Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:44, 10 August 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;" |

• 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?

George M. Church

George M. Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a disagreement at George M. Church (see talk page for discussion) that concerns a BLP. Leprof 7272 insists on putting COI/POV tags on the article, despite the fact that the subject has not edited the article since 2007. His partner has edited the article more extensively, lastly in July 2013. The article has been edited in-between and since then by multiple other editors. I note that the simple fact that someone with a COI has edited an article does not necessitate a COI/POV tag, if that person has not edited in a POV manner. There are also "primary sources" and "original research" tags on the article. Despite repeated requests, Leprof 7272 has not given any concrete examples of POV or OR, just stating that these problems are present and resists removal of the tags. The opinions of editors here are welcome. --Randykitty (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

R'kitty offers a superb summary of her position, along with a misrepresentation of mine of equal quality. First, note, that I am a strong scientific proponent of the work of Profs Church and Wu, and of their joint work, scientifically and educationally at Harvard. I have no personal or professional bone to pick. I simply believe that Prof Church's and Prof Chao-ting Wu's (his spouse/partner's) populating the largest part of the Church article, personally, has lead to a promotional sense in that Misplaced Pages article, such that it mis-uses WP as an extension of Prof Church's faculty and other self-managed webpages. And, contrary to R'kitty's statements regarding repeated requests for concrete examples of POV or OR, I have repeatedly made clear (i) that per WP policies, primary sources cannot be used to establish the primacy of a scientific discovery, (ii) that to use them in this way is to conduct OR, and (iii) for a scientist and his partner to populate the vast majority of the article, and to do so with only such attributions to establish the primacy of scientific discovery consitutes, prima facie, a gross COI and POV issue. In addition, I note that there is no mention of anything negative in any material posted by these two (no mention of controversies following any of various statements or writings by Prof. Church). Here, in fact, is the last explicit statement made to R'kitty on this matter:

Note, I added the "" here in clarification; for the original, and further discussion, see .

Finally, the thing we do agree on is that "The opinions of editors here are welcome." Very welcome. I encourage editors reading this to skim the Talk page just linked, and to review the Edit Summaries for the article, noting the vast proportion of appearing material introduced en masse by Prof Church and his partner (vs. the relatively minor changes and additions made by others). Then, to examine my claim of the article's—Profs. Church and Wu's—reliance on primary sources to establish Prof. Church in the list of "firsts" that appear, vs. WP policies:

• WP:REDFLAG ("Red flags that should prompt extra caution include: ... claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest", etc.),
• WP:PSTS ("All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Misplaced Pages editors.", etc.),
• etc.

—regarding the interpretation/OR that appears implicitly in all Church primary source claims. As well, to search the word "controversy" in the article, and then to look in (via Google or other search) on the various controversies that have followed Prof Church's ideas (real or media engendered, re: neanderthal comments to Der Spiegel, ideas in Regenesis, etc.), which, if they appear, receive only a single, positive line or two.

Bottom line, we cannot delete self-promotional text/articles offered by small personalities and organizations, but allow them from esteemed ones. The rules are made for everyone. A WP article largely created by the article's subject and his partner, an article that lacks any critical commentary/discussion of others in re: the subject's life and work, and that makes claims for primacy of discovery based on the article subject's primary publications, is, prima facie, a clear case for COI and POV review. I stand by my earlier, opening request at that Talk page, , to ask that these two editors no longer contribute to an article that so clearly personally interests them. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Although Leprof 7272's post is very long, she's done an excellent job illustrating the problem. --Randykitty (talk) 19:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

You are thanked R'kitty, from the bottom of his/her heart. In future, perhaps a simple bravo (rather than brava). Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

That custom ambox at the top of the article has Leprof written all over it. I take the view that the other three amboxes sum up the article's issues, and that the signature Leprof six-clause sentence is unnecessary.--Launchballer 20:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The Cleanup tag has been edited to shorten, for reasons other than this editor's non-AGF insinuations. Otherwise, in response: source considered, and all deserved merit ascribed. I urge other editors to acquaint themselves with this User, en route to evaluating his message. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Tags are concerns with the contents of an article, and the whole point about them is to fix those concerns so they can be removed. The COI tag specifically is used to invite a review of the content given concerns that the article might lack neutrality (in either direction). This should obviously be done by an uninvolved editor. Once the content is deemed to be OK, the COI tag should be removed and replaced by a {{connected contributor}} one in the talk page. In an an ideal world what happens next is that people with a COI never edit the article at all, because it causes the concern about neutrality to resurface. Unfortunately, COI is a guideline, not a policy, and there's nothing in it that specifically prevents or forbids COI editors from editing the article themselves. So every time they edit instead of request an edit, the problem returns. On the other hand, there is an extremely large number of articles which are neglected because the only people interested in them also have a COI, which leads us to huge backlogs in the requested edits categories or simply doing a wink, wink when we see obvious COI edits as long as they're not too bad. I mention all this because Leprof 7272's suggestion that the COI editors stop editing is not actionable - there is no way to prevent someone from editing an article, COI or not, unless they are being disruptive and can be blocked solely for that. So it's best to just work with them. §FreeRangeFrog 20:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Note, this simple tag replacement cannot be quickly done, because—as the expert tag that appears there makes clear—expertise is needed to evaluate each individual claim (and there are many) of the preeminence of Church in each scientific discovery, priority that is currently only supported by primary sources from Church et al. In re: the request not being actionable—sorry, I see such actions being taken all the time here, by admins, and by editors acting through admins. The proposal is clearly actionable: first, make the request of these two editors to not to edit their own pages.If they are notable as individuals—and Prof Church clearly is—others will add to and maintain the page. If they have issues with content that is added or not added, they can raise the issues in Talk. Someone independent of the material can thereafter respond, and I have already offered to be such a one. Second, failing this, it becomes more difficult, but there are certainly other administrative actions that can be taken—again, such things are done all the time. And I would add that actions are elsewhere taken to restrict authorship, with less ample evidence of self-interest (and consequent COI/POV issues) than are clear here. But, again, a main issue has to do with failure to establish preeminence of discovery through independent secondary sources, and this is seeing some feedback, see next comment. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Leprof alerted me to this issue on my talk age. I think Leprof raises some legitimate issues here, and {{autobiography}} is probably warranted. As far as autobiographies go, this one really isn't all that bad, though. I'm used to more over-the-top, overt promotion (see Sharon Cuneta for an example), and this one seems almost balanced in comparison. However, the scientific studies are surely primary sources, and there are some interpretative claims made from them. For example, the article claims that Prof Church "published the first direct genomic sequencing method in 1984" and uses as a citation his own work from 1984. It may very well be true that this is the first work to do so, but we should have a secondary source say so. I'm not sure it needs all those cleanup tags, but it does need a bit of cleanup. It would probably help to alert a relevant WikiProject (maybe WikiProject Medicine?). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the Review, NRP. Note to others, NRP and I have been on the same and opposite sides of opinions, and I appreciate the objectivity, thoughtfulness, and subtly he brings to his review (and integrity, note admission of my posting to him). The issue with the 1984 citation is one of the series of cases I have tried to call attention to, with regard to needing secondary sources for claims of discovery preeminence. As for how this compares to other autobiographies, I cannot say, though we should wait until someone interested in Neanderthals has had their say. I can suggest that subtlety in self-promotion may be a characteristic of the more learned, and Profs Church and Wu are clearly that, but such does not make this aim acceptable here. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• As I see it, the problem mainly is that the tags contain allegations that basically boil down to Leprof saying that there may be issues. That primary sources are used does not imply POV. There is no interdiction to subjects editing their own biography. Technically speaking, this is not an autobio either, because most of the content was added by other persons (one of them the subject's wife, but still). I am not at all against tagging pages if there are problems, but if challenged, the problems should be identified (with sources showing that the allegations are correct) or the tags removed. Just saying that you think there may be a POV does not suffice. Neither of the COI editors (the subject and his wife) have been combative as yet. Both have edited quite in the open under their own names (unlike everybody here -me included- participating in this discussion) and have not attempted to hide anything. Unless sources can be presented that show that their edits are POV or, worse, false, I do not see any reason for a tag (except for an "involved contributor" tag on the talk page). --Randykitty (talk) 12:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

As I stated, this is a disingenuous representation of the case. EVERY appearance of a primacy of discovery claim in this article that cites an article by Prof Church is at issue (COI, POV issues), as it is not independent. When the citation is a primary source, the issue is a deeper, broader one: add Original Research to the preceding issues, as posting by the editor, even if not the author or his wife themselves, reflects original research to have selected that one primary source, deciding that it was authoritative in making the primacy claim. Do you need a list of all of these occurences — to clarify when a sentence in a scientific article is making a claim about a discovery? To clarify that the source is authored by the article title or his wife? That the source is a primary one? All of this is prima facie apparent. Your claim that I am not being specific enough is specious; I have stated the foregoing repeatedly. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• LeProf, please learn about links as in this edit where you have used an ugly and wrong format to link to this page and in your extended content box above where you have copied a quotation instead of linking to it. If you copy and paste, the reader will always be suspicious that you have modified the text to suit your thesis. If you link, no such suspicion can exist.

You are incredibly and, probably incurably, long winded. You have expended about 8k bytes on this page alone over a simple question of a COI tag. I agree with Randykitty: there have been no COI edits for a year so a COI tag at the top of the page is not needed. If you still think the page is biassed, don't moan about it - change it! — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for my lacking your technical prowess at properly and beautifully linking material at Misplaced Pages, RH. I am afraid this discrepancy in our skill levels (just as other discrepancies between us) will have to remain. Otherwise, clearly I was in error thinking that you might act consistent here with long patterns elsewhere, of require editorial independence to those contributing substantially to articles. I am saddened at this missed opportunity to find what appeared would be clear common ground. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree the COI tag is not a badge of shame and it should be removed and any remaining problems should simply be fixed.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Issue of "just fix it" already addressed above, to User FreeRangeFrog. I cannot make sense of the badge of shame statement in the context of a discussion where the claim is made that editing by a scientist and his wife, making "first to discover" scientific claims based (largely) on primary scientific sources, is suspect for COI, POV, and OR reasons. Sorry, je ne comprend pas. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

To address the one specific concern raised by NinjaRobotPirate (talk · contribs) above, I have added an independent source in this edit to document "the first direct genomic sequencing method". Strictly speaking, the source is not secondary, but it is an independent source that supports the accuracy and notability of the statement. I also agree with Randykitty (talk · contribs), RHaworth (talk · contribs), and Keithbob (talk · contribs) that the COI tag at the top of the article is not justified. In addition, the article does contain a significant number of secondary sources. Hence I have removed the attention banners at the top of the page. Boghog (talk) 10:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

First, user Boghog takes an example, fixes it, and declares problem solved — though the nice NinjaRobotPirate-provided example has been repeatedly offered as an example of the problem, and not the problem per se.

Second, Boghog does this correction of single example based on what he admits is "trictly speaking... not secondary" reference (though the issue is that use of non-secondary refs to establish primacy of discovery is to exhibit WP:OR on top of the POV and COI issues). Thankfully, the non-secondary source he offers is independent, and so we can acknowledge this as a partial, and so mediocre fix to one example of a large problem in the article (see responses to Randykitty, above). Well, a start.

Third, unlike Ninja's preface, and demonstrated integrity, Boghog fails to declare that he is a generally biased party (having opposed me repeatedly in various venues, over everything from the conformational rigidity of steroids to the a proper definition of natural products). Need I say, elsewhere as here, he is always right, and I am always wrong?

Fourth, while every one else here (including Randykitty, the original discussant) have expressed opinions, but left the article under discussion alone, and therefore respected the debate, editor Boghog instead edits the material being discussed. In modifying the document and issues being discussed, he hijacks the course of discussion, away from deciding if these two non-independent editors should be asked to recuse themselves from editing their own (their spouse's) article, and away from the broader, deeper issues of broadly operative OR, POV, and COI issues. In doing so, he muddies the water as to the matters being discussed. (How does one look to understand tags being discussed, when they are changed before discussion comes to a close?)

Hence, I propose Boghog let matters proceed fairly, instead of imposing his conclusion before discussion ends, especially given the matter of his bias. I will revert his edits, so a consensus can fully develop. After a consensus appears (and this takes more than the few days thus far), I will honour the decision of the POV and BLP communities.

As I fully expect to be reverted in this, by Boghog/friends, and so to see this discussion re-muddied: I ask if Boghog reverts, please, in spirit of fair play, some other editor, go to the Church article and revert (leave the article as it was at the beginning of Randykitty's start of this discussion). I will not revert a second time; if no one does, we are left trying to discuss the "moving target" of the original and his edits. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

After giving it an hour, and re-reading, top-to-bottom, the content here: I am moving the discussion on my COI/POV and OR objections to Prof Church and his wife Prof Wu being the most substantial contributor's to Prof. Church's article here at the English Misplaced Pages, and the nature of their non-independent editing, to the COI noticeboard, here . The discussion at the BLP noticeboard is not moving in any solid constructive direction, and is repeatedly failing to address the core issues (FreeRangeFrog and NinjaRobotPirate being the exceptions). My request that these two editors be asked not to edit this article is not being discussed. The matter that Original Research is required for primary sources to be used to make claims vis-a-vis being first in a scientific discovery is not being discussed (and while one editor tacitly acknowledges the substance of the issue by fixing one example, the rest are simply ignored). FInally, the fact that such claims, whether based on primary or secondary source, constitute COI and POV issues when the person making the edit is the author of the article (or his wife) is again not being discussed. Instead, focus has been on technical matters, or why I have not just fixed the tens of issues myself (exceptions, see above). I have asked the COI noticeboard to address the basic claims of COI, POV, and if possible, OR issues, and have separately asked Randykitty, who chose the original Noticeboard venue without discussion, to support me in this move. Please direct all further discussion there. Thank you. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

William B. Caldwell

William B. Caldwell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Yesterday, new editor @CrispinBurke: brought to me concerns that the article on William B. Caldwell "mischaracterize his service" in some ways he did not yet specify. I do not have the time to address this right now, and I don't want to let the matter drop since this is a BLP, so would someone mind looking into this? Thanks. Gamaliel (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I assume the problem lies with the Dawood Military Hospital "scandal", and that seems rather well sourced (simple Google search shows this was a big deal). If there are counterweight sources CrispinBurke or anyone else want to offer up to make it more neutral, we can certainly consider them. §FreeRangeFrog 20:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

As already stated, the Dawoods Military Hospital investigation is the only issue on the page that "mischaracterize his service". The material is properly sourced with reliable sources supported each claim. One of the sources provides a quote from the deputy inspector general claiming there was no "attempt ... to delay our investigation ... or turn it off", which neutralizes the section. We could trim down the section in accordance to WP:UNDUE, but I don't think that would be necessary.Meatsgains (talk) 22:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

CrispinBurke (talk)I served directly under the general during the period in question (early 2012 until his retirement). I can even have him contact you to confirm that the Dawood scandal was generally unrelated to his retirement...he had already made the decision to retire (early 2012) before the Dawood allegations were even made (June 2012).

@Meatsgains and CrispinBurke: The supporting reference for the claim that the subject retired because of this issue is a primary one, which we obviously prefer not be used. Can we get a secondary source? If not, I would support removing the association between the controversy and his retirement. §FreeRangeFrog 23:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I tried to copy edit the article, and the section in question, per the given citations. I have no other opinion, except I am going to bed. Cheers, --Malerooster (talk) 02:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

CrispinBurke I am relatively new to Misplaced Pages, so I hope I am doing this correctly. Several months before the results of the investigation were released (nearly one year), LTG Caldwell was announced as the next president of Georgia Military College. http://www.armytimes.com/article/20130226/NEWS/302260331/Retiring-3-star-lead-military-college — Preceding undated comment added 16:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

@CrispinBurke: Thank you. So between that and the fact that the claims of the subject's career being ended by the scandal through a primary source, I think it's safe to say we'd rather not have that information at all unless and until we have a citation to a reliable secondary source. §FreeRangeFrog 00:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

@FreeRangeFrog:This source refers to Caldwell's request to retire, "knowing that these substantiated allegations would directly prevent any future promotion or assignment to a position of importance and responsibility." I can appreciate CrispinBurke's loyalty to his old boss, but why should this not be mentioned? EricSerge (talk) 01:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

@EricSerge: CrispinBurkeThe allegations weren't made until June of 2012. There's no secondary source I can find that far back, but LTG Caldwell had planned to retire sometime in very early 2012.

So really the question is not his retirement, but that he was allowed to retire as a Lieutenant General, despite the findings of the IG report? This based on the fact that he had served satisfactorily in his position for at least three years? Now, this is pure speculation as I have not yet found a source, but it seem the general was likely under investigation at the time he decided to retire. A source that backed that assertion would provide credibility to the investigation leading to his retirement. Major Burke, I can appreciate your loyalty to your old boss, but reliable sources say he got in trouble. If he got in trouble, in a career derailing way, it belongs in the article. These articles should not look like they were written by a PAO (though they often are). EricSerge (talk) 02:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@EricSerge: CrispinBurke The issue is the relationship between the IG investigation and retirement. The two are not connected. His decision to retire came prior to the allegations being made (initially in the Wall Street Journal in June of 2012, simultaneously voiced in a complaint to Congress), and well over a year (perhaps even 18 months) prior to the results of the investigation being released.

Doan Hoang, on editing her own page

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

I've somehow gotten involved with an editor who turns out to be the subject herself, who has added a ton of information, initially unreferenced to her article. I reverted the information HERE because it was lists of WP:TRIVIA, however, she later proceeded to add her full biography and resume from the her website HERE and left a note on my talk page saying that I had no authority to edit the page. HERE. When I reverted the edit and replied that wikipedia is not supposed to be a resume, she got her lawyer to post a cease and desist. HERE I replied HERE and removed any incorrect citations HERE. But I get the feeling she is still upset about the whole thing and insists I am totally screwing up the page even though I've tried my best to keep it neutral and remove any offending and incorrect statements.

I really don't want to deal with legal issues but this is pushing WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIO that I need your help to resolve. In the meantime, she is editing the page and fixing up the information, and I will try to cooperate and help her get things properly cited. And it did prompt her to update her bio on her official site to include all that new information, which is good. Thanks for hearing me out. -AngusWOOF (talk) 06:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC), updated -AngusWOOF (talk) 08:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I think this would be an unambiguous block per No legal threats, per this diff; https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AAngusWOOF&diff=619631112&oldid=619605498 Tutelary (talk) 15:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely: I strongly advise you to report this legal threat at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. To add to the fun a new account has just appeared whose first edit has been to delete the COI flag from the article, which is suspicious to say the least. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Doan Hoang, and I'm not going to sue you. But could stop giving me a hard time? I tried to fix some incorrect information on my page (which a fan named Robert from Boston originally put up and wrote to me about it. People have changed it significantly since then, and it still had some misinformation and wasn't updated. When I recently tried to change it several times this year, AngusWOOF kept changing it back to the wrong info. It was REALLY, really, annoying after hours of trying to get it right. Can you imagine if it were you, that you saw information about you that wasn't true or was out of date, worked to change it, then someone undid your work? I didn't know how to use Misplaced Pages before. I didn't know there were talk pages. I didn't know you could undo someone's changes (and unfortunately, editors keep undoing facts about me.

This is one major issue I have with Misplaced Pages. The most reliable source (me) is now flagged as unreliable by AngusWoof, and when the info was wrong, it wasn't flagged (!) It was prevented for most of a year from being corrected. AngusWoof, can you just leave it alone and take down this post? I'm sorry I gave you, AngusWoof, a hard time for giving me a hard time, but hopefully, you can understand why I might. Nothing is wrong now with the article now. It's been gone over with a fine tooth comb and most everything I wrote has been removed by others. So it's no longer COI. I'm just someone who survived a war, lived to tell about it in a PBS documentary, and I didn't want incorrect information about me out there. People, journalist, fans, etc. started to ask me about these things that weren't correct.

I thanked AngusWoof for attempting to fix this problem after I figured out how to write to him. I would appreciate it if we could just remove the flag and leave the article as it was without the flag now that it's finally more correct. I would appreciate that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junotcat (talk • contribs) 23:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The best plan would be for you to post your proposed edits to the talkpage of the article, particularly those that correct any inaccuracies. Or you can indicate there which version you regard as the accurate one and what is wrong with the others. Other editors can then evaluate the edits and, as appropriate, include them in the article. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The article on me is currently fine I guess except I just want it back to not having a COI flag on it as it was before and it would be nice to have my short films listed. Anyone, most of my contributions were taken out of the article. Everything else was written by others. I changed my birth place and the information about my tours for the State Department and UN. I tried to update my filmography, but it was reverted. believe AngusWoof removed my short films and wrote that they are unimportant. Short films are a major category in film festivals and awards, such as the Academy Awards. I have had shorts of mine win prizes, but someone, II can live with that, despite it being annoying. The article has now been gone over by several editors who are not me and seems to fit Misplaced Pages standards according to the ways listed. (I've annoyingly had journalists and other people tell me I only did 1 film due to IMDB and this article, who don't seem to believe me when I tell them the truth! What a bizarre world we live in!) If you could stop from trying to protect the public from truth, Jonathan A Jones, and others, maybe some people could not be given misinformation. Thank you! Đoan Hoàng (please note the incorrect spelling of my name without the marks.) User:Junotcat — Preceding undated comment added 23:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The short films can certainly be put back in the filmography. I just didn't want the article to be a repeat of your bio on your official site, or anything that resembled a resume/CV because then it would be flagged with more rule issues such as WP:RESUME and WP:NOTADVERTISING. For example, the complete list of festivals that your films were in and their sponsors, and the speaking engagements at the various universities, the complete list of schools is not necessary. They can go to your website or the film's article for that. Select the most important ones including the notable awards. The filmography sections on wikipedia it is usually just the list of the films, and if they're an actor, the person's role in the film. The descriptions of the films (both short and feature) would be great for your bio section. -AngusWOOF (talk) 00:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

We'reI AM also trying to find as many independent secondary sources for the information. That will help a long way in not having the article tagged as COI just because it's coming from the primary biography source. -AngusWOOF (talk) 00:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Who is "we" in this context? Please be aware, AngusWOOF, that you may not share your Misplaced Pages account with any other person. One person, one account. See? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, meant generic "we" as in Misplaced Pages editors involved on this page. I don't have any others using my account. I was hoping there'd be more than just myself looking after the article. If not, then never mind, -AngusWOOF (talk) 00:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Mister You

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

I removed some unsourced material. Are there any English source citations, and are those required? I couldn't read the frech citations so I left material in that had those. This article could use help. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 01:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

English sources are not required, although I always get jumpy when I see a BLP sourced largely to non-English sources. §FreeRangeFrog 00:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

jumpy? good one. I did a little copy editing, but the article still has BLP issues. I think I ended up at that article from Jimbo's talkpage. Something about the article effecting the subject's love life. for real :) --Malerooster (talk) 01:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Yup. See User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_168#.22Knowing.22_someone_through_Wikipedia.--Auric talk 14:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Nancy Snyderman's Residence

Nancy Snyderman

The article here contains contradictory information about where Dr. Nancy Snyderman lives (Princeton and San Francisco) and the hospitals she is currently associated with.Dennypackard (talk) 23:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I've fixed some of that for you. What do you think of it now? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Manu Sharma

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

Hi- I'm just about to head out of the door, but this popped up on my watchlist. Several editors have made comments about the content of this article, which, they claim, contains unjustified negative information about a politician. Could someone please look into this? J Milburn (talk) 13:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Luis A. López

Luis A. López (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I noticed some unsourced statements in this article that I've been trying to remove. However an IP is saying a picture on a blog is an acceptable source for "He has won numerous writing awards for his poetry and short stories." Can someone else take a look? --NeilN 17:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Wordpress is a self-publication blog site, so it is not a reliable source. —C.Fred (talk) 17:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. He probably did have the "Editor's Feature Choice for Poetry" in one issue of that magazine but that's a far cry of what the article was claiming. --NeilN 17:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Izola Curry

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

I haven't been around a lot lately and am not really sure about the status of court records posted to "The Smoking Gun" website. Would someone who knows this stuff better than I do and is more current on it please review recent edits to the Izola Curry article to see if the refs given are appropriate reliable sources for info that is (arguably) derogatory, about a living person? Thanks. David in DC (talk) 19:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

In short, no. See WP:BLPPRIMARY. Court records should not be used as references for anything related to a living person. Ravensfire (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

At bare minimum, the inclusion of information specifically identifying her current residence is entirely out of order and has been removed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention to the article. David in DC (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Prince Azim

Prince Azim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alan Turing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Regarding Prince Azim (born 29 July 1982), is it right to put a living person like him into the {{WikiProject Autism}} because he has supported several philanthropic projects, including attending two autism-support events? Is this a BLP violation, or can a living person be put into the Autism project when he isn't autistic? What are the rules regarding those project tags on biographies? I noticed that Alan Turing has that autism tag on his article talk page, although his biography doesn't mention that he is considered to have been autistic. Thanks, Parabolooidal (talk) 21:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The Prince Azim one is questionable. I would not object to much since there is a certain sourcable "tie in" per say, ie charity work, ect. I removed the banner from the Alan Turing since that seems to imply something completely different. Unless there is clear consensus for including the banner there, it should stay out for now.--Malerooster (talk) 21:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Although this is all about the inclusion of the WP:AUTISM talk page template, these two articles are very different cases. Alan Turing was an autistic person whose neurotype is questioned. Prince Azim is an allistic person who is known for autism-related events. The centralized discussion at Talk:Retrospective_diagnoses_of_autism#WikiProject_Autism_banners_on_biographical_articles applies to Alan Turing, but not Prince Azim. Muffinator (talk) 22:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

_{And what is a neurotype(?) Inquiring minds want to know! Parabolooidal (talk) 02:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)}

Regarding Prince Azim, anyone whose notoriety is autism-related is within the scope of WikiProject Autism. Most BLPs in this category are researchers, activists, and leaders of organizations (Azim's work is similar to activism). A person does not have to be autistic to be relevant to the subject, just as a person within the scope of (for example) WikiProject Robotics does not have to be a robot.Muffinator (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a BLP violation, since there is nothing shameful about supporting autism-related causes.--Auric talk 22:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

BLP violation has to do with accuracy, not whether it's shameful or not. Besides, the template doesn't distinguish between someone who attended two autism-related events, and someone who is autistic. Parabolooidal (talk) 22:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Auric is probably referring to WP:AVOIDVICTIM. The template doesn't need to make that distinction anyway. The article text does. Using the same example again, WikiProject Robotics is tagged for pages related to both individual robots and people in the field of technology. Muffinator (talk) 23:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I think most people can tell the difference between a person who is interested in Robotics, and a robot. Similarly with wikiproject LGBT you can tell from the text whether a person is LGBT, or is involved in some other manner (e.g. campaigning) However tagging Alan Turing based up one hearsay reference, and a second that I cannot read about Autism in children, when there is not enough third party references to put something in the actual article seems very strange. It seems like WP:POV opinion pushing. Martin451 00:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The lone fact that Alan Turing is a popular object of speculation (RE: possible autism) is enough to make his article of interest to project members. Again, a WikiProject banner on a talk page is not a statement, of fact or of anything, and therefore does not require a reliable source the way article text does. If people can tell the difference between an ally and someone with the identity the other is allied with, people can also tell the difference between someone who self-identifies and someone whom others suspect. Muffinator (talk) 01:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Turing is dead, so BLP doesn't apply, but would you be comfortable adding this banner to the talk page of a living person who was suspected of having autism?--Malerooster (talk) 02:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

No, I would not. Aren't categories for readers/users also? So that they can find relevant articles? So sticking someone, a Royal Highness from Brunei, into that category is very, very questionable to me. Parabolooidal (talk) 02:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia we need to rely on reliable sources. If reliable sources can be found that a living person who was suspected of having autism, that can be included, with references to those sources, just as they can for non-living people (and indeed robots). Stuartyeates (talk) 02:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

A couple of things need clarifying:

• (1) A WikiProject banner on a talk page is not in-article information. This conversation about reliable sources is largely irrelevant. Different types of pages have different guidelines.
• (2) The categories created by WikiProject banners are "(WP name) articles" and "X-class/X-importance (WP name) articles" and appear only on the talk page. They are not the same as those generally used for navigation. The WP:AUTISM template doesn't make an article appear in Category:Autism. The official WikiProject guide makes it explicitly clear that WikiProject banners are not, nor are intended to be, a duplicate of the category system. A category is in-article information (since it appears on the article page) and does need a reliable source. Muffinator (talk) 03:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

BLP applies to talk pages as well as article space. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

• Regarding Prince Azim, he attended two autism-related events, according to his biography - one in 2011 and another in 2013 when, in the words of the article, "he graced the opening of the 2nd ASEAN Autism Network (AAN)" in Brunei. No where does it say that he "is known for autism-related events". He also attended events related to the blind, ("the guest of honour at the "Seeing is Believing" fundraiser to raise awareness on caring for the blind, held in Brunei" in 2009. And "he designed unisex weekend bags for MCM", contributed to the Make-A-Wish Foundation in the UK, and attended a seminar at International Women's Day in Brunei in 2012 "The seminar aimed to raise awareness on domestic violence, child abuse and other issues affecting women in the nation." And in 2013 he attended Brunei's International Women's Day celebration again, "with a seminar focusing on empowering women." So he was know for his philanthropy, not "is known for autism-related events". Parabolooidal (talk) 22:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

  Your conclusion doesn't match the premises. This a list of reasons he should be included in WikiProject Feminism (and WikiProject Blind if it existed), not a list of reasons he shouldn't be included in WP:AUTISM. Are you arguing that the opening of the 2nd ASEAN Autism Network (AAN) is not an autism-related event? Muffinator (talk) 23:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and he's a film producer, according to his article, so lets add a category for that. Is there a Category:Film producers from Brunei? If not, lets make one. The more the merrier. And lets get a reference to support that he falls into the category of "anyone whose notoriety is autism-related"? Considering he has done nothing for autism outside of Brunei, that he is a Royal Highness in line to inherit the throne of Brunei, that he produces films and hobnobs with Hollywood types, is his notoriety really autism-related? And I think WikiProject Feminism has enough sense not to include him. Parabolooidal (talk) 02:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Wow, this is a lot of different assertions made in a small space. 1) There currently aren't enough notable film producers from Brunei to justify creating such a specific category, but I would definitely support adding Prince Azim to Category:Film producers based on the information above. 2) The point about the notoriety being autism-related, I'm not sure if it's a false attribution or what, but I'm pretty sure it's fallacious. For comparison, should we remove Barack Obama from Category:African-American lawyers because he's famous for being a United States president and not for being black? Should we delete the entire living people category because no one is famous just for being alive? Famous people do things that aren't related to how they became famous. Their notability contributes to the notability of their actions. Now, this doesn't mean for example that farts are notable for the fact that notable people have farted, but it is pretty clear that Prince Azim is known for actions other than simply being a prince. 3) So what if he has done "nothing for autism outside of Brunei"? A person doesn't have to be internationally notable to be notable, and if they did, then Prince Azim shouldn't have an article in the first place. The National Autistic Society and Autism Society of America are examples of organizations supported by thousands of people, but specific to one country. 4) Judging by the member list on WikiProject Feminism, you are not one of them, so I'm guessing you don't know their reasons for not including Prince Azim, or if they even have one, as opposed to just not knowing of his existence. Muffinator (talk) 03:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Lupe Fuentes

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

I just filed an AfD procedurally for someone who claims to be the subject, the article has some clear BLP issues, and more eyes would be appreciated. Thanks. --j⚛e decker 04:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

indu Rubasingham

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

Relating to the recent decision by the Tricycle theatre to not accept a festival being supported by the Israeli embassy, someone has written that Indu is embroiled in an 'anti-semitic' row.

This is libellous, the source article does not use this language and there is no hint anywhere that the justification for her action was anti-semitic. It is not anti-semitic to take a political stance against any nation, no matter what religion/race the majority of the people who live there adhere to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.125.56.141 (talk) 09:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Patrick Joseph McGrath

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

The "controversy" section of this article appears to be entirely unsourced, and represents a substantive (and seemingly personal) criticism of the Bishop's religious practise. I am not a frequent editor, and this section seems to have survived and been expanded upon for a while, so I defer to the experts! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.58.126 (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I removed it as unsourced, but I am certainly no expert. --Malerooster (talk) 02:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Navi Pillay

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

An anonymous IP, apparently associated with the US congress edited the article on Navi Pillay inserting a reference to Edward Snowden being a traitor . A little bit of background here. Since then multiple IPs have been adding that - she has been criticised for defending ('traitor'/'whistelblower'/'defector'- changing choice of words each time) Snowden. Since, I did not see any criticism regarding her statement anywhere, I chose to revert to an earlier revision which merely mentions her statement. Could someone review the edit history? There were other attempts at vandalising the page earlier , . Multiple eyes on the page wouldn't hurt. Thanks!  NQ  talk 18:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@Joe Decker:  NQ  talk 18:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm? (I'll take a look, but I'm curious why I'm pinged here in particular, I don't recall the article.) --j⚛e decker 17:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I merely pinged an admin, who I thought was online at the time. Nothing specific to do with you. I received a couple of emails questioning my edits at that page. Just wanted someone to take a look. Sorry, if it wasn't good etiquette. Appreciate you taking a look. Regards,  NQ  talk 17:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Cool, no worries! It was fine etiquette, I was just worried I was forgetting something, it's been that sort of week! Cheers, --j⚛e decker 21:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Anne Warner (rower)

Anne Warner (rower) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A couple of years ago, User:Charleswesley70 (an SPA) added a statement to this article which is not footnoted and which I have not been able to verify from other sources. I removed this unsourced claim. A single-edit anon restored this claim. User:Banker212, a single-purpose account, edited this claim. I tagged the claim with "citation needed". Banker212 removed the tag with the edit comment "Macrakis makes unwanted changes. Google contacted. This sentence needs no citation since it is ME." I restored it with the edit comment "claims need evidence even if you know them from personal knowledge; see WP:OR and WP:BLP". Banker212 removed it again. To be clear, I do know Anne, but I haven't been in touch with her for years, and have no idea whether the claim is true.

Please look in on this situation. Thanks. --Macrakis (talk) 19:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no mention of Daniel Paul anywhere else except in WP mirrors. According to various press releases and her own LinkedIn profile, she is currently employed in NYC as General Counsel of a firm. For the time being, I'm going to restore the tag. I recommend removing the claim until someone can provide a source.  NQ  talk 20:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done Unsourced stuff removed, Banker212 blocked for 24 hours after twice re-adding this material. --Randykitty (talk) 17:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Nick_Stone_(author)#Nationality vs. Descent (Determining descent and nationality of Nick Stone)

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

In Talk:Nick_Stone_(author)#Nationality vs. Descent there is a dispute regarding the descent and nationality of Nick Stone WhisperToMe (talk) 07:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

No, there isn't a dispute about his descent. He has self-identified as being of Haitian and Scots descent. What the dispute concerns is whether or not we can categorise him as both "English people of Haitian descent" and "English people of Scottish descent". We don't know his legal nationality or citizenship status and, especially at present when some Scottish people are particularly sensitive about identity, I'm concerned that we might incorrectly tag a living person.

More generally, I've always thought that these "descent" categories are usually pointless and almost always involve guesswork. This is an issue that has been raised by others at VPP in the past but I'm off to bed for a bit and so any links would have to wait. As an extreme example, place of birth has no certain relationship to nationality or citizenship: there are people born in international waters etc and, at a personal level, one of my relatives was born in Bangalore, India, but there is no way she would call herself an Indian national or citizen. She just happened to be over there because her father was working there at the time. - Sitush (talk) 08:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

In the US one can be of more than one descent, so if a father is Dutch and a mother is Mexican, the child is of both Dutch and Mexican descent and gets two descent categories. I do not know the practical "limit" of these categories are as far as "Descent" goes. This is distinct from place of birth: An American child born to two White American parents but who was birthed in a hospital in Beijing is not of Chinese descent. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Yep, I understand that. I don't have a problem per se with showing two descent categories. I question the "English people of" bit in those categories. Far better that we have/use Category:People of Haitian descent and Category:People of Scots descent where and only where the descent relates to the immediate prior generation and, in the case of BLPs, it is self-identified. - Sitush (talk) 03:59, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes. My rationale is going to be short and precise. In a conducted interview he has said that he is half-Scottish (father) and half-Haitian (mother). However, Stone was born in England making him an English citizen and national. On the talk page I tried to eexplain the differences between nationality and descent (family origins according to Oxford) the best that I could. So in short, he is an English person of Haitian descent and an English person of Scottish descent and this is how I categorized him and I provided an overwhelming amount of resources and examples to help resolve this. I had also reached out to others to gain their insight on the subject. No matter what my attempt is, Sitush finds a way to turn it down in favor of his sole viewpoint. Savvyjack23 (talk) 08:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Sitush, Stone wasn't just born in England and spent a few days; he's a British citizen and spends his days in England. So I don't know what point you are trying to make with that "extreme example." It doesn't apply to Stone's case at all. It also seems to me that you do not know the citizenship laws of England; being born there automatically grants you citizenship just as the United States. I've mentioned this before, its called jus soli. In France, one being born in France does not make you French, you have to have a least one French parent or wait until you are 18 years of age. (Jus sanguinis) Everywhere is different. Furthermore, your stance changes every two seconds; at first it was about descent and now its about nationality? Come off it. You're wasting everybody's time and I honestly think that you are enjoying this. Savvyjack23 (talk) 00:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Citizenship has nothing to do with ethnicity or nationality - it is merely a legal device and it is not a consistent one. This, again, is something that has been raised generally regarding use of these categories. I really need to find the VPP discussion because, honestly, the whole concept should be abandoned as unworkable: people twist the definition to suit their pov. - Sitush (talk) 03:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

It should be borne in mind that there is no such thing as 'English nationality' or 'English citizenship', legally speaking. The Legal status is British nationality, and British citizenship (not the same thing). If and when Scotland chooses independence, the situation will clearly change, but for now, Stone is legally British, not 'English', and accordingly his citizenship (which is a legal status) isn't in of itself an adequate reason to label him 'English'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I mentioned that somewhere in the past, in relation to Scotland. Out of interest, what happens for people who have dual citizenship and/or nationality? My bet is those are treated inconsistently on WP also, and probably that the laws surrounding them are not consistent around the world anyway. - Sitush (talk) 05:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

With people with dual citizenship, we should list both. We also go with the ol' xzy born abc formation. --Malerooster (talk) 02:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Raven Edgly

I revised the Raven Edgly page today for grammar, layout and tone; however, I discovered during the editing process that none of the content can be verified, including the claims of the subject appearing in major motion pictures. Furthermore, the sole External link was to the subject's Myspace page, which is not appropriate anyway, and has been deleted. It appears that the subject, or someone close to her has published it for promotional purposes, even though the subject is not notable or suitable for a Misplaced Pages page. Even if any of the claims could be verified, the "uncredited" content was not suitable, as the information can never be verified. I have placed a BLP noticeboard template on the Talk page. I will also remove her name from the Predestination (film) page.--Soulparadox (talk) 08:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I almost flat out deleted it as a hoax but just in case I'm wrong, it's now at AFD. After a cursory Google search I don't believe the subject even exists. §FreeRangeFrog 18:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The image "Raven Edgly in Titus Andronicus" on the page is that of English actress Flora Spencer-Longhurst. That, along with the mention of "Anna Rexic" (Anorexic) confirms this as a hoax. The edits and uploads of the article creator may need further scrutiny.  NQ  talk 19:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Rena Owen

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

Rena Owen is a reasonably well established New Zealand actress. However I appear to be completely failing to get through to her (or perhaps her representative) that wikipedia is not a social media forum or autobiography hoster. Fresh eyes / fresh approaches welcome. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems evident that the same person or PR firm (pollywood) is managing both her personal website and the Misplaced Pages page. The website, RenaOwen.com is "Copyrighted by Polywood. TM, Los Angeles, USA" . A clear case of COI.  NQ  talk 22:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Your persistence and diligence with the situation should be commended Stuartyeates. I have placed it on my Watchlist as of today, in the event that I may be able to assist. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 06:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Alex Hirsch

Alex Hirsch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) called for redditors to vandalize his Misplaced Pages page last year . People are rereading the thread with the start of season 2 of Gravity Falls and acting on it (see the contributions of Hunt8r (talk · contribs) for example).--Auric talk 12:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• I have blocked a whole herd of SPA vandalism-only accounts and fully protected the page for 48 hours. --Randykitty (talk) 14:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Pat Robertson controversies

Pat Robertson controversies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

His main article seems to be ok, but this subarticle is crawling with non-notable information that is lacking numerous citations.  Noahcs  (Talk) 08:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I went through and removed a significant amount of the unsourced claims. Meatsgains (talk) 20:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:RSN discussion of publication used in BLP

Please see WP:RSN/"Transadvocate use in BLP, etc." and engage in discussion at WP:RSN where full details are mentioned. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Forum shopping again? RSN can handle it and are doing. The problem is just that you don't like what they're saying. - Sitush (talk) 17:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Article on David Ward King

David Ward King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

To whom it may concern: I am not sure that this is the right board upon which to put this information. I want to report an factual error on the wikipedia page for David Ward King. I am one of his great grandaughters. Lettie Reed King, my great aunt, was never married to someone named Crider. Secondly, please add to David Ward King's wikipedia page, that the Smithsonian Institution now has some of his materials in their collection.

Thanks,

Amy Burbank King — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.179.19 (talk) 22:21, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

While the accompanying source (link) does mention both their names as members of the Maitland church, it does not mention them being married. A quick search of Ralph Crider and Rosetta Crider mentioned on that page reveals a 1940 United States Federal Census which states a Ralph Crider of Atchison, Kansas, born in 1872 being married to Rosetta Crider. (link). I have gone ahead and removed that part from the page. The original contributor @Springfieldohio: is not active any more. If I made a mistake and anyone has any other sources, feel free to revert. Regards,  NQ  talk 23:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Celebrity sex tape

Celebrity sex tape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Myself and another editor are locked in a bit of a debate over 2 issues on this list, one that has direct bearing on BLP . The Editor is claiming that one of these entries is a BLP violation, but there is no person is clearly identified to apply the BLP issue to. There are sources attributing the existence of video (film or digital format) of the celebrities engaged in sexual activities, but for the video in question the opposing editor claims that a violation has occurred because of who it could be, not because of who is actually identified. Specifically this is in regard to the Johnny Carson sex video and that one of the women in it may or may not be one of his ex-wives. Is this a legit removal of sourced material? I am not sure what the rest of the claimed BLP problems are.

As for the second issue, the Editor keep removing material citing a non-sourced definition of the material on the list or possibly just his own very narrow interpretation. Discussion about a definition was attempted here, without any consensus or progress.

Input please, --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I would say it's a legit removal regarding Johnny Carson. The cited article says that he had 4 wives. That is a sufficiently small group that WP:BLPGROUP applies. Further, the sourcing is weak. The cited source is from the gossip section of the New York Daily News which cites another weak source, TMZ. We're an encyclopedia; not a gossip column. (I note that there are other entries in this diff which I did not examine.) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the link to BLPGROUP, but I am unsure as to how that applies. It seems that it would only apply to an organization or some other formal or semi-formal group. While Carson's ex-wives may know each other, I doubt they are "organized" in any way. I found a Fox News story about the take if that helps your source concerns. As for TMZ, granted they are plenty salacious, but I don't know that they are not factually accurate, and this is a list of celebrity sex tapes. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• I'd have to side with removal. The fact that it's really not solidly confirmed makes me lean that way. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment. A Quest for Knowledge pretty much nails the BLP issues related to the purported Carson tape; I'd add only that Carson's third wife (the only one who fits well into the reported time frame) has denied the report. As for the other tapes (as well as the Carson tape), none of them have been made available to the public, as I noted on the article talk page. The article lede says, clearly and expressly, that its subject covers only tapes made available to the public. What more needs to be said? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 03:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

How about explaining you version of "made available to the public"? Granted I'm not hindered by the UK ISP filters that stop a lot of porn, but when I see screen captures of a video and I'm also able to find all or portions of the "alleged" sex tape online, I consider that publicly available. What do you not get about "publicly available"? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 04:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Craig Baird

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

Craig Baird (racing car driver) is separated from his wife Louise. He still has two children and lives on the Gold Coast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.218.101 (talk) 23:32, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the proposed change? I couldn't find any, anywhere. Regards,  NQ  talk 23:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Marco Rubio

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

Do sources clearly state that Marco Rubio belongs in the category "People associated with the Tea Party movement"? The BLP evinces no such sources. It does have a source where a person has the opinion that he is a "crown prince of the TPm" and "Tea Party Pretty Boy" but that is scarcely enough to link a person who is not listed as a member of any Tea Party organization or caucus, and where the person does not clearly self-identify as being "associated" with the TPm. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• If he doesn't self-identify or caucus with them, I'd say no. But if it can be shown that he is taking funds from them, I'd accept it too. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• "One of the top Tea-Party-backed fundraisers, Florida Republican Marco Rubio..."- MrX 01:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• If he's taking their money, it's hard to deny it. I'd avoid things like "standard bearer", "champion" etc. Those are pretty POV. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, he is widely regarded as one of the TP standard bearers, along with folks like Rick Scott. For example, this source refers to him as a "tea party champion" and this one refers to him as a "one-time tea party darling". "Associated with" does not have to mean "card carrying member".- MrX 01:39, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • This seems more like an issue of weight. As MrX has clearly demonstrated, I think, this person is associated with the Tea Party movement. Whether that's enough to include them in this category is a matter of debate among subject matter experts. Since I have never heard of this person before today, I am not qualified to say. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Since there are multiple sources for this information, it can be determined via consensus instead of via Collect's incipient edit-warring. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 02:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Trial of Oscar Pistorius

I would appreciate some more eyes on this article. I have tried to avoid editing on the progress of the trial as I think it is a minefield, and have generally only intervened in that section on potential BLP and copyvio issues. I have now been asked to "stay out of this article" and accused of "trying to control this article" and not being neutral. I would prefer to stay out of it altogether but animosity related to the article has chased most other editors away. HelenOnline 06:44, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution