since there was never a violation of BLP, since there were 5 reliable sources. Your edit summaries were telling as well. From your first edit, it was obvious that you were intending to edit war as much as you wanted to by attempting to "remind" other editors that reverting BLP is exempt from 3RR, despite the fact that there was no BLP violation. You were even "keeping score" and . All signs of a tendentious editor.--JOJ 03:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF while I WP:IAD.

Re: your claim that "there were 5 reliable sources" (the only part of the above that belongs here) are you claiming that five reliable sources support the claim that Mike McQueary failed to call the police (the specific BLP-violating edit you were warned for)? Evidence, please. Please quote the exact wording where even one of those sources supports that claim. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I have not looked at the sources in question here, but I do want to comment on what Nomoskedasticity said above. If what Guy Macon says is correct — and I'm not saying that it is or is not — then the sources stop just short of what is being specifically asserted in the article. WP:BLPREMOVE does not merely prohibit unsourced contentious allegations about living persons, it says "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards." (Emphasis added.) If Guy's analysis is correct, his position on this is in no way a misuse of WP policy. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I want to add that although I have not looked at everything Guy and others said in this overly contentious discussion, most of what I saw supported Guy's views. The sourcing for the material in the Paterno article was non-existent last time I checked. Sticking in a source that doesn't support the assertion doesn't make the assertion sourced. My favorite argument in favor of including the negative material was it was sourced elsewhere in the article, although it was never clear where that was. A whole lot of WP:SYNTHESIS and misrepresentations going on.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The statement in the article was that no one on the staff contacted police. Apparently McQuery is the subject that was "allegedly" the under the BLP violation because, according to Guy, none of the sources supported the statement that he did not contact police. But this article was one of the sources, and although McQuery "says" he contacted police, it clearly says they according to police, McQuery did not contact them. So therefore not BLP as it was sourced.--JOJ 11:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

"According to the police, he didn't contact them" is not a source for "he didn't contact the police", since in this case whether the word of the police is accurate is disputed. Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

And exactly where in the source, does it say that what the police said is disputed? Sounds like your version of original research. The passage, as it was written, had a source backing up the claim that at least McQueary did not contact police.--JOJ 23:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Jojhutton that the souce does say he didn't contact the police, although any material would have to be carefully worded and include McQueary's statement that he did contact the police (also in source) - maybe that's what Ken means by "disputed"? That said, why would we want to include what McQueary didn't do in an article about Paterno?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that McQueary was the subject of Guy's alleged BLP violation until after the reverts. The sentence only said "none of these officials". His assertions always had been that it wasn't sourced, which was never true. There were sources. He also asserted that it was a BLP violation, which if sourced, is of course not a BLP violation. That did not stop him from unilaterally adding warnings to user talk pages to anyone who disagreed that it was a BLP violation, which of course its not, because it was and still is sourced. It was for these incorrect assertions and his tendentious attitude that I really got involved. I never said that I owned the article, like he has uncivilly accused me of. That said, the section is too long and drawn out as it is now. It should really be cut down and most of it sent to the sub article on the scandal.--JOJ 01:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The above is inaccurate to the point that it borders on fabrication. On several occasions I have asked Jojhutton to quote these alleged sources that only he can see and nobody else can find. For example, earlier in this thread I asked this:

"Re: your claim that "there were 5 reliable sources" (the only part of the above that belongs here) are you claiming that five reliable sources support the claim that Mike McQueary failed to call the police (the specific BLP-violating edit you were warned for)? Evidence, please. Please quote the exact wording where even one of those sources supports that claim."

Jojhutton has failed to quote the exact wording where any of those sources supports that claim. He has a source that would support the article saying "According to the police, he didn't contact them", but there is no source that supports the article saying "he didn't contact the police" in Misplaced Pages's voice as if it were an established and undisputed fact. He just keeps repeating his assertion without actually providing any evidence backing it up. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with Guy's analysis above, but would not be to harsh on Jojhutton because this seems to be a case of slight wording difference, but with big differences in meaning, if that makes sense. --Mollskman (talk) 01:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Neither campus nor borough police received reports from McQueary about an alleged sexual assault in 2002, the departments said Wednesday.

State College Police Chief Tom King said McQueary didn’t make a report to his department. Penn State spokeswoman Annemarie Mountz said campus police also didn’t have any record of a report filed in 2002 by McQueary.

Guy is alleging that adding "none of these officials contacted police" is not enough to support that McQueary didn't contact police and is enough to receive a BLP warning. I guess anything negative, even if cited, is enough for some people to see a BLP problem. It's even sadder when it also says in the McQueary article that he did not contact police. The sources say he did not contact police. There is no record of it. If he did contact police, the sources aren't saying so.--JOJ 02:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I have a related question about BLP policy. The disputed passage now says "Despite the gravity of allegations against Sandusky, Paterno did not notify state police", which is fully supported by the sources. However, there is now a string of citations (45 through 49) at the end of that sentence citation, some of which are unrelated to the text they are attached to.

Cite 45 ("Police official: Paterno didn't do enough to stop abuse") fully supports the statement is attached to.

Cite 46 ("JoePa: A look back at the sex abuse scandal") fully supports the statement is attached to.

Cite 47 ("Former Penn State coach Joe Paterno's full grand jury testimony on Jerry Sandusky sex-abuse case read into the record at hearing") does not actually say that Paterno did not call the police. It does say that he did the right thing by alerting his superiors, which sort of implies that he didn't alert the police, but we already have cites 45 and 46 directly saying that.

Cite 48 ("Penn State coach Paterno praised for acting appropriately in reporting Jerry Sandusky sex abuse suspicions") also does not actually say that Paterno did not call the police. Instead it has the Attorney General praising Paterno for doing the right thing by reporting it without specifying who he reported it to.

Cite 49 ("Questions mount about Mike McQueary's account of the locker room sexual assault") Does not mention Paterno except in passing ("scandal that cost Joe Paterno job").

Given the rather severe WP:OWNERSHIP shown by Jojhutton, I expect all hell breaking loose if I remove any of those cites. Is it worth it, or do orphan cites cause so little harm that the issue is best ignored? --Guy Macon (talk)

We shouldn't have sources that don't support the apposite material. It's misleading, and depending on what the sources say about other things, could be even more problematic.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, I removed three of the references and posted a detailed explanation on the article talk page. It should be interesting to see what kind of abuse I get this time. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Tara Palmer-Tomkinson BBC Profile - * BBC profile

This link is stated as Tara Palmer-Tomkinson's 'BBC Profile' but it simply leads you to an article (not a profile) that is nearly 10 years old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnaH82 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• So transform the bad citation into a proper one, using the {{cite web}} template and giving its date, author, and actual title. Uncle G (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Nikos Alefantos

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

Article contains very few sources and potentially defamatory material. This person isn't popular outside of a targeted niche in one country. Article generally misses sources and citations, because there are none to be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnF30 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Everything in the notability section should be cited. I could find no actual references to his publications, although this section says he's published them in two volumes. I did clean up the grammar in this section, but citations are badly needed Mdechris (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• I removed all the uncited - mostly personal BLP type content - (uncited dob and uncited nickname and opinionated claims - feel free to write new cited content to expand - thanks - Youreallycan 02:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Luka Magnotta

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

Some of the talk page may be against BLP. I put a big bold section at the top that may help. It is a long read. Warning: it deals with a recent murder investigation and is rather graphic in places. I haven't read the article much, but it seems okay.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I applied for protection of the talk page. That may help, as I feel my efforts did not.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Anton Z. Risan

• Anton Z. Risan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Dean Monroe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Liam Cole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Anton Z. Risan has already been deleted a couple of times and possibly will be again. It was recreated in October by User:Atelier-az-phootgraphy. The article currently contains the phrase "also known as Anton Dickson", sourced only to IMDB. What makes this less than a simple case is that User:Atelier-az-phootgraphy asked to be renamed to "antonZrisan". although they never completed the rename. A new account, User:AntonDickson has been adding material to the article, as well as related articles. I think this is a case of well-intentioned editing which violates our BLP and sourcing rules, but with a large dollop of COI. As all of the BLPs are gay porn performers, perhaps it is best if someone else deal with it. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• There's a smell of BLP spam here. I pruned Risan of unverified content, which left a list of his movies. Next up, the next one. Drmies (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • You may want to check that article again. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Death of Azaria Chamberlain

• The article is current news, as a coroner's court has recently found that baby Azaria, whose mother was gaoled for her murder was, in fact, taken by a dingo.
• The article had a hatnote giving a misquotation of what the infant's mother, Lindy Chamberlain, said when she found the baby missing.
• The quotation and various misquotations were in frequent use as ridicule and to victimise the mother of the deceased infant.
• The misquotation became the name of a fictitious band in "Buffy the Vampire Slayer". The naming of this band constituted a further victimisation of the deceased infant's mother.
• My assessment is that having this misquotation and a redirect to the band as a hatnote to the article, prolongs the victimization, and would cause offence to Lindy Chamberlain-Creighton, the baby's father Michael Chamberlain and brother Aiden Chamberlain.

I removed the hatnote. It was returned to the article. I have just removed it again, and considere that the matter of "Victimization' needs to be discussed before it is returned as a hatnote.

I do not suggest that the band should not be mentioned under the section on "media", but that to provide balance and not cause offence, it ought not be the first thing one confronts on coming to the article. Amandajm (talk) 05:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with Amandajm. Dolphin (t) 05:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
• Please comment on this at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 June 14#Dingoes Ate My Baby. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
• The fact that it is a misquote rather than an exact quote is irrelevant to the pejorative uses to which the quote was later put (and therefore, irrelevant to this discussion). The hatnote exists as part of the routine disambiguation of topics with related names (or as in this case, related inbound redirects). The hatnote is not part of the article. While it does appear at the top of the page, it is outside the normal flow of the article and is in a location and font that readers tend to ignore unless they are following a redirect and want to know why they landed where they did. I personally see nothing any more offensive or objectionable about that placement than the inclusion of the phrase in the "media" section lower down. I do not see a BLP issue here. If anything, the balanced presentation in the article and its discussion of the exoneration of the mother (and explicit repudiation of the pejoratives) would appear to be exactly the sort of thing that the BLP policy was meant to achieve. Rossami (talk) 23:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

  Response

  "While it does appear at the top of the page, it is outside the normal flow of the article and is in a location and font that readers tend to ignore unless they are following a redirect and want to know why they landed where they did."

  • I regard the above statement as whitewashing.

  The fact that the misquoted words of the distraught mother are in Italics and are the first thing that one sees after the heading, draws attention to them, rather than the other way around.

  • Secondly, Rossami has drawn on a technical argument: "the hatnote is not part of the article", in order to justify leaving at the top of the page (and inside the heading) something that represents the sort of victimization that these people suffered.

  It does matter that the living subject's words were used (accurately quoted or not) to taunt her.

  The fictitious band is so non-notable that it scarcely justifies this.

  Have some human decency!

  Amandajm (talk) 06:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

  The Hatnote is in "article space". But whether or not it "counts" as being "in" or "out" of the article proper is pretty irrelevent. BLP applies to ALL Misplaced Pages spaces: articles (both the article proper and any doodads around the article content), talk pages, user pages, etc. (A formerly very commonly used interal shortcut for WP:BOOMERANG was deleted and the entire essay purged and recreated without that reference based on BLP.) -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

  Are you referring to WP:Plaxico in your parenthetical? If so, that case is irrelevant. The WP:Plaxico redirect and essay were deleted (by a thin consensus) because they were an instance of Misplaced Pages creating and actively extending the pejorative use. We have no business doing that. We are allowed, however, to report on and in limited cases even to use the pejoratives made common by others. That's why, for example, there is no controversy about Dubya redirecting to George W. Bush and have an entire page of Bushisms such as misunderestimate. Rossami (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Certain alleged facts in the Liev Schreiber biography

As Liev's father, I would like to improve some of the information that pertains to me and my relationship with my son and his mother. I would like the phrase "commune" stricken from the description of our home in Canada. We were a nuclear family on a privately owned ten acre property. There is a slimey reference to my lifestyle as corrupted by practices of "free love". Not the case, in fact. Without going into details which might cast aspersions on Liev's mother, we were as a family dealing with issues of serious fear and paranoia. Unfounded charges were made. I'm aware that the New Yorker article did little to explore or diminish the falseness of those charges. When, in flight from a custody case she initiated in Canada, she removed him to New York, I was denied all access to him until his older brother, six years later phoned from New York and offered to arrange a visit if I could get to New York on a weekend when Liev would be in his brother's care. I was desperate to see him; I sold a heifer calf I was raising to keep the meeting. I subsequently, on the salary of a common high school teacher, paid tuition for both of Liev's private school high school years, all three of his undergraduate college years, the year of his training at RADA, and his three years of graduate school at Yale. It would help the record to understand that, unlike any of Liev's New York relatives, I loved theater, was a busy and committed actor at Dartmouth, and later in my twenty wonderful Canadian years helped start a theater department at the local community college and worked to create an actor training program. Also that I was twenty-six at Liev's birth, not twenty-two. I don't believe Liev ever wrestled; I did.

We have managed a somewhat strained relationship since. I admire his talent deeply, love him as well as he allows, and I'm able. I've seen all but three of his New York stage shows. He just paid me a profoundly appreciated visit with Naomi and Sasha and Kai in honor of my seventieth birthday. I'm immensely proud of him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.180.222 (talk • contribs)

I have trimmed away some of the text you indicated was problematic. To my taste, the biography makes far too much of the chaos in Liev's childhood. Binksternet (talk) 10:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Moved from wp:Requests_for_comment/Request_board (some issues appear to remain open, e.g., use of "commune") Coastside (talk) 07:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Ofei Sakyi

• Ofei Sakyi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ofei Sakyi (AfD discussion)

Hi....this entry feels more like a CV than an encyclopedic article. As a former employee of Activision I also know that the claim that he 'created' DJ Hero is completely false.

I love Misplaced Pages but articles such as this are not good for the site's integrity.

Many thanks

Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djtomoke (talk • contribs) 11:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• It was the same biography as already discussed at AFD, with the same problems described in the AFD discussion. I've speedily deleted it. Uncle G (talk) 17:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Arieh Warshel

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

I think I'm at 3R, and an editor persists in turning this article into a resume--the content they add praises the subject with reference only to the subject's articles, not to secondary sources. They also removed a BLP sources tag. Some attention would be appreciated. Drmies (talk) 17:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• It's not quite that simple. Look at what the article looked like before Barrozo.ah (talk · contribs) started editing it. Look at the trimming of 28KiB of content that Barrozo.ah started off with. And look at what that content was.

  The editor that really did add the look-at-all-the-journal-articles content was Officialwork (talk · contribs) back in November 2011.

  By the looks of things Barrozo.ah is trying to enact what was requested by the cleanup tag that stood at the top of all of those lists. Uncle G (talk) 17:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

  • It's also not much more complicated--that edit, in fact, drew my attention to the article and I made a quick edit to prevent someone from reverting that pruning. I was surprised, then, to see that the editor went on to not clean up the BLP--this addition is not an improvement. BTW, the article was tagged for COI. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Whatever the substantive issues are, the editor is edit-warring and will soon end up blocked. I've left a 3RR warning. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I've removed all unsourced material from the article. It's now fairly small.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated accusations of paid advocacy

I've found an editor who has, in at least three separate fora (including his userpage, edit summaries, etc) stated or strongly insinuated that certain living persons, journalists, or others are paid advocates or paid lobbyists for a cause. No evidence is provided, and the claims generally strike me as dubious. Is this a violation of the BLP policy? Is is borderline? Does it merit a warning to the user? I'm just wondering if I'm overreacting. Homunculus (duihua) 21:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

It's hard to comment without diffs. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

You may wish to email the user name to admin and have them look into it. Posting his name here may violate policies. Provide links to statements if you wish.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

As it happens the user is already facing scrutiny for his behavior in the associated namespace. Would you recommend sending the information to the admins already involved? Homunculus (duihua) 22:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

christian astu twasam

Christian Atsu Twasam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

i am the brother of Christian Atsu Twasam and the article on him is not up to date and he and I has decided to rewrite the article our self and publish it. We do not know the one who wrote this and want it removed. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treborina (talk • contribs) 00:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Provided you cite reliable sources for any new content, and do not remove content simply because you don't like it, you are free to edit the article yourself. You can start by editing what is already there. We don't delete articles in advance because someone is planning to put up a new version. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

nita talbot

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

nita talbot played sidna in the one of the 1958  ????? episodes of gunsmoke....she is listed in the credits with dabbs greer as jonas and florida friebus as mrs. meggs.....at first i thought she was peggy castle ..but not....remarkable resemblence ...please do her the honor of updating....... thanx gorjus george... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.214.146.246 (talk) 01:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Gerard Gallant

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

The wikipedia article on Gerard Gallant is potentially offensive to Gerard. Here is a web site with details http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2012/06/15/gerard-dont-call-me-turkey-gallant-joins-habs-as-assistant-coach/

The nickname shown in the article should be deleted as potentially offensive to the subject of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gallosforme (talk • contribs) 02:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the nickname as unsourced. Although I should note that if the nickname is verifiable and significant, it would likely be retained in the article even if Gallant doesn't like it. Conforming to BLP does not equate conforming to the subject's expectations. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Randy Quaid

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

Persistent long term addition of unsourced content, in violation of WP:BLP. IPs have been blocked for the moment, but I've requested page protection as well. Might profit from more editors reading through and copy editing. 99.156.68.118 (talk) 04:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

New sock is at it...still waiting for page protection from persistent vandalism.... 99.156.68.118 (talk) 17:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Elockid . 99.156.68.118 (talk) 17:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Enrique Peña Nieto

Enrique Peña Nieto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am concerned about the Biography of Enrique Peña Nieto since it has become more of an attack to a living person, there is a Gaffe section on this biography and there is also a section named Televisa Peña Nieto allegations that is taken from material o sources that have not been confirmed on the authenticity of the source documents. I have removed the Gaffe section and also the Televisa Peña Nieto allegations sections but they have been restored. I think the Gaffe section should be moved to the allready polemized Political gaffe article. I would like someone to look into this bio since under my point of view certain sections do violate Misplaced Pages BLP policy. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergiozaragoza (talk • contribs) 12:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

There isn't a shadow of an attack on this page, or any BLP problems that I can see. Peña Nieto is a presidential candidate and like all presidential candidates has received a lot of press both negative and positive. He has recently been the focus of attention by a series of protests. Looking at other biographies of presidential it is obvious that all presidential candidate article should include the entire scope of press coverage - not just the positively angled stories.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Citing emails from an RS which lacks any indication that the authors of those emails gave permission for their publication

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The bride is beautiful, but she is married to another man (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

At The bride is beautiful but she is married to another man, an article proposed for deletion here because it is based on a single source, the article in question cites several times emails from Anthony Pagden, Ghada Karmi and Avi Shlaim. There is no indication as far as I can see that the author of the article has, in the notes or elsewhere, registered that he has had permission to do this. Since the article is a polemic that takes these three scholars harshly to task by citing their private correspondence, what is the position of WP:BLP regarding this?Nishidani (talk) 13:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The article refers to the three people you mention, but I don't see any reference to e-mail.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

There are two references in the article that, in the original are cited as the content of private emails:

• (1)'When asked by Afsai for the source of the atory and text of the cable, Shlaim responded that he found it in...'

The source tells us that Shlaim's response was in a private email.

• (2)'When queried by Afsai, Karmi responded that "The story's origins has caused me problems. I got the citation from Avi Shlaim at Oxford, who gave me a reference for it, which turned out not to be correct. I then searched hard for the source and have come up with a blank. I fear it might be apocryphal, much as I had not wanted that.'
• This is a verbatim quote from Karmi's private email as cited by our article. We have a wiki article citing private correspondence, for which we have no evidence that permission for publication was ever given, in short. Nishidani (talk) 19:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

So, anyone? Can private emails used in a published source that lacks explicit evidence of permission for their publication, be reproduced in our articles? I mean this should be a straightforward legal issue, for which a wiki law expert should have the answer. Nishidani (talk) 20:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm still having trouble following you, but if you're saying that Afsai's book makes it clear that he's quoting e-mail, I don't have access to the book - so I'll just accept your word for it. The issue of whether Afsai has "permission" from the e-mail authors is rarely of concern to Misplaced Pages. The issue is generally only whether the source is deemed reliable and the material is otherwise policy-compliant. The legal issues surrounding what Afsai's written in his book are his problem and perhaps his publisher's. There might be some exceptions to my statement about Misplaced Pages's role in this, but I don't see one present in these circumstances.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Our article quotes a private email from Ghada Karmi verbatim. I'm not concerned with Afsai's article. I'm asking whether a private email cited in a source (the source fails to acknowledge legal permission to publish it) can be reproduced on wikipedia without running any legal risk.Nishidani (talk) 12:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Stephen Hinchliffe

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

I wrote Stephen Hinchliffe in January about a businessman who built a retail empire rapidly in the 1990s in the UK but was then failed for fraud. Recently in April, User:Sparer made a host of unverifiable edits, and was reverted. Another account, User:Hinchy0, has made similar edits this month. None of the edits are supported by sources, they mainly appear to be supporting or excusing the article subject, and I can't verify them. I don't want to WP:OWN this article and I know we have to be careful when article subjects or those connected to them try to edit pages (as appears to be happening here), so I thought I would bring it here for extra eyes and advice. Fences&Windows 13:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• It's one edit that touches on a lot of details, unfortunately. However, checking just two out in detail I found that the single-purpose-accounts' versions don't match what's in the newspaper articles cited. One: The claim of being bought out by Cameron Mackintosh (which the other editors aren't even spelling correctly) doesn't match the detailed figures given in the cited Herald article, which place the amount from Cameron Mackintosh as less than 10% of the total. Two: Whilst the timeline is somewhat confusing, there seems to be a disconnect between the editors' claims of serving only four months of a 15 month sentence starting in the summer of 2003, and the May 2005 newspaper report saying that the person "left jail" then.

  The "used-car" appellation comes from an anonymous quotation by a "local businessman" in the source, by the way, and its accuracy is somewhat suspect. After all, the source is talking about the lack of respect that people had for the subject, which would fit with the use of "used-car dealer". It may be that the single-purpose accounts are right, there. But, conversely, not being able to get the name Cameron Mackintosh right does make one wonder what else the single-purpose accounts aren't getting right in those edits, unfortunately.

  You seem to have used one newspaper a lot. Have you tried double-checking things like the "used car" item against reports in other, independent, newspapers, just to be sure? Belt and braces for Fences and Windows, as it were.

  Uncle G (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Yes, the claim that the purchase of Kloydart was by Cameron Mackintosh was faulty - he was only one of several who helped fund the community buyout, and did not buy if for himself. Most of the other edits were of a similar nature or otherwise unverifiable. The jail timings were also different from what I can find in sources, but then newspapers can often get details like release dates wrong. You're right that most of the coverage is from The Independent - they seem to have taken a particular interest in Facia Group from the start and the articles are still easily accessible. I think that anything of importance can be verified by other sources but when I have some time I'll try to double source everything and double check all the facts and dates. I removed the "used" from "used car" - it's what the source said, but you're right that it can be seen as a negative label. I'd welcome others taking a look too. Fences&Windows 20:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
• Some more details:
  • Cope 1996 says 8500 people and 1000 shops, one of the things that the single-purpose-accounts are claiming. There seems to be a lot of variation on these figures.
  • Stevenson 1994 talks about convertible preference shares, another of the things that the single-purpose-accounts are claiming.
• Uncle G (talk) 09:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Cope, Nigel (1996-05-18). "Hinchliffe faces DTI court battle". The Independent. {{cite news}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  • Stevenson, Tome (1994-10-27). "Sock Shop steps into Hinchliffe empire". The Independent. {{cite news}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  • Bowers, Simon (2003-04-03). "I siphoned off £1m, Facia boss tells judge". The Guardian. {{cite news}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)

Jarred Land

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

Would appreciate further input on this article, which appears to be connected to Bambi Magazine, where I've already been involved at AFD. A lot of the references aren't acceptable, and I'm on the fence as to notability, which is not much strengthened through Google search . My take is that both articles are heavy on COI, and light on sources. Observations from objective editors on the Land article sought. Thanks, 99.156.68.118 (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Brett Kimberlin

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

Previous BLPN discussion

This article has lots of problems, but the current bone of contention is the following material:

"In 1999 he brought forward a lawsuit against Senator Orrin Hatch. The case was dismissed in DC's District Court."

It's sourced to this and this. The sentence follows on the heels of these two sentences:

"Kimberlin, the son of a lawyer, has been involved in extensive litigation over the years. By 1992, he had already filed over 100 motions and lawsuits in federal courts on his own behalf."

The article Talk page has at least two sections discussing the material. I don't think there's any consensus, but there's a lot of arguments made by a lot of editors. My objections are:

1. The material isn't noteworthy. Why pick this particular lawsuit? It appears to be simply because the defendant is a senator. So what? Officials are sued by prisoners all the time, and it's no big deal. It hasn't received significant coverage to be included.
2. It isn't well-sourced. The Washington Times source is a blog entry by a political editor and, although there are convoluted arguments as to its reliability, it's probably safe to admit it's at least not of any great quality as a politicized opinion piece. The other source is empty for me, but I vaguely recollect at one time there was a citation to the actual judicial opinion dismissing the suit (primary source).
3. It's not the most neutral of material. The entire article is more or less an attack piece, so it's kind of hard to argue that this particular material is non-neutral, but I think the idea is to pick a suit he filed that was dismissed, meaning it had no merit.
4. Stepping back, I'm not even sure why the first two sentences are there as they provide no apparent context for their relevance to anything. Why are we reporting that he's filed lots of lawsuits? We would need some coverage to show what that means. Otherwise, it kind of hangs out there as indicting him for being litigious.

It would be nice to see some more opinions expressed on the Talk page, maybe even something that coherently sets forth the arguments for and against. At the moment, it's more heat than light. I've given up as I feel as if I'm going in circles repeatedly answering why I'm against inclusion of the material.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Ghazal Omid

Here, we have an article subject (article) who's too notable for WP:BIODELETE as established by two AfDs. For a while, Qwyrxian was trying to help her, and more recently I've taken over giving some assistance. She doesn't have a problem with Misplaced Pages per se, but rather has some issues with the way some of her article is written. Some of it (people mistakenly writing Arabian Gulf for Persian Gulf, which apparently causes great consternation among Iranians like herself) is easy enough to fix, but there are other problems that I can't address. See the last section on her talkpage for my attempts at discussion with her (and if you read anything above it, your eyes will bleed out of your sockets). I especially need help from someone who has access to either a Kindle or some other e-reader, for reasons that will be obvious when you look at that discussion (I don't, I still like reading long prose on paper when possible) and/or someone who has a basic understanding of Shi'a Islam, but any help would be greatly appreciated. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Nurit Peled-Elhanan

Nurit Peled-Elhanan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nurit Peled-Elhanan is an Israeli academic. There is a discussion about whether a description that is being applied to the subject in the lead of the article is consistent with WP:BLP requirements. I think some input would be helpful. Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I've commented in some detail on the Talk page. Essentially, I don't think either lead is acceptable. A third alternative would far better comply with our guidelines.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Gregory Clark

== japanese edition of Misplaced Pages. False information ==

In Japanese language Misplaced Pages material about my views on Japanese foreign policies have been taken from a notorious rightwing source seeking to damage my reputation in Japan. How can I have this corrected?

Gregory Clark c l a r k i n j a p a n @ g-m-a-i-l . c-o-m

• I moved the above message from the Requests for comment Request board. The user didn't provide an account signature, but the history log for this change was:
  • (05:42, 15 January 2012‎ 119.245.58.209 (talk)‎ . . (49,799 bytes) (+304)‎ . . (→‎japanese edition of Misplaced Pages. False information: new section) (undo) (Tag: adding email address)
• Coastside (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • All the references in the Japanese article as it stands now are from Clark's own website, save for one from the NYTs. That's all I checked, as it's late here.Nishidani (talk) 22:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Are we looking at Gregory Clark (economist)/jp:グレゴリー・クラーク (経済史家)? There is a link to what looks like an error page. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
      • My educated guess is that the other Gregory Clark, ja:グレゴリー・クラーク, is the page in question. That is, after all, the one with the OTRS complaint and the edit war. Uncle G (talk) 09:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
        • The blog used on the old page your link leads to, and its insinuations, are no longer on the page. The complaint was resolved, by the looks of it, in May. G Clark is fluent in Japanese, to gather from his webpage, and therefore either has, or certainly can, directly intervene with admins on the Japanese wiki if what he disliked turns up again. By the way in the third link he writes:

'Maybe it is the very fact of our being democracies that allows our public opinion to be so subject to manipulation. True, being democracies also means we have access to sources such as Misplaced Pages, which give much more impartial accounts of Pyongyang's alleged evils, including the two recent allegedly aggressive attacks on South Korean forces in the disputed western sea frontier region (for an even better account go to japanfocus.org/-Tim-Beal/3665) But few bother with such sources. It is much easier to go along with the conventional and often contrived wisdom that says the other side is evil and our side is pure..'

That's quite a compliment to wiki editors of North Korean articles, and perhaps should be placed on the main talk page of North Korea, as is customary when a wiki article gets cited in the news. (cf.Shakespeare Authorship Question)Nishidani (talk) 09:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

John Laurinaitis

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

Seems like some poorly sourced and POV stuff going into the article, but it's hard to tell where exactly the trouble starts. Hello71 (talk) 03:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Russell Welch

A BLP article on someone named Russell Welch has been created, and the same editor has put some similar reportage into theCIA drug trafficking article. To me this material seems like an attempt to describe an obscure conspiracy theory as an undisputed fact. It would be nice if a few more editors would take a look at this. Sorry if this request is not appropriately formatted – I'm not familiar with the RFC practice here. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Moved from WP:RFC/BOARD Coastside (talk) 12:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I did find the reference to this, a book "White Out: The CIA, Drugs and the Press" and a NYTimes book review about Whiteout. The book review mentions a three part newspaper series on this topic in the San Jose Mercury News. Unless somehow it is shown that these references are not reliable sources, it seems appropriate to include the mention of this topic in the Welch article. Perhaps the statement that Welch "sounded the alarm" could be replaced by more neutral language, such as "investigated" or "discussed."Coaster92 (talk) 05:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Lori Wilde

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

I am the author Lori Wilde. My name is listed incorrectly on my wiki page. I am Laurie (NOT LAURA) Blalock (NOT Blabock) Vanzura (NOT Moeller). Could someone please help me correct this. Every time I try it says I don't have the proper citation. Do you need my birth certificate and marriage license? How do I get this wrong information revised so that it will STAY revised?

LAURIE BLALOCK VANZURA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.14.153.36 (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I just edited to 'Laurie Blalock' only. Do you have a bio site from a publisher or other reliable source?--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I found a citation for the full name and have added it to the article. --Slp1 (talk) 00:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

It looks like a vanity article. Most edits are by the author or anonymous IP from her home town. Best selling author is just a sales an marketing term. Is she notable in the WP sense? No wonder it was so hard to find any reference to her true identity.--Aspro (talk) 17:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I think she meets BLP:Notable, her books have been nominated for awards 4-6 times. Someone else can deal with any vanity issues. I just thought I would get the name correct. I wonder how Moeller ended up in there. I may go back in the history and check.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• I just found a third name added to another article by the same editor. Kelley Armstrong Fricke. The editor even made a re-direct using it. Her website and others don't mention Fricke though. Should we just remove the third name as no RS?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

George W. Bush judicial appointment controversies

George W. Bush judicial appointment controversies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

More than half of this article was suddenly excised on the basis that it is OR not based on reliable sources. I query whether such is the actual case, and think that since the article clearly falls under WP:BLP that the issues are properly raised here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

What BLP issues are at stake here, other than your canvassing for your POV? Hipocrite (talk) 00:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't bandy about the term WP:CANVASSING when its meaning here isn't supported. That said, I looked at two of the lists you removed, and although it's true you removed a lot of material, I didn't see any sourcing for the removed material, and the lists, frankly, looked pretty awful to me. So, Collect, perhaps you could clarify precisely what you think the problem is.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The Jewish issue (again)

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

User:Bbrezic added the following sentence at the end of the Career section: "Schwartz is Jewish." (). The sentence came right after a sentence that Schwartz was a member of an improv group. Bbrezic also added various Jewish categories to the article. I reverted, partly because it was jarring - came out of nowhere. It was sort of like, "I went to the beach today, and the waves were great. I'm Jewish." So, resourceful Bbrezic came back, added a personal section to the article with some background about Schwartz, where he was born, what his mother did, and where he went to college. And, you guessed it, at the end of that stuff: "He is Jewish." Categories back in.

Now I definitely think that's an improvement, but I still fail to see any relevance to the article. How is being Jewish important to him? How does it affect his career? Even something about his childhood and being Jewish, nothing. BTW, Bbrezic appears to have an interest in Jewish subjects, lists of Jewish actors, adding Jewish to articles + cats, etc. This can be gleaned from his contributions, of course.

I've left in the edit because I sort of promised to stay away from contentious discussions of these issues, but I thought BLPN could use some excitement, so I bring it here (rather than first raise it on the Talk page).

I figure either someone will comment or no one will comment. Seems like a fairly safe bet.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23, I agree that when folks "jam" people's Jewish ethnicity into an article it isn't the best and really isn't relevant, BUT, well written bios usually cover upbringing and religion and ethnicity, ect, even if it doesn't contribute to why they are notable or really all that relevant. Editors have had a "fascination" with Jewishness for pride reasons and also for anti-sematic reasons and you name it for years on this project. It seems, thankfully, that if enough non involved, level headed folks work on it, it does get "handled" in a neutral and non offensive and fair way, most of the time. --Mollskman (talk) 01:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, Mollskman, but I'm not demanding hardcore relevance, just a little context. For example, in the infamous Zuckerberg discussion, at least there was some context for talking about his Jewish upbringing, his later description of himself as an atheist, even if being Jewish (or atheist, for that matter) wasn't relevant to his notability as Facebook guy. With Schwartz, no relevance is established, not even any context, just, "He is Jewish." That's kind of lame, don't you think?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Here we go again. Infantile... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

@Bbb23, yes, I absolutely agree that I hate when I see ethnicity presented that way and it is lame. Just as it would be if it said, he is catholic or Italian or whatever, period without anything else for "context". Usually editors will talk about the subjects parents ethnicity or childhood upbringing or yadda yadda and it "flows" better, and it doesn't seem like its being "forced" into the article for possible "other" reasons, be they good or bad. --Mollskman (talk) 01:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump, I know this gets covered alot, probably too much, but I don't think Bbb23 and/or myself are being infantile or disrespectful or maybe I am reading you wrong? --Mollskman (talk) 01:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The obsession that some Misplaced Pages contributors have with tagging people as Jewish is infantile, plain and simple - and this particular example is just ridiculous. The article that describes Schwartz as Jewish, also says (repeatedly) that he is 'cute'. Per WP:NPOV etc, if we are going to cite the article for his ethnicity, shouldn't we cite it for his 'cuteness' too? At least the latter may have a bearing on his career... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for the clarification, I thought you were refering to Bbb23 or myself or both.. --Mollskman (talk) 01:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

There are a number of editors who appear to be obsessed with ethnicity. I've seen some BLP articles which list up to twelve ethnicities which "make up" the subject. What does it contribute to the article to state that a subject's mother (for example) has a French, Dutch, Russian, Swedish and Lebanese background and the father has a Jamaican, English, German, Native American, Jewish and Spanish background? In most cases this, and the attached citations, just serve to clutter up the article. If anyone tries to clean it up, they are often met with a ferocious response. May be a case of political correctness run amok (which is certainly not appropriate for an encyclopedia). Taroaldo (talk) 02:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Nothing to do with 'political correctness' as it was (allegedly) originally conceived by the left/liberal/progressives, nor with the 'political correctness gone mad' sloganising of the right - instead this is a much older obsession. 'The good guys are all one of us, and the bad guys are all one of them'. Kindergarten stuff. Like I said, infantile. Apart from anything else, it reduces 'Jewishness' to a mere label. A history going back (possibly) to the time of the Pharaohs? They don't care, as long as they can tag everyone they can. For these individuals, the answer to the question 'Who is a Jew' is 'whoever we can find described as one', and any possibility that an individual's identity may possibly have little to do with their ancestry has to be subsumed in a frenzy of simplistic categorisation. At the risk of stating the obvious, and no doubt arousing the ire of far too many who are unwilling to accept the consequences of their actions, I'll point out that this particular exercise has been engaged in before, with less than optimal results for those to whom the labels were attached... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Interesting how Jewish question still brings up a lot of commentary, wonder why. If you have problem with sentence following, then edit or delete it. It is that simple. But I think the categories should remain, since Schwartz Jewish origin have been made public by himself. So what is this really about, him being Jewish or someone having problems with inducing that on his Misplaced Pages page?--89.164.168.157 (talk) 10:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• "Interesting how Jewish question still brings up a lot of commentary, wonder why." That is an unfair characterization in this forum. Please remember to assume good faith. Taroaldo (talk) 01:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

How is that unfair, could you explain?--Mollskman (talk) 04:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment:. I don't think it is an issue that will go away without a policy change. I have seen endless discussions on it. Bob Dylan is one of the longest I have witnessed. It may be an underlying battle between the 'taggers' arguing relevence, freedom of speech, etc. and the 'tag removers' arguing bigotry, racism, homophobia, etc. It may have to go to one of those huge RfC like the naming of the abortion articles did. In the meantime the discussions will probably go on. Has it been brought up in other forums, Jimbo's talk page comes to mind.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

If we're going to talk about Schwartz: I agree it doesn't seem to make sense to identify him as Jewish in the way described. If we're going to talk about the more general issue (not many recent posts here discuss Schwartz): I usually don't think it's important to identify people as Jewish, but I continually fail to see why doing so upsets certain people so greatly. Some editors are driven into a blind rage about it (I don't include Bbb23 in that category) -- and it's really mainly when someone's Jewishness is in question. I find this strange. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Especially given the fact that being jewish can mean a number of different things it makes no sense to describe a person as Jewish without describing in which of the senses he or she identifies as such and what that identity means to him or her.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Its not usual to focus on subjects genetics unless its notable - why this repeatedly is added only in regards to Jews is the issue we need to address - The user adding this has an apparent focus on such additions - user:Bbrezic 's recent contribution history - Youreallycan 22:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Not that I disagree with YRC about the larger issue (not as sure about the reference to genetics) or the fact that this editor seems to have an agenda, I'd still like to bring this back to just the Schwartz article for a moment. Do we have a consensus that the sentence and the cats should be removed?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

maunus has removed the material and cats.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The given source clearly didn't satisfy WP:BLPCAT - Schwartz never mentined the word Jewish in the interview and nothing in the interview suggested that he considered Jewishness to be of importance to him.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I read it when it was first put in. The closest Schwartz came to saying he was Jewish was when he didn't deny the characterization in his response to a question - heh.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

BLPCAT does not apply, as we clearly are not talking about Jewish in the religious sense and BLPCAT does not apply to ethnicity. I'm content with Maunus's edit -- I'd simply like to make sure we have a well-considered discussion of the issue. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

- that is the problem - "BLPCAT does not apply, as we clearly are not talking about Jewish in the religious sense and BLPCAT does not apply to" - its the vagueness and the lack of clarity for the reader - the categorization can be interpreted as asserting religious belief so WP:BLPCAT does imo apply. - I have seen claims recently that, on wiki Jewishness has been historically been consensus considered as an ethnicity but there are no cats that allude to that - the community needs to revisit this issue as it is constantly disputed and the subject of multiple disputes. IMO because Jewishness is a complicated issue, we need additional cats to clearly portray subjects correctly and not vaguely as per currently - which creates all the disputes/discussions.Youreallycan 23:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment: I doubt it will happen, but... In my opinion as a Canadian where we don't have such a big issue with racism, bigotry, homophobia, etc. All the categories should just be deleted. They are just a way to tag and label minority or persecuted groups. Do readers actually need to see all the pages in Category:American xxxx poets type thing?--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Much as I agree with you, Canoe, it'll never happen. Let me know when you nominate all the categories for deletion, and I'll bring refreshments.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Aren't we finding here Ben Schwartz confirming that he is Jewish? This edit is removing mention of what I think is reasonably well-sourced information. Re-wording is always an option but I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the removal of information in this case. Bus stop (talk) 00:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Canoe1967—you ask "Do readers actually need to see all the pages in Category:American xxxx poets type thing?" Yes, I think, as an encyclopedia our default position should be in favor of the inclusion of information. In my opinion, an argument should have to be made on a case-by-case basis for not including information. Bus stop (talk) 00:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

What a surprise, Bus Stop.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Yup, the Jew-tagger in chief turns up and tells us yet again that he thinks that Misplaced Pages policy should be ignored if it gets in the way of his obsession. What a surprise. Of course, as Maunus has already pointed out, a statement that 'person X is Jewish' is actually devoid of 'information' anyway... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump and Bbb23—there are several sources showing us that Ben Schwartz is Jewish: Is there some reason this should not be mentioned in the body of the article? Bus stop (talk) 01:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you. You know full well that Misplaced Pages policy is that it is for those who wish to include material to justify it - this applies just as much to your infantile obsessive-compulsive Jew-tagging as it does to anything else. Go away. Get a life. Or a website of your own... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Lexi Love

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

A user has been constantly reinserting content to Lexi Love through different accounts and IPs sourced to poor sources such as wikiporno.org and hotmoviesforher.com (a vendor source). He's been edit warring with several users about the assertions. It would be useful if others can keep an eye on the article and a page protect may be in order. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I doubt she even meets the loose pornstar notability standards! Collect (talk) 12:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Craig Thomson affair

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

Craig Thomson, an Australian politician and (previously) union official, is alleged to have spent union funds on escorts. Our article states, In his speech to the House of Representatives on 21 May 2012 Thomson said that Jeff Jackson—a former HSU executive member and the former husband of HSU National Secretary Kathy Jackson—was responsible for the spending on prostitutes. The source given to support this is Thomson's speech in Parliament. Thomson does not actually make this claim anywhere in the speech (as is easily demonstrated by a quick search) and in fact there is no reliable source for the allegation that Jeff Jackson is responsible for the spending on escorts using Thomson's union credit card. It is not Misplaced Pages's job to smear Jeff Jackson, especially when we don't have a source.

I removed this claim from the article, citing BLP, but it was restored by User:Collect, citing NPOV. I believe that BLP trumps NPOV, at least until the matter is discussed, which it has not been, apart from Collect's advice to "Live with it." --Pete (talk) 23:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• Please note:

1. . Parliamentary Hansard states: "One of the other issues that I find curious is that there were two investigations: an investigation into the national office of the union and an investigation into the Victorian office of the union. In relation to the Victorian office, there were credit cards which showed expenditure on escorts and prostitutes for at least two officials. Yet it is very curious that when the Fair Work report came out on the Victorian branch there was barely a mention. There are certainly no allegations, no findings of wrongdoing. One has to question why, in an investigation by Fair Work where the second in charge of Fair Work Australia's partner, their former husband, is the subject of that investigation, there is a different approach taken when it is looking at the national office. I also think it is passing strange that the delegate and DP Lawler are both on leave at the moment. ..."
2. . The newspaper article referenced states (in part): "....As secretary of the Health Services Union's number 1 branch in Victoria, Mr Jackson has been embroiled in a bitter power struggle with branch president Pauline Fegan. .... Ms Fegan last night called on him to resign over the emergence of credit card statements showing the payments to 'Keywed Pty Ltd" - which takes money for clients of the Sydney Outcalls escort agency. ...." The claims are supported. One21dot216dot (talk) 00:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I can (mostly) support your revised wording. Thomson does, in fact make a valid point about allegations of other HSU officials spending union funds on escorts, and we can keep it under NPOV. The statement that is unsupported is that Jackson is responsible for the spending on escorts on Thomson's union credit card, as identified in specific transactions by the FWA report. We don't have a reliable source for this. --Pete (talk) 00:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to rename List of atheists

As there are potential BLP issues in doing this, editors might be interested in participating in Talk:List of atheists#Proposal to rename to "List of atheists, agnostics, and nontheists". Dougweller (talk) 11:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Nate Ruess

Nate Ruess (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The article states Nate Ruess is a son of Freddie Mercury of Queen. It has been stated and is a well-known fact that Freddie Mercury didn't have any children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.145.250 (talk) 12:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I've removed it. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Jack Welch

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

Having previously received help at this noticeboard, I'd like to ask again for input on BLP issues with the Jack Welch article. While recent edits have improved the article, I've noticed that there are some criticisms of Welch that are unsourced or not supported by the sources, either provided or anywhere. I've explained this issue in full on the Talk page, citing the specific criticisms I believe should be removed. This explanation also includes a suggestion to remove a statement that seems to be editorialization. My reason for being reluctant to make these edits myself is that my interest in the article is related to my employer, Strayer University, which owns the Jack Welch Management Institute. If anyone here is able to review and implement the edits I've suggested, I would be grateful. Thanks,Hamilton83 (talk) 14:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Chris Hatcher

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

There is only one source for the entire page, which is a conference info book. This article needs verifiable sources for the extensive information posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewzealanderA (talk • contribs) 15:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Mikki Padilla

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

The Mikki Padilla BLP is basically devoid of reliable sources, but my main concern on first reading the article is the identification of a person of Latino heritage as "Spanish-American". Is that standard on Misplaced Pages? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 20:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Removed not notable/not related to their notability ethnic claim from the lede as per WP:MOSBIO - Youreallycan 22:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Richard Hatch (Survivor contestant)

Richard Hatch (Survivor contestant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• - Richard Hatch (Survivor contestant)#Personal life

This entire section is unsourced. It should probably be removed if not sourced. I did remove one claim of being married that was unsourced. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Chris Rogers

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

Could someone please take a look at the Chris Rogers article. After his investigation for Panorama on BBC One there has been all sorts of comments added. Several of the recent reverts now mention lawyers and libel, so it is important this is properly dealt with immediately. Uvghifds (talk) 22:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes - this user - http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/109.154.232.226 could use a link to WP:NLT an there is clearly a WP:COI element that is adding promo/masses of not independently notable promotional content - Youreallycan 22:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Death of Ian Tomlinson

An editor reverted an edit I made, citing BLP. The edit makes no reference to any living person. The edit states that Ian Tomlinson was unlawfully killed. That he was unlawfully killed is not in dispute, and the article itself expands on this in the third paragraph, and in the body. Does the edit contravene the BLP policy? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.118.169 (talk) 01:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution