Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:13, 10 January 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.

|- ! colspan="3" style="background: #CAE4FF; font-size: 110%; border: 1px lightgray solid; padding: 0.5rem;" |

• A request for adminship is open for discussion.
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
• Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
• Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?

Ryan Gunderson

This article Ryan Gunderson appears to be about a person who is not notable and the article contains no references. I added a courtesy 10 day schedule for deletion which was removed by user Dolovis. I believe this article has existed in article space far too long without following the rules of a BLP and should be deleted from article space. Scottsadventure (talk) 19:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Just nominate it for WP:AFD. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, Thanks. Is it appropriate to comment on a user pattern on this noticeboard, concerning multiple non referenced BLP's? If not, how is a matter resolved where there appears to be a plethora of BLP articles edited by a single user which are not notable and are all connected to a similar subject matter? A pattern that could be viewed as consistent with that of perhaps a paid editor. Scottsadventure (talk) 21:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The article on Ryan Gunderson was created back in 2007 by Dominant One, who doesn't appear to have contributed since April, 2008 and never started another page in the main article space. So it is difficult to identify the possible BLP pages from your post. Is there another editor that you are referring to? If you don't want to identify this editor, can you identify these other out-of-policy pages? Thanks --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

As'ad AbuKhalil

As'ad AbuKhalil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could we get some experienced BLP eyes on this article to examine the 2 edits by 79.177.199.82 ? Sean.hoyland - talk 05:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The defamatory material has been repeatedly re-added. This article may be of help in understanding the background. RolandR (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Phil Robertson query

Is US Magazine a reliable source for personal details about this person, and oif so are the details presented complaint with WP:BLP? . (Robertson married Marsha Kay Robertson while a student at Harding University in Arkansas when he was twenty years of age and she sixteen) The US Magazine article does not actually support the entire claim ... but a second source given is which backs AFAICT essentially none of the claim ascribed to it. The claim appears to me to be OR and SYNTH and not actually using either of the two refs attached to it. Searches seem to indicate no definitive opinion on using US Magazine, but I am also concerned that the claim is not even supported by it :( Any input is welcome. Collect (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The Yahoo source backs up the claim. §FreeRangeFrog 23:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

It covers part of it -- but does the Yahoo source meet WPLRS as it appears to be "celebrity filler"? The rest (name of university) is not found in the Yahoo source either. And we still do not know whether celebrity mags on general meet WP:RS here. Collect (talk) 23:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The information is readily sourced, but the larger question is whether it needs to be mentioned. It seems undue and POV-ish. Roccodrift (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

There's no reason not to mention it as long as it's sourced. Taylor Trescott - + _{my edits} 23:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Given Phil's comments about marrying teenagers that have gone viral, it would seem logical to mention that he followed his own advice. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh look, two nonsensical assertions in a row. No, mere availability in a source does not merit inclusion on its own. And no, Robertson's comments from the Sportsman Ministry video did not "go viral"; they made an appearance in the 24-hour news cycle as a continuation of the larger controversy, and now they are all but forgotten (except among those with an ax to grind who suddenly find themselves on the losing side of the dispute regarding his continued employment with A&E). Roccodrift (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Ax-grinding? Losing side? Seems like talk for waging a battle rather than working with others. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to GLAAD and certain parties within the media, not Misplaced Pages editors. Although perhaps it is telling if you see yourself in those comments. That's your own call to make. Roccodrift (talk) 00:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up, it's much easier to see what's going on. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The issue with RS is another matter - this seems to be very much a tabloid-dominated subject to begin with. Is there a concern that I'm missing? In most Southern states the age of consent is 16 in any case. §FreeRangeFrog 00:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Robertson's recent remarks about gay people and blacks during the Jim Crow laws era have had some repercussions including some of his past videotaped statements being unearthed. The latest one is where he encourages men to marry teenaged girls."New Duck Dynasty Bombshell: Phil Robertson Shares Controversial Views on Teen Marriage" As you point out the view is not unheard of, yet in light of his recent past remarks it paints a picture of sorts. Personally I think people forget that marriage has evolved greatly even in the past decade, and that women as property is still a standard seen around the world even if not considered an enlightened view. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• The Daily Mail, which Collect considers a reliable source, supports the fact that Robertson married his wife when she was 16 (). That should satisfy his concern about sourcing. Whether this fact belongs in the article is a question outside the scope of this noticeboard. MastCell  00:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually -- it is reliable for lots of stuff -- but is not "best source" for any celebrity gossip material. I had thought my position was clear on that by now. As you doubtless noted I stated "there are no sufficiently reliable sources for every topic under the sun" in that discussion which you aver means far more than it does. Not even the NYT is a great source for celebrity gossip material. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Riiiight. Do you want me to find more instances where you've insisted categorically that the Daily Mail is a reliable source? MastCell  00:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

And note that I said "about as reliable as the other British papers" which remains true. There is no such thing as a perfect source -- and even the NYT is not good for "celebrity gossip." Now what precisely is your point here? Are you trying to discuss me or discuss whether US Magazine is a reliable source for celebrity gossip? Cheers Collect (talk) 01:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

What does "a good source for celebrity gossip" mean?

If we're talking about information attributable to the subject of the article, that's not what would normally be considered gossip. If we're misusing "gossip" to mean low-grade trash, then that's not really a sourcing issue, but one of weight. And I don't see how Misplaced Pages can have articles on stuff like Duck Dynasty without sourcing to low-grade trash. Formerip (talk) 01:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• The assertion in question is supported by sources that meet RS and there's no problem including it in the article, given Robertson's notability connected with related issues. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• There seem to be two groups of sources: those that specifically say "16", and those which report the wedding ring gift and in the course of that give a current age and length of marriage which allow a calculation of an age of sixteen. Typically the most mainstream sources (e.g. ABC News) are in the latter group. One has to suspect that Ms. Robertson's age at marriage was not actually looked up. I'm reluctant to include this, even it be true, unless it escapes from the scandal-mongering tabloids and becomes a more general controversy. Mangoe (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• His age at the time seems to be extracted with original research, though her age does seem somewhat supported. Some conflicting details exist, however, as one source noted above says she was 15. I think it is better to stick with what is there presently where we don't mention age.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Some editors seem quite intent on stressing that the wife was "only 15" at the time of marriage (not strongly sourced at all) (under the LA statutory minimum according to some of those editors). Is violative of BLP? ? ? ? Presenting at least four attempts in the course of only two hours in a manner suggestive of edit war to place the contentious claim into a BLP. One editor's edit summary states completely of the norm in that era w/in the ozarks which I think might not comport with Misplaced Pages standards. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, I don't think the editor who initially added it, who is included in one of those diffs, was trying to suggest something untoward about Robertson. I can't speak for others seeking to keep it in there.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Justin Bieber redux

Justin Bieber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The latest edit-war concerns allegations that Bieber was reported to Interpol, that he participated in a riot, his bodyguards "robbered" the film from the paparazzi (I thought everyone used digital cameras), he disrespected the Argentinian flag etc. The diff concerning the material is here: . The question is: How much of all that are we supposed to dump into Bieber's bio? Any opinions are welcome. Thank you. Δρ.Κ.  04:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I wrongly wrote "robbered" instead of "stole" (which is the right word, of course). I'm not a native English speaker so I can commit mistakes. By the way, you don't need to reproduce words exactly as they were written just to remark a mistake. - Fma12 (talk) 04:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I came here to report about the edit. The edit had the expression and I reported it as was written. If you are not sure how to phrase something, I would advise that before you add it into an article you should ask on the talkpage first to get help. Δρ.Κ.  04:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

How much of that are we supposed to dump into Bieber's article? None, in my opinion, Dr.K.. What a pack of trivialities. That whole section called "Contoversies and legal issues" should be eliminated. He gave someone the finger. He showed up late to a concert. He tussled with paparazzi. His pet monkey got confiscated by customs agents. Some rapper sued him (not mentioned in the rapper's bio, and undecided by the courts). What a load of crap. Totally trivial gossip, every word of it. I have never listened all the way through three minutes of a Justin Bieber song, to the best of my knowledge. But this is ridiculous. Am I off base here? Cullen Let's discuss it 05:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Not at all Cullen. I fully agree with you. There is also the part where a mayor called him a "Princess". In my opinion such stuff should not be included in a serious bio. And yes, I have only been able to make it through a few seconds of one of his songs. I gave up, right after that, listening to any other. Δρ.Κ.  05:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Dr. K, I'm an old editor and always try to write properly; of course if I'm not sure how to phrase something, I'll request for advise, there are very kind persons here who glady help me with the grammar instead of teasing as you did. If you came here "only to report the edit", just put the edit without remarking my mistake ("sic") because it is not relevant for this debate. - Fma12 (talk) 12:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll request for advise, there are very kind persons here who glady help me with the grammar instead of teasing as you did. If you came here "only to report the edit", just put the edit without remarking my mistake ("sic") because it is not relevant for this debate. My reference to your phraseology was very relevant, and characterising my actions as "teasing" does not assume good faith, so leave the personal attacks. I put "robbered" to indicate that you are calling people robbers in a BLP, something which is extremely serious, not to "tease you". I also added " " to indicate that the phrasing was not mine but belonged to your edit so that editors were informed about what was being edited into the article. If you are about to accuse people of being "robbers" or "thieves", in a BLP, you need very strong sourcing and you should be very cautious as to the phrasing you are attempting. Accusing people of stealing or robbing something should not be done while you are unsure of the meaning of words. So I advise you again: Next time you add very controversial material into a BLP, like calling people criminals, make sure you know what you write or at least ask someone for help, ahead of time not after you added something very serious, for which you are not sure about, to the article. Second, you wrote that they "robbered the film". These were digital cameras, they don't have film. Are you sure this is correct? How can these people "steal" or "rob" something which does not exist? Δρ.Κ.  18:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

About the subject of this discussion, some of the incidents were facts, not suppositions: p.e. sweeping the door with the Argentine flag; it was covered by reliable newspapers and agencies not only from Argentina (here, here -this link inlcudes to video so the incident was shoot and later reproduced on youtube and social networks- but international media (as seen here, amongst other sources). Due to this incident JB was sueded by local lawyers (this is also a fact, as told on this Spanish web). Nevertheless, user Moxy arbitrarily deleted the edit from the article, considering them "not relevants" as only argument, then alleging such absurd causes like "the links are not in Spanish", as if he was a sort of judge that decides what deserves to be included and what not.

To conclude, I think that if we don't want to have a large list of incidents involving JB in diffferent countries, the section "controversy" should be eliminated. I'm rarely involved in edit wars, but when I'm sure that my edits are constructive and reverted without a valid reason, my reply is to search for a consensus, just like in this case. - Fma12 (talk) 12:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Would WP:NOTCENSORED come into play here? If the story is published in reliable sources then I feel it should be included we as an encyclopedia can not sugarcoat everything to make someone look like a saint either. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I found some more official sources for things involving Justin that are in the article. (BBC) (BBC)<-- Graffiti done by Justin in Australia and Rio. This is CNN addressing the possible rumors though about things that have gone downhill in Bieber's life for neutrality. (CNN). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

We have to look at what is notable in the long term as his in the news everyday. Do we report everything he does like a tabloid paper? I think not lets look back over the past week below and here at the BBC. Simply not sure what he did a month ago (what is being inserted into the article) has any coverage now at all...why because its a daily thing as in everyday a new news story. Would we write about the daily mishaps of Elvis or MJ in this manner I think not...plus this is a living person. WP:NOTEVERYTHING - WP:PAPER - Moxy (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Jan 2 - Justin Bieber’s 'Believe' movie makes just £205k in the UK box office
• Jan 1 - Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez Reunite in Calabasas
• Dec 31 - Justin Bieber announced his retirement from music on Christmas Eve
• Dec 30 - Justin Bieber's entourage accused of assaulting limo driver
• Dec 29 - Justin Bieber buys bulldog puppy while home in Stratford
• Dec 28 - Justin Bieber spotted at Toronto Maple Leafs game
• Dec 27 - Justin Bieber's Mom Admits Past Two Years Were A 'Crazy Whirlwind'

I agree. WP:CENSORED does not come into play here. Rather WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM as well as WP:NOTNEWS. The legal problems section in Bieber's biography is like an open sore. It collects all kinds of trivia of very doubtful value and should be trimmed, not expanded. Δρ.Κ.  18:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree 100 percent the whole section is a problem. All we need to say is over the past 2 years hes been in the media spotlight for a variety of personal incidences -- Moxy (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind that with a high profile celebrity, there will be lots of reliable sources covering some unimportant and unencyclopedic aspect of the person's life, especially if it sells papers. In general, articles, especially BLPs should not have "controversy" sections. In specific, the entire first paragraph of Controversy and legal issues should be removed as unencyclopedic fluff. The same probably goes for the rest of the section. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The way I see it, the word "controversy" is being misused. Is there any dispute that he gave people the finger? Or that an unrelated paparrazo died, or his monkey was seized? If so, the article doesn't explain it. Does an alright job with the graffiti and Anne Frank bits. But anything not a legal issue or truly controversial (as opposed to scandalous or sensational) has no place here. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:01, January 3, 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree. Thank you Moxy, AQFK, Hulk for your input. Δρ.Κ.  20:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• I really think think that his much documented (in many languages) insult to the Argentine flag needs to be in the article, as it tells us something about him (be it maturity/immaturity/experience/intelligence) I suspect had a foreign national toured America and trashed their rightly venerated flag, some editors here may fell differently.  Giano  21:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, the flag incident struck me as odd. At first glance it looks weird. He went to a country to perform for them and then he insulted their flag in front of such wide audience. Yet we don't know the context of the incident. Was he making a point about the perils of nationalism? Or the use of nationalist motifs during the Argentinian junta years? I don't know. But I find it very unusual to just trample on a flag for no reason. I don't think that one can rely on tabloid reports if one wants to find the deeper context of the incident. Perhaps there is no deeper context and that simply was a gratuitous act of insult. But still we need more sober sources than tabloids to actually report on it before it can be included, at least imo. Δρ.Κ.  22:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I remember why I stopped reading this article and talk page. The fact is that Misplaced Pages is not really supposed to cover every single incident in anyone's life, including Bieber's. One can pick up a tabloid at the market if one wishes all this "stuff." Prune it to heck. Misplaced Pages is not a gossip sheet. Collect (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The incident with the Argentine flag was not just such trivial. Using the national symbols to sweep the floor is a big offense here in Argentina (and worlwide as well, I suppose). If other incidents are detailed in the article, why not to include this? Moreover, this issue was covered not only by the local media like Clarín, La Nación, El Nuevo Herald, Infobae but international media too (CNN, El Informador (Mexico), Rolling Stone, Daily Mail among others).

On the other hand, other celebrity like Diego Maradona has been involved in a lot of controversies during his entire life, but his article on the Wiki does not have any section refers to his behaviour and multiple incidents where he was involved. My POV is: if every incident referring to JB has to be discussed before including them in the article, let's quit the "controversy section" of the article. - Fma12 (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

That one seems truly controversial to me. The sources make it clear there was one side (concertgoers) who thought it was disrespectful and another (Bieber and his reps) who didn't. It's also somewhat a legal issue, as "disgracing the flag" is a crime punishable by up to four years in prison. He doesn't necessarily have to be charged or convicted for it to be relevant enough. And the coverage makes it notable enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:01, January 3, 2014 (UTC)

I am not too concerned about including this incident. If you think the RS coverage is strong enough then it can/should be included. I still cannot believe that Bieber set out to deliberately insult his Argentine fans but that doesn't really matter. IMO it was a gesture gone wrong. Perhaps Bieber wanted to send a message to his beliebers that as a group they transcend national barriers and picked the most visible symbol of that and destroyed it, but then the whole thing turned into some type of Monty Pythonesque fiasco. But again, this is strictly my personal opinion and doesn't count. The rest of the stuff in the criticism section is another matter and imo it should be trimmed. Δρ.Κ.  03:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Didn't anyone read Bieber's explanation? Try Rolling Stone. People throw stuff up onto the stage all the time and he pushes it off to the side of the stage so nobody trips and get hurt. He saw a bra and what he thought was a t-shirt on stage. Maybe it was a t-shirt with an Argentine flag on it. So he swept it to the side of the stage. And people freaked out. As for "four years" in jail for this, I thought we only mentioned legal matters like this when someone got convicted. Cullen Let's discuss it 07:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

People freaking out and two sides to stories is what controversy's all about. The legal issue thing is a little blurrier. In my mind, dropped charges, failed lawsuits, messy divorces, detained monkeys or any event pertaining to law is a legal issue. But something a bunch of non-law types (I hope my lawyer isn't a Belieber) think might have resembled a potential crime...maybe not. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:01, January 5, 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Cullen for your link to the Rolling Stone interview. It doesn't surprise me because as I said before it is hard to imagine someone gratuitously insulting the nationality of the fans he is trying so hard to entertain. But the way the whole incident went out of control through all these misunderstandings reminds me of a Monty Python skit. Δρ.Κ.  07:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Heel (professional wrestling) might make it easier to imagine. Since adopted by many performers. Not saying Beiber's doing it intentionally, or has the stones to try this, but he is remarkably famous for being despised, and vice versa. Vicious, lucrative cycle. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:01, January 5, 2014 (UTC)

Does the statement "A page with this title has previously been deleted" create a BLP problem?

I've been contacted offwiki by the representative of a living person in regard to a deleted BLP article. The article was as far as I can see deleted according to process (an AFD, followed by numerous speedy deletions over the years citing CSD G4, G11 and A7). The person is clearly not notable according to our criteria and there is no chance of an article on the person surviving for any length of time, nor is there any obvious redirect target for the article.

The problem is that our deleted BLP page is also the first result on Google when you type this person's name in, so when a user comes along who is not familiar with our processes and punches their name into Google, they get a page from us saying that the person is "not notable", "deleted in a deletion discussion", "advertising" and "promotion". Clearly not a good look for that person, particularly as they are still active in business. Is anyone here aware of any previous discussion on this topic? Ideally I'd say that the deletion log should not be shown to logged-out users when they go to a page that doesn't exist, but there may be reasons this would be difficult or unwise.

I've chosen not to identify the person in question so as to keep this discussion on a "generic" level and avoid causing the person any further embarrassment or distress. Lankiveil 08:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC).

I think it does expressly for the reasons you spell out. I looked at Misplaced Pages:Controlling search engine indexing but it doesn't look like the magic coding can be used in article space. Was it just recently deleted? Maybe it takes a few days to clear the cache? Otherwise you might get help at Misplaced Pages:Village pump/Technical. Sportfan5000 (talk) 08:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

obviously not. what utter hogwash. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

If your future boss were to Google your name and the very first hit is showing a promotion article , presumably by you, was deleted, I think there is a issue about doing harm to a living person. Sportfan5000 (talk) 11:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Or an article created by someone else at the same location as your name (particularly an issue I suppose with people approaching the notability threshold, or those with common names). Lankiveil 11:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC).

I still wonder if it won't be resolved in a day or two when Google's caches clear out the now non-existent page? Sportfan5000 (talk) 12:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Can Misplaced Pages arrange to have "non-existent pages" actually deleted from Google results? I suspect Google would cooperate as they have naught to gain from linking to empty pages ... Collect (talk) 13:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I know there's a roundabout way of removing deletion summaries from deleted articles (perhaps at the oversight level?) which might be invoked, but if the page was recently deleted then it might be that Google still hasn't gotten wind of it. Now if it's not gone in a couple of days then they might want to contact Google and ask them to remove the result for the given search keyword(s). As to whether this is a BLP issue where we have responsibility, that's hard to tell. It depends on how harmful the deletion summaries are to the subject. In any case, I'd wait for it to go away from Google if possible. MediaWiki returns a 404 status to web browsers and indexers for deleted content, so that's how search engines know something should be removed from their cache. They just need to index it again. §FreeRangeFrog 18:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

A request that Google reindex a specific page or site can be submitted here. Dwpaul 18:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

In my experience, deleted pages do not typically show up in Google search results. (I can attest to this for several reasons, once of which is that there have been several attempts to create a mainspace article about me, which were speedied, and I'd know if they were being indexed under my name.) It may just be that as suggested, this is a temporary issue that will disappear in a couple of days as the crawler does it work, in which case the situation may be unfortunate but unfixable. If it's a longer-term problem than that, perhaps caused by some change in how either Misplaced Pages or Google does its coding, then I regard it as a very serious problem, because notices of deleted pages should absolutely not become a part of anyone's search profile. It would be good to hear from Lankiveil if the page that was the original subject of this thread disappears from the results within the next couple of days. We also need to bear in mind, of course, that there are other search engines besides Google, and monitor that our no-indexed pages are not appearing on these either. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I've requested that Google re-index the page (thanks User:Dwpaul!), I'll keep an eye on it and report how it goes. The article was originally created in 2008 and has been repeatedly recreated since then, none of the creations are obviously autobiographies. It was most recently deleted in December, and that's the version of the text that's showing up in the cache. Thanks everyone for the suggestions and feedback Lankiveil 03:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC).

We should be serving up the deleted page notice as HTTP 404, much as we do the "no such user" notice. I've filed a bug for it. — Scott • talk 18:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Fantastic, thanks Scott! I can confirm the page is now no longer in the first page of results when you search for this person's name, so all's well that ends well I suppose. Lankiveil 10:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC).

Fantasy defense

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

David Marks is an attorney that pioneered the Fantasy defense according to several sources which include CBS news. This defense was reported as "groundbreaking" by CBS in the trial of Patrick Naughton. SqueakBox (talk · contribs) now believes that including the attorney by name in the article on Fantasy Defense violates WP:BLP (he first claimed Marks had lack of notability on the talk page). I believe this is hogwash as the sources are strong and including him as the attorney who effectively brought this defense into the lexicon is highly relevant to the article about the legal strategy/tactic. It is similar to the article Telephone stating that it was first patented in 1876 by Alexander Graham Bell.

Discussion on the talk page has gone nowhere, the WP:BRD process has now degenerated into SqueakBox edit warring over it , , and Squeakbox has suggested bringing this issue here for additional comment. Toddst1 (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The allegations made are sourced to a newspaper but are also quite controversial because the Fantasy Defense is also known as the pedophile defense that allegedly allows pedophiles to escape justice and which was architected by said attorney. Given this IMO we should only include the name of the lawyer if we think he is notable of an article here, otherwise given the controversial nature of this entry we should use discretion and not add the name. Given that hysteria does surround pedophilia issues at times we need to take BLP especially seriously with this issue of pedophiles allegedly being helped to escape justice. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate SqueakBox's sensitivity to BLP concerns in this highly sensitive area. However, in this instance, Mr. Marks's own website contains this media page linking to press coverage of the case involving the defense, which mitigates the concern that he would be harmed by being associated with it. (That being said, I am doubtful that the defense itself warrants an article, as opposed to a reference in a broader article.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

If we do need an article for this, it would be pretty much ideal to have one that actually includes an explanation of what the "fantasy defense" is. Formerip (talk) 23:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I've added a better description of what the defense is and restored the name of the attorney along with an additional citation - the media list on Marks' web site. Toddst1 (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Marv Newland

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

Marv Newland directed the experimental/animated short CMYK for the National Film Board of Canada in 2010.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.142.124.120 (talk) 02:06, January 5, 2014 --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

It is unclear what you want by making that statement here. If you have a source, you can simply add it directly to the article yourself by clicking the "edit" link directly above. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Joseph Urgo

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

User Paul Ivolgin repeatedly inserts contentious information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JRU2956 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The material wasn't properly referenced, and accordingly shouldn't have been added. Having said that, a properly-sourced statement that Urgo had resigned would hardly be 'contentious' in of itself - provided it accurately reflected the sources. Looking at the article, there are further problems however. Little of it has proper online citations, and I've just had to remove a paragraph which was almost entirely copy-pasted from a Washington Post article discussing Urgo's departure from St. Mary’s College, Maryland - such copy-pasting is a clear breach of copyright, and entirely contrary to Misplaced Pages policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Should the name of Amanda Berry's daughter be mentioned in Ariel Castro kidnappings

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ariel Castro kidnappings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Amanda Berry's daughter is also the biological daughter of Ariel Castro. She was kept in captivity (even though she was a minor and most probably didn't know anything) along with the other 3 victims and is thus a victim of the crime First of all there are reliable sources for her name. A few of them is this, this and this. Some editors disagree of including the name of Amanda Berry's in the article. The sister of Amanda Berry asked the court to remove her name from the public records. They think that therefore their names should not be included according to WP:BLPNAME since they think that they are objecting disapproval of mentioning her name. They also say that family members asked for her privacy by calling her Amanda's daughter. They also say that she is non-noticeable. Also they say that it is victimization of the victim (the daughter) and by not including her name we are following WP:AVOIDVICTIM. However according to the Misplaced Pages article of Public records are government related documents which can be viewed by the public. As such newspapers, news websites and Misplaced Pages do not come under public records. Also in this link it is clearly visible that they are asking for the media to leave the daughter alone. Not only that I think they are extremely wrong about that she is non-noticeable. Also I highly doubt how including her name will victimize her. Therefore, I think that including her name does not violate WP:BLPNAME and think that including her name is the best thing to do. I don't think that we are violating the privacy of the family in any way. Should her name be added to the article? KahnJohn27 (talk) 21:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Radar and The Daily Mail are tabloids and not acceptable as reliable sources for information about living persons.

We are talking about a child victim of kidnapping here. There is vanishingly little encyclopedic value in including her name, and given the expressed wishes of her family, I am in full support of keeping her name out of the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

KahnJohn27, the fact that Misplaced Pages is not 'public record' has absolutely nothing to do with WP:BLPNAME or WP:AVOIDVICTIM. They are our own policies, covering our own content. And they clearly apply here. There is no obvious encyclopaedic merit of including the child's name, and the fact that the family have asked for privacy is certainly something we should take into consideration, though even without this, I can see nothing in anything you have said which appears to justify inclusion of the name. Why is inclusion "the best thing to do"? Best for whom? Clearly not for the child, or the family. When it comes to such circumstances, policy and practice are clear enough - we don't include names unless there are very good reasons to do so. You have provided none. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose No it should not be added. Anyone who thinks this isn't a violation of the family's privacy is exhibiting WP:NOCLUE. You really need to take a course in how people are victimized but we don't have time for that now. MarnetteD | Talk 21:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I think we are past WP:NOCLUE and into the realms of WP:ICANTHEARYOU given KahnJohn27's insistence in this matter.Martin451 00:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose The child is entitled to as much privacy as possible in the circumstances. Her involvement is as a secondary victim of a horrendous crime committed against her mother. Keeping her name off Misplaced Pages (and I would be looking for revdel at the very least wherever it has previously appeared) is a part of letting her get a real life apart from these events. Bielle (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Revdel was suggested at wp:ani recently. I wonder if an admin would be so good as to do it.Martin451 00:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Per my previous comments and previous consensus on the talk page. WP:BLPNAME, WP:AVOIDVICTIM, WP:HARM, specific requests for privacy for the daughter from the family (as opposed to KahnJohn27 previously claiming they gave permission) all apply here. There is no good reason to name her.Martin451 00:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I note that the original source is a book which has been cited by the DM. Even so,I don't see any value adding her name.Two kinds of pork (talk) 00:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Strong Oppose This is an effort by one editor to force an edit against clear-cut consensus on the article talk page. There is no argument in favor of including her name, and between ANI, here and the article talk page, a number made against it. There is clear consensus in opposition already (giving this effort a whiff of forum shopping), and only one editor who cites something he refers to as noticeability (which I assume he has confused with WP:NOTABILITY) and using an irrelevant argument predicated on the handling of public documents as a thin pretext for violating a minor child's privacy for a reason he has never articulated. I see no good, much less compelling, argument to include the daughter's name, and it should be left out. --Drmargi (talk) 16:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Strong Oppose When it comes to WP:BLP, there is a delicate balance between openness and the rights of the subject(s) who are still living. One often hears the mantra that Misplaced Pages is not censored. Against that we have the policy that we don't include the names of non-notable children, the ruling to keep the child's name out of court records, and the fact that most mainstream media has not published the child's name. Since Misplaced Pages is often used as a source of information, it could be considered part of the media - and just because the victim said she wanted her daughter's name out of the public record doesn't mean she didn't want it out of other sources as well, including Misplaced Pages. Further, we should look outside the box of what WP:BLP states and look to why it does so. One reason is to avoid litigation against Misplaced Pages - which operates with a very small financial base and could well face real jeopardy if sued over this matter. As I stated before, I strongly oppose the inclusion of the child's name. When interpreting rules that are open to interpretation, it's better to err on the side of caution - and "be bold" doesn't equate with "be reckless". Best to keep the minor child's name out of the article.THD3 (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey excuse me over here. But what the hell is this going on? This was not sone consensus started by me. BLP noticeboard is a place where you ask for advice from other users and admins on whether the name should be included or not. And that was my only objective over here. To ask for advice. It isn't a place for a consensus voting, you should have done that on the talk page of the article. KahnJohn27 (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, but what the hell are you talking about?!? You opened the thread, and the response has been, the response. There is no set format for how it should be given. People are commenting/voting/whatevering. If you don't like it, too bad!! --Malerooster (talk) 01:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I remember there being on DRN about the Delhi gangrape. It said that tabloid can be used as sources because tabloid is a type of newspaper format and it's not necessary that every info in it is gossip. Your comment that Daily Mail cannot be used as a source has no basis in Misplaced Pages policy. Thanks for hijacking the post by the way. KahnJohn27 (talk) 01:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Here Cullen328 says that "Minor children of article subjects should not be mentioned by name unless they are celebrities themselves or are discussed widely in reliable sources." The daughter is discussed in reliable sources so I think she can be mentioned. KahnJohn27 (talk) 01:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

What you're permitted to do by policy and what you should do as a good human being can be very different things. There is no encyclopedic value in telling our readers this girl's name, and that means there is no good reason to mention it. Let's not pointlessly traumatize her any further just because other sources are. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that there are good grounds for suggesting that WP:BLP policy would require us to exclude the name anyway:

Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Misplaced Pages's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. The burden of evidence for any edit on Misplaced Pages rests with the person who adds or restores material.

"Regard for the subject's privacy" seems to me to be the important issue here - and so far I've seen nothing from KahnJohn27 that actually explains why we should breach such privacy, beyond assertions that we can - which doesn't address the 'burden' requirement at all. Given the clear and unequivocal opposition to inclusion wherever this has been discussed though, whether policy actually forbids inclusion or not is a moot point - the name clearly isn't going in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

User:KahnJohn27 appears to fail WP:COMPETENCE and WP:IDNHT. Martin451 02:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh ok so I'm being a bad human being by mentioning her name. I'll just say it once that I follow Misplaced Pages policy and what you are saying is a personal opinion. Next time I'm complaining about you at ANI if you do this again. If it does not defy policy then there's no problem and on Misplaced Pages you have no right to tell who's being good or not. Misplaced Pages rules itself say Misplaced Pages is no place for personal opinions. KahnJohn27 (talk) 02:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose inclusion of this child's name. It seems to me that KahnJohn27 misunderstood what I intended in that quote. I was speaking of minor children like Malia and Sasha Obama, or Siri Cruise, who was featured in a photo layout by Annie Liebovitz in Vanity Fair magazine, or Prince George of Cambridge. I am talking about children who have received significant, ongoing coverage in a wide range of reliable sources, not minor child victims of a notorious crime, whose names are mentioned in passing. I hope that KahnJohn27 can recognize clearcut consensus. Cullen Let's discuss it 02:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see even one comment aside from yours, KahnJohn27, in support of including her name. Don't do it. Misplaced Pages may not be a place for personal opinion, but it is a place for humane judgement. Bielle (talk) 02:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I think that just adding " Her six year old daughter" would be enough here. As for as avoiding hard because it is a child, there are living victims of crimes (Elián González) so not every case is as clear cut here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

When did I ever say I was going to "do it"? I don't about victimising the minor but you people are sure victimising me by painting me in a bad picture. I just asked for an advice at this noticeboard. User:AndyTheGrump himself told me to ask at BLPN and I did. Frankly I'm actually not going to take an RfC now because except Cullen328 and Bielle I didn't trust anybody's suggestion anybody over here because it seemed like most of you were either making personal attacks or enforcing personal opinions. What's so incompetent in asking for advice? I think.at the talk page for Ariel Castro kidnappings I myself said that I too somewhat agree that name should not be included. I wasn't really fixed on including her name if you really think that. I didn't even actually care if her name was included on not. I was just trying to ensure no Misplaced Pages policies were being violated here. I asked Cullen328 personally to look at this case since I trust his judgment. Since most editors including him disagree on including the name I too agree on not including the name. Now since I am not going to "do it" maybe I am a good human being now and not so incompetent in your eyes? KahnJohn27 (talk) 04:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Probably time to close this discussion. Arzel (talk) 05:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

DJ Funk

Obviously written by the artist/someone close to them Very poor grammar Does not follow wikipedia structure guidelines — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.252.242.100 (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It was a WP:COPYVIO from here. I have reverted to the version before that was inserted. Cheers! Apparition /Mistakes 22:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Joseph Urgo 2

User AndyTheGrump repeatedly removing factual information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JRU2956 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

User:AndyTheGrump removed material he identified as a copyright violation. The material, if it's properly sourced, will need rewritten before it can be inserted. —C.Fred (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I've also invited User:JRU2956 to discuss further concerns with the article at Talk:Joseph Urgo. —C.Fred (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Suzannah Lipscomb

81.108.148.216 repeats information that is contentious, eg that the subject married Drake Lawhead. The marriage is over and the subject does not wish this to be in the public domain. To keep reinserting it shows no regard for the subject's privacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MdeBohun (talk • contribs) 00:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources that verify the fact, the subject's wishes are pretty irrelevant. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

A blog at my-wedding-concierge.com doesn't seem particularly reliable to me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

LaChanze

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

Dear Sir/Madam,

Editor JorgeDMC has repeatedly deleted vital updates to this page. I have been instructed by the Living Person (LaChanze) to update her information on the basis of regularity and accuracy. The names of her minor are not to be displayed under any circumstance.

Please contact me directly if there are any questions.

Sincerely,

Lori Fulton — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babylori (talk • contribs) 03:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Babylori and thank you for bringing this to our attention. Minor children of article subjects should not be mentioned by name unless they are celebrities themselves or are discussed widely in reliable sources. This is not the case here. I have the article on my watch list, and have left a note for the editor who added the names of the children. Cullen Let's discuss it 04:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Paul Johnson Calderon

This biography has been discussed at WP:ANI in recent hours in a section called "Legal threat" and has been the subject of frantic editing. In my opinion, the sourcing of the article is atrocious, and I deeply doubt that any of the current sources establishes the person's notability. It is a morass of gossip, as I see it. I must get to bed, but I would be grateful if other editors with BLP experience would survey the situation and take whatever action is deemed appropriate. Cullen Let's discuss it 07:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

This should be redirected to High Society (2010 TV series) as is the usual practice for non-notable reality show "cast".--ukexpat (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Robert Spitzer at Gun control

I have requested an edit be done to the protected article Gun control to remove a BLP violation regarding Robert Spitzer. In the article he is currently said to agree that gun control was used in the genocide of Jews, but we don't have any sources for him saying that. Iselilja (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Moughenda Mikala

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

The moderator says I need a consensus to post a link to a felony warrant issued to Moughenda Mikala. http://www.oakgov.com/sheriff/Pages/most_wanted/fugitives/mickala.aspx

This is a link to a page belonging to the Oakland Sheriff's department in Michigan. Moughenda Mikala is, in fact, a current fugitive, a former doughnut shop clerk, and a garbage truck driver (CHECK THE POLICE SITE, not making this up), who has convinced Western people that he is a "10th generation shaman from Gabon". Nearly everything in the entry is fake (though very specialized and arcane). To start: If you subtract 10 generations, it comes up long before his people arrived in Gabon. "10" just had a nice ring to it. Look: http://en.wikipedia.org/Fang_people#Early_population_movements Just do the math. Subtract his age (45) from the number of years after his ancestors arrived in Gabon (circa 1850), then divide the number of generations... and you get 10 generations of 10 year old mothers. Bologna. His website says he can cure AIDS and cancer.

The whole entry for Moughenda Mikala is completely fabricated and fraudulent. I dont know how to change it. Most all of his references on the wiki page are his own interviews. Internet magazine interview him, then he posts the links as a credential.

If this could be added to the end of his entry, it should be fine: "Moughenda Mikala" worked in Detroit as a doughnut shop clerk and a garbage man before become a shaman to Western People." (it is sited below) "Moughenda Mikala is currently a fugitive, wanted in Oakland Country, Michigan on a felony warrant." (Also, sited below)

This is the reference. http://www.oakgov.com/sheriff/Pages/most_wanted/fugitives/mickala.aspx

If this is not acceptable, please let me know hot to fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.134.131 (talk • contribs)

What you need are several reliable sources that cover the issue, rather than a single primary source. Beyond that there are issues of weight as well as consensus that things like warrants and arrests are generally excluded from biographies until there is an actual legal outcome. §FreeRangeFrog 22:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for engaging. The link is to the Sheriff of Oakland County, Michigan. It is straight from the source. He is a fugitive. What other reference would be acceptable? Any other source would be hearsay. Are you suggesting that the Sheriff's website is not legit? Do you really need a case number? I don't know what would be more sufficient.

Second, he did in fact commit a crime. He failed to show. That is where the warrant comes from. I agree with you that current court proceedings should be excluded, because everyone is innocent until proven guilty. In this case, he is a fugitive, at large, who failed to appear. He has been at large for nearly a year. He is GUILTY of failing to appear. Are you contesting that part? He has committed a crime, a FELONY warrant has been issued, and he is a fugitive. Delinquent child support aside (a child has been abandoned), he is certainly a fugitive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.134.131 (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not "contesting" anything, I'm saying you are using a primary source, which is never a good idea in biographies (I do hope you read the policy part I linked to previously). As such, adding that to the article is essentially original research, which is even less of a good idea. Find a secondary source, and then you can seek consensus. Without that this is a non-starter. §FreeRangeFrog 23:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. One thing we have in common, is that we both want to do the right and responsible thing. Your responses have been courteous and professional. I appreciate that. Thank you for taking the time to look into this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.134.131 (talk) 00:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm happy to help. If only all of these were resolved so amicably :) §FreeRangeFrog 22:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Jakerogers77 (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC) I would perhaps consider requesting this bio to be deleted as, like you stated, the references are mostly sourcing his own words from interviews and not secondary sources.

Sharon Stone

I checked the materials referenced in the footnotes, and cannot find any support that her brother "Mike Stone" is the same person to whom the link directs. According to IMDB her brother was in a few movies, but I would think there would be some mention of his affair with Priscilla Presley etc. Also the Mike Stone listing does not list Sharon Stone as a sibling, that would certainly be worth mentioning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.154.159.214 (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Different Mike Stones. Her brother appears to be at IMDB here, whereas the one that was linked from the article seems to be here. Link removed.Martin451 21:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Leslie Cornfeld

Draft:Leslie Cornfeld

An article about this lady existed in a fairly basic form from 2006 until the beginning of December 2013, when an SPA account and several SPA IPs began to expand it considerably, giving it a promotional tone and making it increasingly like a resume. Eventually that drew attention, it was nominated for deletion, and I closed a thinly-attended WP:Articles for deletion/Leslie Cornfeld as delete. The subject of the article then posted on my talk page in some distress at User talk:JohnCD#URGENT - Deletion Error. I replied on User talk:SHurowtiz explaining the background, said that I was not prepared to reverse my close of the AfD, that she should go to Deletion review, and would stand a better chance there with an improved article. I therefore restored the article to the Draft namespace at Draft:Leslie Cornfeld, reverted it to the last version before the COI expansion, and advised her to list on the article talk page any inaccuracies and any suggestions for additions.

The purpose of this note is to ask for some eyes on the draft article, and for volunteers to help in improving it for Deletion review. JohnCD (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Some references would help.--ukexpat (talk) 14:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Outrage (2009 film)

Should rumours about living person be included? --George Ho (talk) 04:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The whole film is about outing politicians who are said to be hypocritical because they vote against gay rights but they are closeted gays. Some of the proof shown in the film is hearsay, some of it is very solid, but the article about the film should tell the reader what the film is about. Binksternet (talk) 04:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• Is this a trick question? Are we considering this edit which helpfully lists the "politicians were accused in the film of being closeted gays who vote against gay rights"? The answer depends on who you are. To someone on a mission to expose closeted gays, the answer is "removing this is censorship!", while to someone understanding the role of Misplaced Pages, the answer is "no way that material is going in the article". Johnuniq (talk) 04:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• You'll notice in that diff that I refer to BLP in restoring a list of names. The BLP section is WP:WELLKNOWN. As Collect says, BLP is not 'optional' on Misplaced Pages. WELLKNOWN is the working section. Binksternet (talk) 15:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• Collect is now on a bender. Seems not to know about WELLKNOWN. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

If a claim would be a BLP violation in any article, it is banned by policy. Else a person could simply add an article about any source, and use that article to promulgate every BLP violation found in that source! As such would clearly be a violation of WP:BLP of it were in individual bios, it remains a violation in the article about the putative source. No other reasonable interpretation is possible, alas. Collect (talk) 14:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems fine. We are using a high quality secondary source to explain what is in a film in an article about a film. We do in fact explain conspiracy theories, which are presumably false, that link public officials and private individuals to nefarious acts. I don't like the list format though. TFD (talk) 14:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

MNope -- it states allegations without reliable sources backing such allegations. The précis of the film can mention that it is about politicians, but it ought not label specific living persons. This is a backdoor to a violation which would not even be allowed on userpages, and is a bright line violation of WP:BLP. And it is "more contentious" than labeling a person as "left wing" by a mile. Collect (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

We don't do allegations without RS backing such allegation. But if another work does that, and the work is notable and it is pivoted around that, then it only makes sense to repeat it. Let's make an example. If a BLP on Cyclopia (me) says "Cyclopia is suspected of eating kittens", with a poor or no source, that is a BLP violation. But if there is a book called "Cyclopia: the Misplaced Pages editor who is also a horrible kitten eater", and the book is notable, and the allegation is a main theme of the book, then (and only then) we ought to repeat the claim, because it is what the book is about, even if the claim is bizarre/false/unproven.--cyclopia 15:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. At the end of the day, BLP policy exists to prevent the inclusion of unencylopaedic information in Misplaced Pages, not to enable the redaction of encylopaedic information. That ought to be all that really needs saying. Formerip (talk) 23:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Huh. I thought the foremost purpose of BLP was to protect living individuals from undue harm caused by the indiscriminate propagation of damaging information (or misinformation) by this very public, very search-engine-indexed site, and that even "encyclopaedic" information still had to clear a higher bar of caution and concern for how it might harm article subjects. alanyst 23:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

You thought wrong. BLP is basically a tightening of our core policies and an advice to err on the side of caution, and consider privacy. It doesn't mean we need to actively censor the coverage of works of art that happen to say bad things about people. --cyclopia 00:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

(ec) I'd say you thought wrong. BLP policy, essentially, asks us (a) to ensure reliable sourcing for information about living people and (b) to write conservatively with regard to information about living people (i.e. not to gratutiously include or emphasise negative information in a way that would be unencyclopaedic). There are then various offshoots such as BLPNAME, but none advises suppressing encyclopaedic information, and WELLKNOWN specifically advises not to do this. Negative information about living people, including allegations which are unsubstantiated or even false, can be significant and even indispensible to the coverage of a particular topic. BLP does nothing to prevent such allegations being included in an article. Formerip (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with cyclopia and FormerIP. BLP is mostly a tightening of our existing policies. It does not override NPOV or V. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
• Question Are there multiple sources for each person on that list, with respect to the film? One simply can't watch the film and then use that as the source. The sources should be used to determine if each person belongs on the list. Two kinds of pork (talk) 01:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Various sources report various politicians or other persons discussed in the film. When I was looking for the best sources, I noticed that Larry Craig was discussed by the most sources. Other names appeared with less and less frequency, all the way down to Mary Cheney who was only mentioned by Huffington Post. Binksternet (talk) 01:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I would start by nixing Cheney, and anyone with less than 3 sources, 2 unless they are "high sources" (not huffpo).Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Agree we should not watch a film and report what it says about living persons. Instead we should report what reliable sources have said about the film, which is what we have done here. TFD (talk) 02:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment The main reason for BLP policy is to avoid libel, per the "Libel" policy. It is libellous to make a false defamatory statement about a person. However it is not libellous to state that such a claim has been made, and we routinely report stories about persons charged with crimes. We also report Lyndon Larouche's theory that "Queen Elizabeth II is the head of an international drug-smuggling cartel" and the "New World Order (conspiracy theory) that the Rockefellers are behind a "conspiracy" to impose a" one world government". Neither of those claims are supported by any reliable sources. As long as we have reliable secondary sources that those claims were made, and report that they were made, not that they are true, we conform with WP:LIBEL. The other issue is weight. It would violate weight to report every theory about a BLP in their article. But it does not violate weight to report them in articles about the source of the claim, provided it is signifcant to those articles. TFD (talk) 02:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  • BLP exists because the community has decided this is an encyclopedia, not a website where anyone can add muck to attack a living person—for example, the fact that articles should not repeat rumors has nothing to do with a fear of legal action. WP:BLP mentions defamation in order to alert editors that they are not immune from legal action, and to point out the obvious, namely that material that is possibly defamatory needs to be handled carefully. No editor is qualified to "identify" libelous material. Johnuniq (talk) 03:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
    • There is no difference between biographies of living persons and deceased persons. Someone who is the subject of a BLP article may die. The specific reason for the policy is libel. While you say that no editor is qualified to identify libelous material, we avoid libel by using reliable secondary sources, which is done here. Major newspapers btw have access to advice on libel, and therefore we are generally safe in using them as sources. TFD (talk) 05:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
      • No, BLP does not exist because of libel - libel has different legal definitions in different countries. BLP exists because we recognize that it is very easy to use Misplaced Pages as a compendium of smears, attacks, defamation, rumormongering and coatracking, and that our articles have a very real effect on the lives of the people we chronicle. We have a responsibility to run this project in a respectable manner. Just because we *can* publish something does not mean we *must* publish something, and editorial judgment is not censorship. BLP directs us to use that editorial judgment liberally and err on the side of caution when writing articles about living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
        • Of course it is libel. It is possible to smear entire groups of people, such as in racism and to smear deceased people. While the laws of libel differ between nations, the meaning of libel is the same - it is "defamation" as you correctly term it. Libel is merely defamation in writing or broadcast, as opposed to slander, which is defamation in speaking. TFD (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be difficult to have a decent summary of the film without including some of the names, but the current means of going about it is all wrong. People allegedly outed as gay in the film should only be included to the extent that those individuals are significant in the context of the film and only where appropriate. In other words, they should be mentioned in a summary of the film if their place in the film is significant and mentioned to the extent that those alleged outings were significant points of critical commentary. Another note is some of the material being removed concerns people who are openly gay and at least one person who was alleged to be gay who has since come out as gay, Ken Mehlman. One of the individuals, Ed Koch, died early last year and his alleged orientation was mentioned frequently in reports of his death, including some mentions of this film.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a good summary of the way I feel. Further, I do not believe that this film should be used as a source to introduce its rumormongering into biographies. The film is not a reliable source in any way, shape or form, and its allegations are not particularly encyclopedic. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

From what I've seen the film is following on investigative journalism that predates it. The main thrust it makes is that the mainstream media is complicit in underreporting these incidents, unlike its effort to capitalize on sex scandals that are not specifically gau, the main exception being Larry Craig. Sportfan5000 (talk) 08:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hear hear TDA & NBSB. This is why I proposed requiring 3 sources making note of each person on the list in this article, or two if they are sources like the NYT,Washington Post,LA Times, etc. Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Dov Lipman

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

There is a blatant error regarding Rabbi Lipman's relationship with the current head of the Ner Israel Yeshiva (Rabbi Feldman) that I have tried to address in two edits and that has been returned to the Biography each time. Rabbi Feldman is listed as Rabbi Lipman's former Head of the Yeshiva. In fact as documented in references 5 and 6, Rabbi Feldman was not only not at the Yeshiva during Rabbi Lipman's tenure there, he has in fact never met Rabbi Lipman. Rabbi Yaakov Weinberg of Blessed Memory was the Head of the Yeshiva then. This is significant firstly because the lack of familiarity can account for Rabbi Feldman's misinformation that led to his retraction of the term "wicked" apostate. Secondly, the use of the term "shamed" itself is misleading as that term never was used by Rabbi Feldman and in light of the much milder retraction, is defamatory to Rabbi Lipman. Thirdly, the invitation by the largest Orthodox body in the U.S. (the RCA) to Rabbi Lipman to give a keynote address this year after the matter with Rabbi Feldman was publicized shows that the education issue in Israel is complex, not universally accepted in the Orthodox world and not helped by name-calling in a Biography.

ref. 5 and 6 in the Biography, which should also be deleted in the edit.

94.159.152.96 (talk) 13:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

This issue is being discussed on my TALK page. רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 18:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan

The subject, Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, is the President of the UAE and over a period of months a variety of unregistered IPs have added the same nonsensical sentence, and citing it to completely unrelated articles in the the Huff Post and the Daily Mail. I'm often the only person reverting this and am finding it reverting this quite tiresome. Can it be locked? Gareth E Kegg (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Make a request at: WP:RFPP.--ukexpat (talk) 01:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Lee Breuer

Dear Misplaced Pages- The Lee Breuer page is quite out of date (it says his latest project with Mabou Mines is "Red Beads" - that information is 8 years old) Additionally, some of the information is incorrect. Below is a comprehensive work history, including awards, selected publications, teaching, etc. I have also pasted below a short narrative. Please feel free to contact me if you require any assistance or additional information.

Best regards, Joe Stackell General Manager Mabou Mines Development Foundation

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe.stackell (talk • contribs) 22:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Jim McCrery

Should the allegations and denial about the subject's sexuality be kept in or removed from this article? --George Ho (talk) 05:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I have removed them. Anyone can say anything about anyone. There doesn't appear to be any reason to repeat uncorroborated allegations which have received no credence from mainstream, reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Concur with removing them, in spades. Such speculation has no place in a serious encyclopedia article. We're not a supermarket tabloid. KillerChihuahua 02:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

• List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The BLP Richard Lindzen is in this excuse for an article, I gave a source on the talk page in which he states "For the most part I do not disagree with the consensus, but I am disturbed by the absence of quantitative considerations" Global Warming: Looking Beyond Kyoto pp 21-22 Given he has stated, himself, that he does not disagree with the consensus I believe his being in the list is a BLP vio, it has obviously been restored, as the list criteria, made up one day by editors, means that he goes in, regardless of his own words. Thoughts? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

There appear to be two high quality sources where the person in particular does seem to make statements criticizing the consensus view. Do you doubt the accuracy of those stories? Gaijin42 (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

LLI.e. questioning in any way the "consensus" it the same as "opposing the mainstream view"? Might there be actual possibilities that reasonable reservations are not the same as being a pseudoscientist of some sort? Collect (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

He has said in his own words he does not disagree with the consensus, other statements he makes do not matter, Misplaced Pages editors do not get to write that a BLP is against the consensus from something the BLP has said, that is OR and a BLP violation. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400 is entirely in his own words. "Claims that climate change is accelerating are bizarre. " " t this point there is no basis for alarm regardless of whether any relation between the observed warming and the observed increase in minor greenhouse gases can be established" "But even if the IPCC's iconic statement were correct, it still would not be cause for alarm. "The notion that the earth's climate is dominated by positive feedbacks is intuitively implausible, and the history of the earth's climate offers some guidance on this matter. " This is the grossest of "bait and switch" scams. It is only such a scam that lends importance to the machinations in the emails designed to nudge temperatures a few tenths of a degree." I don't know how much more strongly he could put himself into the skeptic bucket. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

And from the source you quoted, the VERY NEXT LINE "However I believe that people are being led astray by the suggestion that this agreement constitutes support for alarm" and "for more than twenty-five years we have based not only our worst-case scenarios but even our best case scenarios on model exaggeration". His entire article is dedicated to saying that alarmism is foolish, and that the man made soruce of any warming is washed out by natural noise. Thanks for pointing out this source, its an excellent addition to source this guys position on this article. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Alarmism is foolish, and you are carrying out OR on a BLP without a second thought. He has said, for the last time, he does not disagree with the consensus, so adding him on arbitrarily selected criteria by Wiki editors is OR and a BLP vio. And I am obviously going to have to remove it agian as you guys do not seem to get what OR and BLP is. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

He is quite specific about which consensus he is agreeing with, and it is not the IPCC. It is not OR to read the own mans statements where he repeatedly puts doubts on the process and conclusions in an article entitles "Is global warming alarm founded on fact?" and "The climate science isn't settled" Gaijin42 (talk) 18:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

It is OR, you are taking something he has said, comparing it to a criteria made up by Wiki editors, and coming to a conclusion based on that. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

His statements are not the only thing we consider. Plenty of people have stated, "I am not a " but reliable sources independent of the subject have a different viewpoint. We need to take into account these sources and any contradictory actions/statements the subject has made. --NeilN 18:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Traci Bingham

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

I have just removed the offending section that was potentially libelous and was poorly/improperly sourced & in clear violation of Misplaced Pages's policy concerning biographies of living people...along with an unrelated link to a paid porn site. I believe the offending poster (BeyondTheBay) will likely return to repost the potentially libelous material & thus the page may need to be monitored for a time.

Richard Lynn

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

There is a dispute over material which was added to the article in this edit and this edit. I and another editor undid the additions because the material seems to be cherry-picked, by selecting a few sentences out of long interviews to present him in a negative way. Other people commenting on the talk page seem to agree the material is problematic, but restored it because they believe it can be fixed. But none of them have tried to fix it, so the problematic material has stayed in the article, which doesn't seem appropriate in a living person article.

A related problem was posted about here, about the lead of the article using weasel words, and giving undue prominence to negative information in obscure and poor-quality sources. A few people objected to this material, but could not get a consensus to remove it, so it stayed in the article. I checked one of these sources that's available online for free, the one titled "Serious Scientists or Disgusting Racists", and found it does not support the material in the lead that's cited to it. This source makes the opposite point from what it's cited to say.

I shouldn't have to hesitate to remove poorly-sourced negative material in a biography of a living person, but I can see there is a lot of opposition to removing this material among long-term editors involved in the article. Therefore, I request help from other editors to bring this article up to the standard expected for a BLP. --Prmct (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

As time goes on, I have more and more trouble understanding why some editors want to try to "protect" BLP subjects from the ideas they embrace. Lynn has said these things; he clearly embraces them. They are therefore not negative to him. I suggest that you stop trying to impose your own values on people who clearly don't share them. That sounds like a violation of BLP. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Did you read the discussion on the talk page? The problem is not that these ideas are presented at all, but that Lynn is selectively quoted in a way that does not accurately represent what the sources say. See the comments here and here. I don't think there is much disagreement on the talk page that these sources are being misused. The problem is that some editors don't want the material to be removed because they think it can be fixed, but also don't want to fix it. --Prmct (talk) 13:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The main thing I get from the talk page is reinforcement for my initial impression that you're a sock. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Tomin Thachankary

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

I'm not about much, but this was on my watchlist for some reason, and reading it over it is obviously problematic and not acceptable. It seems to have survived an AFD, but certainly needs re-written if it isn't to be burned with fire. Thanks.--Scott Mac 15:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I burned out on this one following various accusations of edit-warring, forum shopping, and outright lying from the author. Relevant history can be found in the BLPN archives, the article talk page, and the author's talk page. I wish the best of luck to whomever attempts to uphold BLP policy in this article.--Jezebel'sPonyo 19:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

My staring point is that the article, as it stands, is obviously unacceptable. You can't speak of "allegations" without attributing them to someone - or indicating their significance or what the outcome was - otherwise the article is prejudicial. It's been in that state for some time and I can't see how to fix it. Probably it could be fixed, but the fact it could be fixed and I just can't see how does not make the current form acceptable for the time being. So, I have deleted it using admin discretion. If someone can see a better way forward, I'll defer - but many months of the status-quo isn't acceptable.--Scott Mac 21:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Good call, Doc, and nice to see you somewhat around. I've added the article to my watchlist. If it's recreated in similar form, I reckon it's scorched earth time. Bishonen | talk 22:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC).

Craig Hodges

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

Recently an IP editor inserted a paragraph of text to Craig Hodges describing an incident that occurred over twenty years ago. I believe that including a play-by-play of the event is unnecessary and, given that two of the individuals involved were minors at the time and are likely private individuals, the extra details should not be included under WP:BLP, specifically "...it is not Misplaced Pages's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." I trimmed the paragraph to include a sentence in the personal life section which neutrally noted the event and removed mention of the children and the name of the not-independently notable spouse while maintaining the sources. The IP reverted my edits with an edit summary noting "Your editorial decision is Recentism". My opinion is unchanged that the extra details are just sensationalistic and there is no need to include them. The event would have been horrendous enough for the children, do we really need to rehash the specific details on Misplaced Pages? Is it necessary to include how many matches were struck, for example? --Jezebel'sPonyo 17:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Assuming the event was well publicized, I don't see a problem with the ip's edits. As for the children, well they are adults by now. In any case, I'll watch the article.Two kinds of pork (talk) 18:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Even absent BLP concerns adding vivid details of a violent attack that is not directly part of the notability of the article's subject sensationalist, unencyclopedic, and of undue weight. He's famous for being a basketball player, not for being lit on fire. That would be a matter for page editors to handle at their own discretion. The BLP angle makes the concern more urgent, and I would say the material should be removed immediately pending discussion, and the foreseeable outcome of the discussion is to keep it out. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Needless to say I agree with Wikidemon. Two kinds of pork, I am not arguing that the event should not be mentioned whatsoever, I just don't believe it needs to include excessive details that add a sensationlised aspect to the event and that has the potential to continue to victimize the private individuals involved. --Jezebel'sPonyo 19:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I just don't see it as a BLP violation. Whether it is necessary to the article is a judgment call. Is "two matches" necessary? Probably not. The entire event deserves mention. One thing that I didn't walk away from on my initial glance was I wasn't sure if the 2nd match worked (hopefully not)Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

There's a whole section in BLP about avoiding victimization by reporting unnecessary details of crimes. The exception for public figures only comes in if it's noteworthy and relevant. The fact that his ex attempted to murder him is perhaps relevant enough to his life story to be included in a biography. The narrative of how she tried to light the matches after dousing him with gasoline in front of his children is not. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Jason Deutchman

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

The bolded portions lack citations:

Jason Deutchman (born September 27, 1987) is a Filipino-American basketball player who plays for the Petron Blaze Boosters in the Philippine Basketball Association. He was selected 10th overall in the 2012 PBA Draft by the GlobalPort Batang Pier.

In 1998, when he was still 11 years old, he invented "Hands and Feet Magic", a dance performed while the song "Boom Boom Boom Boom" is being played. This song was later called "The Deutchman Dance". He was sent to the juvenile hall shortly after The Deutchman Dance became famous because many people died trying to attempt the Deutchman Dance. He was released in 2005. Before PBA, he took up engineering. He was very ravenous in his Graphics class, they called him Dutch Ravenous. Midway through his rookie season, Deutchman was traded from the Batang Pier to the Petron Blaze Boosters as part of a three team trade that also sent Japeth Aguilar to Barangay Ginebra as well as sending Jay Washington and Yousef Taha to GlobalPort. He died on July 16, 2025. After that, he became The Flying Dutchman.

--Samuel Dennis R. Borlongan (talk) 05:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Obvious vandalism. I've removed it, along with other unsourced material. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

James Delingpole

Can someone remove this BLP violation please, despite both its wide acceptance in the scientific community, and having no scientific qualifications himself to make this accusation. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution